With 25 votes in favor and 11 against, the united commissions of Constitutional Points and Legislative Studies of the Senate, approved the disappearance of seven autonomous organizations, among them the National Institute of Transparency and Access to Public Information (Inai) that their functions remain attached to the Secretariat of Anticorruption and Good Government.
In addition, the Federal Telecommunications Institute disappears, which in the Draft Income Law for Fiscal Year 2025 contemplates that it collects 17,707 million pesos as payment of rights and in the Federal Law of Rights, the legislators also grant the IFT, powers to regulate the use of concessions in telecommunications.
Another body that will no longer exist is the Federal Economic Competition Commission (Cofece), which is responsible for monitoring, promoting and guaranteeing that companies, businesses and professionals can compete efficiently, without monopolies or bad practices.
The National Commission for the Continuous Improvement of Education (Mejuredu), which promotes the continuous improvement of basic, upper secondary, inclusive and adult education, will also disappear, as well as the National Hydrocarbons Commission and the Energy Regulatory Commission that promote the competition in the energy sector and will also be disappeared and their functions will be assigned to other agencies of the Federal Government.
It is expected that in this Thursday’s session its extinction will be approved by the full Senate.
During the discussion of the opinion, the pro-government legislators assured that the disappearance of the autonomous bodies is due to the excessive expense they imply for the treasury.
The representatives of the PT in the Senate, Alejandro González, and of Morena, Guadalupe Chavira, argued that these organizations obey the “oligarchy” that “has looted” the treasury.
In this regard, the senator from the Citizen Movement (MC), Alejandra Barrales, considered that the issue of resources is a “pretext” to disappear them, “nothing is more false than that because if that were really the criterion that moves them to this decision, then no. We would still be immersed in a process. of judicial election that will cost the treasury more than 10 billion pesos, a figure that is neither more nor less than double the budget that by 2025 would be allocated to these seven public organizations that today are intended to disappear.
While the PRI senator, Claudia Anaya, referred to the contradictions that were found around the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) and of which 24 HORAS reported.
“At IFT we bring an antinomy. This constitutional law says that the functions go to the Ministry of Communications, Transport and Infrastructure, but the Organic Law of Public Administration that we have just approved says that the Digital Agency retains the functions. There is an antinomy, it must be corrected,” he warned.
LDAV
Related
What are the potential consequences of dissolving autonomous organizations on Mexico’s political landscape?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Political Analyst Dr. Laura Martinez
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, Dr. Martinez, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent significant changes occurring within Mexico’s governmental structure, particularly the proposed abolishment of several autonomous organizations.
Dr. Laura Martinez: Good afternoon! Thank you for having me. It’s a critical time in our political landscape, and I’m glad to dive into it.
Editor: To start, the Senate’s joint commissions have approved the dissolution of seven autonomous organizations, including the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Public Information (Inai) and the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT). What implications does this have for governmental transparency and public accountability?
Dr. Martinez: This move raises substantial concerns regarding transparency and accountability. The Inai played a vital role in ensuring that citizens had access to public information, which is essential for an informed electorate. Without it, we risk a significant decrease in governmental transparency, potentially allowing for abuses of power, as checks on governmental actions become weaker.
Editor: Absolutely, and the IFT’s dissolution poses challenges as well. It was tasked with regulating telecommunications, crucial for consumer protection. With its functions transferred to a different department, do you foresee any potential issues in oversight?
Dr. Martinez: Yes, indeed. Concentrating regulatory powers within a government ministry can lead to conflicts of interest, especially in sectors that require independent oversight like telecommunications. There’s a risk that decisions may prioritize governmental interests over public welfare.
Editor: The Federal Economic Competition Commission (Cofece) is another key player being affected here. How might its elimination impact market competition in Mexico?
Dr. Martinez: Cofece’s role in preventing monopolistic practices is indispensable for ensuring fair market competition. Its absence could lead to a resurgence of monopolies, which would stifle innovation and hurt consumers in the long run. We have seen in other countries where similar actions were taken, leading to a less competitive environment and higher prices for consumers.
Editor: Looking beyond economics, the education sector is also affected with the dissolution of the National Commission for the Continuous Improvement of Education (Mejuredu). What might this mean for educational reforms and quality?
Dr. Martinez: The eradication of organizations like Mejuredu can hinder progress in educational reform and innovation. It leaves a void in the continuous assessment and improvement of educational standards. The fragmented oversight might lead to inconsistencies in educational quality across different regions and demographics.
Editor: There has been speculation that these changes are part of a broader effort to centralize power within the federal government. Do you think this is a fair assessment?
Dr. Martinez: Yes, many observers share that concern. Centralization can limit local governance and reduce the check-and-balance system that is essential for democracy. By stripping autonomy from these organizations, we could see a decline in not just accountability but also a dilution of local perspectives that are crucial for effective governance.
Editor: Lastly, what do you believe should be the response from civil society and political groups in light of these changes?
Dr. Martinez: Civil society must remain vigilant and mobilize to advocate for transparency and protection of individual rights. Public discourse and pressure on elected officials to maintain independent oversight bodies are crucial. Political opposition must also unite and propose viable alternatives that safeguard the principles of democracy and accountability.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Martinez, for your insights on this critical issue. It’s evident that the impact of these changes will resonate far beyond the immediate future, shaping the framework of governance in Mexico.
Dr. Martinez: Thank you for having me. It’s essential to continue discussing and analyzing these developments as they unfold.