In Mexico, a new electoral reform debate amending and supplementing a number of constitutional articles. On this, I had an exchange of views with two political consultants, Mentor Tijerina y Gabriela Salazar.
Mentor's position is different from that hold Gabriela and the author of this blog on the prohibition of parties and candidates to engage in radio and television spaces, as well as limiting the use of official time for the diffusion of spots.
I share the electronic exchange of letters:
To: Mentor Tijerina, Gabriela Salazar, Roberto Garza
From: Armando Rocha
Subject: Electoral Reform
Mexican democracy does not arise foundational pact but a series of reforms to the regulatory framework governing election campaigns, including two key areas: finance (public) party and access to mass media.
Indeed, insofar as opposition political parties during the PRI regime spaces gained more power through the ballot box, had access to more public funding and that allowed them to increase their presence in the media, especially on television.
More still, access to more financial resources to the parties allowed to professionalize their campaigns, ie, the parties were able to hire consultants, specialists and experts in various disciplines in order to draw up better strategies to persuade electorate.
Es un hecho que las reformas electorales, desde la LOPPE de 1977 hasta la de 1996, han impulsado la pluralidad y la competitividad políticas.
Sin embargo, una revisión rápida a las elecciones federales de los últimos 10 años, permitiría observar que de las cuatro que se han llevado a cabo, sólo la primera, la de 1997, está exenta de escándalos vinculados con dinero.
Los principales partidos políticos (PAN, PRI, PRD) han protagonizado los tres casos más sonados: Pemexgate, Amigos de Fox y Videoescándalos. Y la razón para recurrir a fuentes ilegales de financiamiento ha sido la misma: comprar más espacio en los medios de comunicación.
It is appropriate to recall a figure of the last federal election in May this year the Audit Commission released the IFE is not known who solved the cost of 281 000 spots that parties do not recognize as his own, and are equivalent to 37% of 757 000 advertisements that were detected were broadcast during the 2006 election.
It Audit Commission reported that the 2006 election campaign, the 2 000 62 million dollars spent on electronic media, television captured 67.05% 28.53% radio and print 4%.
With the above I argue that what worked for 10 years, opened the door to the competitiveness and ensure plurality, perverted today. Neither political parties nor the people are winning with this waste of resources, but the broadcasters (particularly Televisa) that are strengthening their coffers every three years.
therefore believe that, as envisaged by the Electoral Reform will have to shorten the campaign time, reduce public funding to parties, to prevent parties and candidates to purchase space in electronic media and limited only to the issuing official time spots.
No doubt this reform is incomplete, but I think it's a breakthrough that could serve as a launching pad for future initiatives integral.
Armando Rocha
************************************ *****************************************
I am concerned about the categorical ban for anyone other than the IFE can recruit spot on television. It is the French system, but in France the conditions are very different, it is a mature democracy, with citizens rather informados.En Mexico must not forget that the video was a key policy of democratization in Mexico and the opening of the old authoritarian system. Now they are returning to television spots close to drastic measures that are not well drafted and provided to discusión.Mis points are as follows:
I am in favor of limiting the video-politics as a means to rescue substance of policy, as expressed by Al Gore in The Assault on Reason ", or Joe Trippi in" The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. "
However, I believe that the recruitment of spots must have been restricted to campaign periods. I support the restriction of the ban. I am against a ban on hiring people television commercials, because I think that this itself is limited freedom of expression.
I am concerned that is given away with the video-politics in Mexico because we do not have the Internet as a substitute. There is even a passage of the first draft that never ceases to amaze, and I have not fully understood, is the fact that political spots bans also apply to the Internet. What senators are thinking ...?
I am concerned that is linked to video everything bad policy, but forget the good: thanks to TV commercials, the PRI lost its majority in the House in 97, and the Presidency in 2000. The opposition parties access to television was, without doubt, one of the key factors of democratization in Mexico.
I do not agree with a ban on negative campaigning: they are not going to criticize politicians for corrupt, crafty, or because their government proposals lead us to ruin.
It seems to handle television messages via the official times, will accentuate the solemnity of the policy, when the TV spot he had already removed that aspect. The policy runs the risk of leaving the city.
The formula for the distribution of official times for the matches on television: 30% equity conditions and 70% according to the previous vote, violates the principle of equality of conditions in the Democratic race, which is one of the principles of Democracy by Robert Dahl, how can we hope to minorities become majorities if competition for power is not equal?
