Outside the Tablets of the Law or the Code of Hammurabithe others laws are not written in stone –with all the allegory that this represents–, therefore, they can be repealed, reformed, transformed or disappeared. This is the drama that represents the proposal of the disappearance and transformation of autonomous bodies which, as their name indicates, should not be subordinated to any type of interest.
Autonomous (self-self/nomos-law), means giving oneself a law, in short not depending on anyone. The fundamental idea was that these organizations were not subordinate to another power. Many of them appeared in the nineties, as a sort of legitimation, in the case of Mexico, of the hegemonic power represented by the party that had governed the country since 1929. Washing one’s face was necessary and, naturally, also due to the international prescriptions to which the our country joined – without thinking twice – and which require adherence to democratic forms.
In those times, the strange idea of Being a first world country was more relevant than ever. It began in 1994 International transparency (Index that measures the levels of corruption in the countries that compose it in the world) e Mexico joined in 1995; At that time, it consisted of 41 countries, Mexico was ranked 32nd and ruled Carlos Salinas. Draw your own conclusions.
Therefore, the context and the situation – and not the will and determination of the president in turn – were the fertile ground for the emergence of autonomous organizations or bodies such as the Bank of Mexico (Banxico), the National Electoral Institute (INE), the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (Inegi); the Commission for Economic Competition (Coffee), the National Institute for Transparency and Access to Information (HENNA), the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT), the Attorney General of the Republic (FGR) and the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policies (Conevale), among others. They all have their own powers and, as the name indicates, without being subordinate to other powers, whatever they may be.
Naturally, the moment called for the appearance of those organisms. Many of them changed as they should have and, according to Darwin’s theory, others did not adapt to the environment or simply adapted to other microsystems, those of corruption. It is clear, in many ways, It is the high rates of corruption due to which these initiatives are implemented.
The truth is, nothing is set in stone. An element that could resolve much of what is covered here is knowing, for example, the times in which you used any of the autonomous bodies mentioned as a citizen. I’ll give you an example: How many times have you used the INAI or the ICAI? Or, in the case of a country that is insulted and where human rights are so frequently violated, How many times have you complained to the CNDH? He talked about the organisms that we mortals can use.
On the other hand, do you know how many organisms disappear, how many transform and how many merge? And those that disappear, how often have they been or are used by the citizens of our country? How efficient were they? Did they really solve the problems that citizens had at that time or did they simply remain in opacity? I say, “whatever happens, not even God can take it away” and “whatever it is” and, in understanding, “the righteous pay for the sinners”, a good number of workers will sadly remain jobless. It is the moral obligation of those who propose the disappearance of such organizations to compensate for the employment of many simple people who had their source of work there. The truth is this some organizations have in turn become entities of complicity with governments.
Objectively it was like this. They have been and are institutions that they have lost track of the original intention of their creation. And yes, current international public policies focus on increasing human development and substantially reducing corruption and bribery in all their forms, creating effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels and ensuring public access to information and protecting fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national laws and international agreements (UN, 2023: p. 44); Therefore, it is important to continue to review the viability of the existence of these institutions and organizations, for one reason: nothing is set in stone.
Of course, the problem for nonconformists is who proposes it, the other, the reason why it is done and why it is suspected; the reduction of paychecks to support social programs cannot constitute the basis for the disappearance or transformation of the latter. The truth is that the transformation of institutions is necessary and, of course, transparent organizations are needed that hide nothing, that are not complicit in injustices and, above all, that seek overturn the culture of secrecy, disinformation and verticalism.
Don’t tell me that you have already forgotten the way in which some autonomous bodies were designated on January 9th of this year: when the matter got out of hand the then national president of the PAN, he complained to the governor of Coahuila – one of the two bastions of the dying PRIism − “lack of respect”, or rather, cynicism and impudence, for not having respected the “agreements” in the distribution of notaries, the most important public university and the Coahuila Institute of Access to Information (ICAI). Forms, behaviors, roles and other forms of habits and customs of those who have historically shared the spoils of the public treasury in our country. This is how things are.
Editor (Time.news): Welcome, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the significant topic of autonomous institutions in Mexico and the recent proposals regarding their potential transformation or disappearance. With us today is Dr. Ana Martínez, a political science expert with extensive knowledge of governance in Mexico. Dr. Martínez, it’s a pleasure to have you here.
Dr. Ana Martínez: Thank you for having me! It’s an important and timely discussion, and I’m glad to share my insights.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The article states that laws, unlike the Code of Hammurabi, are not set in stone. How does this reflect on the current proposals to change or eliminate autonomous bodies in Mexico?
Dr. Martínez: That’s a great point. The phrase “not set in stone” emphasizes the fluidity of legal and institutional frameworks. Autonomous bodies, by definition, were designed to operate independently of political pressures. However, in a dynamic political landscape, their relevance can be called into question. The current administration’s push for reform reflects a desire to reshape institutions that some argue have become ineffective or even complicit with governmental interests.
Editor: It’s notable that many of these institutions emerged in the 1990s as a response to the evolving political climate. Do you think their establishment was more about genuine democratic governance or about international pressure?
Dr. Martínez: It was likely a mix of both. These bodies, such as the National Electoral Institute or the National Human Rights Commission, were certainly influenced by Mexico’s desire to align with international democratic standards following decades of one-party rule. However, their creation also served the political elites to portray a façade of reform and accountability.
Editor: Interesting perspective. The article refers to organizations that have become compromised. Can you elaborate on what this means for Mexico’s democracy and the trust of its citizens in these institutions?
Dr. Martínez: When autonomous institutions fail to uphold their founding principles or become entangled with governmental corruption, they undermine public trust. Citizens begin to see them as ineffective or merely as tools of the state rather than champions of democracy and rights protection. This disillusionment can further entrench apathy towards civic engagement and democratic participation.
Editor: You mentioned civic engagement. The article poses questions about how often citizens actually utilize these institutions. How does this relate to their perceived effectiveness?
Dr. Martínez: That’s a critical point. If citizens are not actively utilizing these institutions, it begs the question of their effectiveness. Are they accessible? Do people know how to leverage them? For instance, how many citizens have actually turned to the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Protection of Personal Data? If awareness and access aren’t there, even well-functioning institutions can appear to be failures.
Editor: In light of potential reformation, what do you believe should be the top priorities for any new autonomous bodies that may emerge?
Dr. Martínez: First and foremost, transparency and accountability must be at the core of any new institutions. They need to ensure public access to information and possess mechanisms for accountability that truly protect against governmental overreach. Furthermore, citizen engagement is critical. Creating pathways for citizens to have meaningful input into these institutions can restore trust and ensure they meet the needs of the population.
Editor: Dr. Martínez, do you think there’s a moral obligation for those proposing change to consider the employees of these organizations?
Dr. Martínez: Absolutely, and that’s a crucial aspect of any reform discussion. The people who work in these institutions are often dedicated public servants who are committed to the mission. If these organizations are dissolved or transformed, it is vital to address the employment implications for those individuals. A comprehensive approach to reform must include considerations for both the structural changes and the well-being of the workforce involved.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Martínez, for sharing your insights on this complex and pressing issue. It’s clear that the future of Mexico’s autonomous bodies will have a significant impact on the country’s democratic health.
Dr. Martínez: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these critical issues. I hope that we can move toward a more transparent and accountable governance framework that serves all citizens effectively.