Breathe
By Pamela Sandoval
The fundamental principle of any modern economy is legal certainty. Without it, investment stagnates, entrepreneurship comes to a standstill and innovation loses ground. The recent judicial reform in Mexico, which proposes the popular election of judges and magistrates, threatens to destabilize this delicate balance. In an attempt to "democratize" justice, it risks politicizing it, compromising its independence and eroding confidence in the legal system, a key pillar for economic and social development.
Historically, the appointment of judges in Mexico has been based on criteria of experience, trajectory and technical knowledge. Although the system was perfectible, replacing it with an electoral model introduces a considerable risk: justice could cease to respond to the Constitution and instead respond to political or economic interests. Judges, instead of being subject to legality and jurisdictional control, would now depend on campaign strategies, electoral financing and, in many cases, political favors. This model introduces uncertainty in the application of the law, which can affect confidence in the rule of law and, therefore, economic stability.
For entrepreneurship to thrive, economic actors must operate in an environment of clear and predictable rules. If judges who interpret and apply the law are elected by popular vote, how can we ensure that their decisions are not influenced by political considerations or the quest for re-election? Judicial arbitration is key in resolving commercial disputes, protecting intellectual property and enforcing contracts. If the independence of judges is compromised, Mexico could become a risky investment environment, affecting everything from small entrepreneurs to large corporations. In practical terms, this translates into less access to credit, a more adverse business climate and capital flight to safer jurisdictions.
Advocates of the reform argue that the popular vote provides greater legitimacy to the judiciary and makes it more accessible to the citizenry, which could reduce the perception of corruption. However, international experience shows that the most effective and reliable judicial systems maintain meritocratic criteria in the appointment of judges, as is the case in Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom. In the United States, where some judges are elected by popular vote, serious problems of political bias and external financing in judicial campaigns have been documented, compromising the impartiality of decisions. Mexico, instead of replicating failed models, should focus on improving transparency and accountability mechanisms within the current system.
Another critical point of the reform is its impact on women's participation in the judiciary. Currently, women face structural barriers to access leadership positions in the judicial sector. By transforming the selection process into an electoral mechanism, where campaign financing and public visibility will be determinant, the possibilities of equal access for highly qualified women will be reduced. Judicial decisions directly influence women's access to justice, the protection of their rights and the creation of precedents that are fundamental to advancing equity. Reducing the presence of women in the judiciary compromises the diversity of perspectives in the interpretation of the law and, with it, the construction of a fairer and more inclusive system.
The reform contemplates the creation of a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, whose function will be to monitor and sanction judges. While an oversight mechanism is fundamental to guarantee judicial probity, the lack of clear rules and independence in this body opens the door to the persecution of judges who do not align themselves with particular political interests. This represents a significant risk of institutional capture, where the judicial apparatus could be used as a pressure tool to favor certain sectors, intimidate political opponents, or manipulate legal processes for interests external to justice.
The purpose of judicial reform should be to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the courts, not to subject them to the vagaries of electoral politics. If the objective is to improve transparency and accountability, there are more effective mechanisms that do not compromise legal certainty or business confidence. For example, instead of electing judges by popular vote, more rigorous appointment processes could be established and supervised by independent bodies, thus ensuring that judges are evaluated by their professional capacity and ethics, and not by their popularity.
Mexico cannot afford a setback in its rule of law. If we want a country where investment and entrepreneurship are engines of growth, where women have equal opportunities and where justice is not an instrument of power, it is essential to rethink this reform. Without judicial independence, there is no guarantee of economic freedom or sustainable development. And without these conditions, it will be difficult for the country to offer a competitive future on the global stage.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()