The senators were inspired by countries like France and Britain banned political campaigns on television. So we left the model of American campaigns, to get closer to Europe but they forget that the last European campaigns have been made with the full line of American political marketing. If there was spots on TV, there were political video on the Internet, and of what quality.
Who wins with the ban on political commercials? Clear to me losing the television, but also loses the freedom of expression, and with it our democratic consolidation. Win the status quo, cronyism, parties that have structures of land, or otherwise, who have set up databases for earth campaign. Small parties lose. I'm not clear that democracy wins!
mt
************************************* **********************
I think the video actually policy was an important aspect in the process of democratic opening in Mexico, but today has been completely distosionada and misleading for one simple reason: the weakness of institutions in Mexico and anti-democratic context remains despite having free elections. The TV itself I think, does not affect a company unless that company is itself affected by the lack of key elements in its development (education, information, culture and political participation, etc..), Which Dahl calls also enlightened understanding. Is a structural problem in the country, I do not think that videopolitics. What is worrying is the intrusion of economic power that the media in politics as this necessarily leads to colonization of the policy (as Habermas would say) by the real power groups and factual.
To me what worries me is two things: We
apparently a one-party system, a state party to a plural, which, however, fails to materialize or consolidate positive but quite the opposite, but especially a power party that has no limits or rules. In other words, parties were once crushed by the system and now are the new monsters and the state system, and worse, far society, without liability or legal boundaries, including the waste of public resources esandaloso and control simulated promote themselves through the law.
We also have a State of censorship to the press to a more open and democratic. But as it happens, without rules or limits any power is disastrous for democracy. The media in Mexico have become, with few exceptions-in economic megapode politics has invaded without a proper counterweight. And that it is bad for democracy. Mexico is one of the few countries, if not the only, I will review the information out there as I have, which means are not subject to any law or responsibility to society. How is that possible? How can you be angry and talk about freedom of expression when they alone are not subject to any liability in the democratic system and have spent the last 15 years profiting from public money through electoral campaigns?
Finally, that the 30-70 is definitely fair, there are many formulas in the world, from the majority to purely proportional, it is clear that alos affect small parties. But back to the point: these small parties are unrepresented social family business, who drink from the treasury for sistemaáticamente campaigns and disappear after the election. Lack
consolidate the party system, give them rules and boundaries, as well as the media! Both are basic institutions of a democratic system Why it never talk about our legislators?? Those are our real problems for those who do not move, not whether the IFE hired 10 or 20 spots.
And regarding the prohibition of the spots by anyone, I do not know if you know that NL works well, the Electoral Act does not limit the purchase of political spots to anyone and that is the main gap of wasted resources in our campaigns . This point I explored in my thesis. Without this limitation, it opens Pandora's box for the use of illegal funds, private forbidden, and so on. That is the crux of the zero control to parties that have in NL and also the main factor for the lack of fairness in the campaign.
Gabriela Salazar
************************************ ***********************
I agree with the argument of the excesses, but that does not justify prohibiting the spots. Now the excess will be worse and nobody will be able to control. The most serious, Armando, is that perhaps you do not really lived through the fight in the 90 open spaces for the media to opposition political parties. Now that space is closed under the pretext of using official times ...
mt
************************************* **********************
Yes, Gaby, but must have been restricted video-political, not prohibited. Now we were in the worst of all worlds, no video-politics, no Internet, no chance real to control costs and, worst of all, no real chance to oust the party that seized power, as happened in 97 or 2000.
On the other hand, worry about money I think is valid, but nothing like the TV to control campaign spending when spending is controlled, of course. As simple as hiring a monitoring firm to tell us how much was spent each party and in which channels are broadcast messages.
Now, the waste in the campaigns will be worse, and settlement policy by drug money and the casinos will not limit: who controls the money in the purchase of votes, who controls what is spent on campaigns door to door, who controls the money of patronage and utilities.
Closing the television space, now the door opened to circulate the dirty money ... and not likely to control.Antes, at least, they had recourse to the TV to counterbalance the despotism and clientelism, but what now? The argument that justifies the allocation formula of the official times for the fact that small parties are familiar, is not valid. I agree small parties are familiar, but this does not justify violating the principle of equality of conditions in the race. One thing is one thing and another thing is another thing ...! (Zitar)
In short, it took much effort to open space from TV to the opposition for now, with the opposition in power, so close again. It is the party-of which have talked about comentaristas.Si I remember 70% of voters entire campaign and the proposal of the candidates on TV, and now how you going to do ?....
mt
******************
The Opinion of September 11, 2007 the Draft Electoral Reform Act, see:
here.
