One of the major points Octavio Paz touches on in comparing Mexican and American relations to their respective national institutions is that Americans tend to look to modify their organizations at the margins seeking better efficacy while Mexicans tend to throw them all out and start anew. This is what is playing out in Mexico as the international limelight shines on the political effort of the ruling party to change the Constitution and have justices, judges and magistrates, particularly members of the Supreme Court, run for office rather than be appointed.
Ambassador Ken Salazar is finding the Paz axiom at work as he tries to navigate the American position and the Mexican response on the matter. He has been told by President Lopez Obrador that the American publicly expressed negative reaction amounts to interference in the affairs of the country and a challenge to its sovereignty.
However, this is a serious matter and deserve international debate among the democracies of the world as we can learn much from the Mexican experiment. The Mexican Constitution structures its government in three branches (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) much like that in the United States.
A slate of three candidates for Justice of the Supreme Court are currently nominated by the President from which the Mexican Senate selects one. It is a lifetime appointment similar to how American Supreme Court Justices serve.
Some of the political initiative of MORENA, the ruling party, have been blocked or derailed by the Supreme Court and some detained central figures, mainly in corruption cases, have been let go for lack of sufficient evidence. This has led to political confrontations and a drumbeat of misconduct accusations against the courts and their leadership as well as a call to have all judges and magistrates be subject to a direct vote of the people.
We in the United States also have had and are having issues with our Supreme Court. Former President Trump was able to appoint three additional Conservative Justices during his tenure in office leading to the overturn of abortion liberties in Roe v Wade and expressly giving immunity for presidential acts while in office.
Efforts to change the Supreme Court in our country have failed in the past. The most famous of these was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s initiative to change the size of the Court because of the urgent need for immediate programs to help solve the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Also, constitutional Amendments have been rare due to the political balance in the country and the difficulties deliberately set in the process. Only 27 Amendments have been adopted in the history of the document and 10 of those (the Bill of Rights) were adopted as a condition of approving the Constitution.
On the other hand, Mexico has amended its Constitution over 500 times using a much easier amendment process. This process requires a two thirds majority vote in Congress and a simple majority of the States.
MORENA, the ruling Party of Mexico already has the two thirds majority in the Chamber of Deputies and is only 1 vote short in the Senate. The passing of constitutional amendments to change the Court is a foregone conclusion.
However, the issue is extremely serious because we are talking about 1 of the 3 institutional pillars of a constitutional government. This is of foundational interest not only to Mexico but also to the rest of the democratic world. Mexico sees the process as an internal concern. That being the case, it nevertheless causes deep apprehension in the neighborhood.
The views expressed by David Conde are not necessarily the views of LaVozColorado. Comments and responses may be directed to News@lavozcolorado.com.
