Mexico held a referendum last week to decide on a new anticorruption law. The law targeted six living former presidents who have been accused of corruption, kickbacks, wasting government money, and criminal economic management. Mexico voted on whether the courts could prosecute former presidents for malfeasance.
The problem with this referendum, as its critics pointed out, is that Mexico has no amnesty laws for former officials, therefore Mexico already has the laws it needs on its books. Nonetheless, the current populist president, Andres Obrador, pushed for it by claiming, “The people want participative democracy, not just representative democracy.” Many hoped it would give the anemic judicial system a shot-in-the-arm (only about 1.4% of criminal suspects ever appear before a judge). To pass, the law needed the support of 40% of registered voter—about 37 million people.
This is an unconventional use of direct democracy. Referendums are intended to capture the will of the people on a specific issue. In this case, there really wasn’t an issue—the laws needed already exist. In addition, the statute of limitations has run out on most of those presidential crimes. In reality, it was a political tool—a dangerous venture. (BREXIT was conceived by a British prime minister who wanted political leverage against the EU but never thought it would pass.) In general, it is best to keep referendums genuine, using them only when a real decision is to be made.
Ultimately, 7 million people turned-out (7% of registered voters), so the referendum failed. The vote was held during the 3rd wave of corona virus in Mexico. It also seems that it was hampered by way the law was written:
Do you agree or not that, within the constitutional and legal framework, actions should be carried out to clear up the political decisions made by politicians in the past with the aim of guaranteeing justice and the rights of potential victims?
As one newspaper columnist wrote, “Not only does it require a pause to take a breath to finish reading it, it requires rereading it two or three times to understand what it says.”
Source:
Kevin Sieff, Alejandra Ibarra Chaoul, “In Mexico, Anti-corruption Referendum Stirs Confusion,” Washington Post, 1 August 2021, A24; see also https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mexico-to-hold-referendum-on-accountability-of-ex-presidents/2021/08/01/18c26db4-f27d-11eb-81b2-9b7061a582d8_story.html
Mark Stevenson, “Mexico’s referendum on trying ex-presidents falls short,” AP, https://apnews.com/article/health-mexico-caribbean-coronavirus-pandemic-referendums-cb2cde1b62e99724b8e211e01b1e88c0
Photo: Associated Press
No responses yet