Revocation of Mandate: whether we like it or not

Since Mexico renounced the physiognomy of Tenochtitlán and New Spain to make way for the independent and democratic life we know today, we have since witnessed multiple internal struggles over the struggle for power, as well as a legitimate concern in defining, building and equipping the country with the necessary structures to protect the feelings of the Mexican people.

It is true, throughout the history of our nation, we have gone through two empires; violent clashes between liberals, who were fighting for the federalist system (recognition of democracy as the sovereignty of states, legislative freedom and everyone - adult males - could be voters), and conservatives, who supported and fostered centralist power (rulers had to be elected by the President, legislative exercise was restricted and only men with a certain socio-economic level could access decision-making); from Juarism to Porfiriato; the establishment of the dictatorship of the National Revolutionary Party (PNR) -current Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) - and its fall after more than 70 years of suffocation of democracy.

But it was thanks to the widespread exhaustion of Mexicans, as well as the notorious violation of human rights by the PRI rulers that democracy has gradually been conquered in Mexico, materializing in various electoral reforms that, among other things, recognized the importance of the political participation of the citizens, allowed other political parties to participate in the elections -facilitating their creation and registration-, access to independent candidates, the creation of the now National Electoral Institute (INE) as an arbitrator in the matter and the Electoral Tribunal, responsible for the resolution of political-electoral disputes.

Thanks to this painful journey of life as a nation, our Constitution recognizes, preserves and guarantees the Mexican democratic regime as a means for the people themselves to make their own decisions and any determination can only be reformed through their will. However, due to the large number of citizens, it is materially impossible to carry out these functions and, therefore, they must be resorted to delegating them to those they elect as representatives, thus consolidating what we know as representative democracy. That is, the people place their trust in them or they so that their voice is heard at the time of decision-making.

Consequently, due to the responsibility entailed by their assignment, they are subject to a regime of obligations of a special nature, that is, their action will be under public scrutiny that generates stricter, stronger and more severe effects on them, because their actions must always ensure the common good and the general interest, issues that in all moment they have to prevail over the individual.

Then, when a private individual assumes the responsibility of being a representative of the people, whether in a regidorship, union, municipal presidency, governor, deputation, senatorship or even the presidency of the Republic, he agrees to abide by the highest ethical and disciplinary standards in order to be able to provide the community as a whole with means to enable them to meet their needs and ensure a better quality of life.

Thus, when there is a violation or omission of laws, regulations and other provisions by a public representative, certain responsibilities may be imposed which, depending on the specific case, may be of a political, patrimonial, criminal and administrative nature.

Therefore, when a public servant disobeys or breaches an obligation, in the exercise of his duties, he will have to be responsible for the effects or results arising from that wrongful act or act through the imposition of a sanction, through the respective judicial control mechanism.

Although, during the time of his assignment, the President of the Republic may be charged and tried for treason, acts of corruption, electoral offences and all those crimes for which any citizen could be prosecuted; the Constitution does not consider him to be subject to impeachment even if its acts or omissions may be detrimental to fundamental public interests or good office.

Despite this, the constitutional reforms of 2019 unlocked the possibility for the people to rescind the trust placed in the person holding the presidency of the Republic through the process of revocation of the mandate, which is an instrument of participation requested by citizens that collects their opinion and determines the early termination or not in the performance of such an assignment.

It should be noted that in order to be functional and binding on the person holding the Presidency of the Republic, in the exercise of the revocation of the mandate there must be an absolute majority of voters and only if the total participation of citizens was at least 40% of the persons registered on the nominal list of voters. This circumstance distances it from being a simple practice to realize its aims and provides certain standards so that it is a measure that must be taken seriously because of the repercussions that could be generated.

This mechanism is an expression of direct democracy and differs from impeachment because in the former the people decide firsthand at the ballot box whether to follow the President's mandate or not; and, in the second it merits a political sanction imposed by the Congress of the Union.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of this exercise?

ADVANTAGES

• The concept of the sovereignty of the people is vindicated and transformed into a tangible means of popular control over the government: If citizens appoint their representatives, they can also remove them by means of free voting.

• Demands that public officials have greater closeness and responsibility to the citizens who elected them, as well as to fulfill their campaign promises.

• Reduces voter alienation and manipulation

• Motivates a more active supervisory role in relation to elected officials.

DISADVANTAGES

• There are other methods: While they may be less affordable and more complex, the liability regime of public servants has a method that guarantees due process such as the right to hear and are based on objective rather than merely subjective elements.

• The elected representative must govern for all, not for a majority.

• It fosters political tension and generates divisions in society.

• If a representative deserves to be revoked, but there is a majority that remains in the mandate, it would generate zero access to justice.

What happened in the Revocation of Mandate 2022?

Although article 41 of the law on the subject required the INE to enable the same number of boxes that were determined for the day of the 2020-2021 electoral process; the reality was that approximately 35% of them were installed with the justification that the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit denied the Institute resources additional measures for the realization of such an instrument.

Even with a third of the polls, so far the INE reports that 16,431,395 (sixteen million four hundred thirty-one thousand three hundred ninety-five) people did go to vote, of which 15,095,209 (fifteen million ninety-five thousand two hundred nine) reaffirmed trust in Andrés Manuel López Obrador as President. However, the minimum percentage required for the process to be compulsory was NOT met as only 17.70% citizen participation was obtained.

It is clear that something happened so that the revocation of the mandate did not fulfill the necessary participation and we can attribute it not only to the lack of boxes, but also to misinformation, the lack of clear boundaries and the turbulent institutional channels to exercise this right that hinder the application of the law and generate distrust of these democratic mechanisms.

Even so, whether we like it or not, yesterday -April 10, 2022- a new path began to be traced in Mexican democracy and we cannot blind ourselves to its existence, so with everything narrated so far it makes us witness that to this day our political system continues to evolve, and adapts to the demands of the electorate.

With this exercise - which we could call a pilot - he teaches us another way of how democracy is built and is emerging as an alternative mechanism to influence the decision-making of public life in the country. Let us remember that it has taken us, between dimes and diretes, more than 200 years to exercise effective suffrage and that it is now up to us and us to actively participate in shaping this new instrument in accordance with the principles of the already consolidated Mexican political system.

We must gradually “dilute fears, maintain caution and reduce overflowing optimism” on the following occasions; but the first thing we must do is to rethink the configurative elements of the revocation of the mandate, adjust the laws of the matter to continue to perfect it and ensure full access to all.

Adriana Macedo Pérez, currently works in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation; she served as legal adviser in the 2020-2021 Electoral Process and in the Senate of the Republic; she served as a research assistant at IIJ-UNAM; in addition to having experience in litigation.

KEEP READING: