Breathe
By Raquel López-Portillo Maltos
The politicization of justice seems to be an evil that afflicts more countries than is desirable. Israel is no exception. In this democracy, considered one of the best consolidated in the Middle East, the intention to limit the power of the highest court of justice for political-ideological purposes has become evident. Aware of this, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens have flooded the streets, bringing the country to a standstill as a manifestation of their discontent.
The main objective of the reforms proposed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to achieve far-reaching changes both in the election of judges and in their powers. On the one hand, since there is no formal Constitution, but only a series of basic laws, the Supreme Court is largely responsible for their interpretation. In view of this, the current administration, which has a strong right-wing orientation and a majority in parliament (Knesset), intends to make changes so that decisions made by the Court can be overturned by a simple majority of the legislature.
On the other hand, contrary to what happens in most democratic systems, the election of judges is the responsibility of a committee made up of members of the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and members of the Israeli bar. In this sense, the reform intends to give greater weight to members of parliament in the election of such positions.
Last Monday, Netanyahu stated that he would pause the vote on such initiatives and seek dialogue to avoid "a civil war". Although the citizens' battle has not been won in its entirety, what happened in Israel presents important lessons for the defense of democratic institutions in Mexico.
On the one hand, this event reflects the latent risk of legislative majorities under leaderships capable of undermining the necessary checks and balances in a healthy democracy. It is worth noting that in previous years, Netanyahu defended the independence of the judicial system. This quickly changed after he was charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Being subject to trial on such charges and having an absolute majority in the Knesset, it is not surprising to spin this with the intention of having some influence on the choice of judges who would at any given moment define his guilt or innocence.
In the case of Mexico, although Morena lost the absolute majority necessary to achieve constitutional reforms, the way in which the so-called "Plan B" of the electoral reform was managed evidences the risks faced by other institutions that the Fourth Transformation has in its sights. In addition, the constant attacks by President López Obrador against the Judiciary and several members of the Supreme Court are of great concern, especially if one considers that the guarantee of impartiality in the administration of justice for Mexicans depends on this body and its independence.
On the other hand, Israel's armed forces served as a key player in the temporary pause of the reform. Dozens of army reservists joined the protest, refusing to attend their respective trainings. This gesture, initially symbolic, was one of the main arguments of the voices opposing the reform, citing that this could eventually lead to a national security risk for the country.
Under the current conditions, it would be difficult to see a similar scenario with the Mexican Armed Forces. Beyond the diametrical differences that this institution may have with its Israeli counterpart, the close relationship that the President has consolidated with the military leadership and with security institutions such as the National Guard through resources and expansion of competencies, raises questions as to which side the latter would take in a similar case.
Finally, the Israeli citizenry demonstrated the indisputable power of a united civil society. Through mass demonstrations, strikes and the paralyzation of ports and airports, various sectors of the population shook the political majorities. This under the firm belief that the independence of institutions is an inseparable component of any democracy, so that a judiciary by choice is simply not an option.
In recent months, Mexico has witnessed significant signs of social discontent in the face of the undermining of the institution that makes the democratic life of the country possible. In view of this, it is worth asking ourselves if, beyond the elections, Mexicans would be willing to defend the independence of the institutions at all costs, as if the very survival of our country depended on it.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of Opinion 51.
More than 150 opinions from 100 columnists await you for less than one book per month.
Comments ()