 |
|
|
 Editorials | December 2007 
Many in Mexican Media Decry Planned Electoral Reforms
 Dr. José Enrique Vallarta Rodríguez - MexiData.info
go to original
 |  | It would be easy to resolve the dispute by adhering to principles the reforms seek to guarantee... especially the freedom of speech. |  | |
In Mexico, public statements have been made in recent weeks by various opinion leaders, journalists and writers in opposition to bestowing the right on the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) to “dictate” commentary and news content to the media. This due to what is once again being called an attempt against the freedom of speech and the press in Mexico.
To begin, the envisioned reforms to Mexico’s Federal Electoral Institutions and Procedures Code, known as COFIPE, that caused the uproar need to be made clear. Currently, Article 48 of the COFIPE states in subsection 10: “The Executive Director of Political Parties and Prerogatives will meet no later than December 15 of the year prior to the election with the Broadcasting Commission, and the National Radio and Television Industry Chamber, in order to suggest [sugerir] generally applicable guidelines in their newscasts with respect to information or the dissemination of campaign activities of the political parties.”
According to the most recent draft of COFIPE reforms, approved in early December by the Senate committees with responsibility over the matter, and with sequential adjustments in the numbering of its articles and subsections, Article 49, subsection 7, would establish the following: “The General Council will meet no later than September 20 of the year prior to the election with the National Radio and Television Industry Chamber [CIRT], in order to introduce [presentar] the generally applicable guidelines in newscasts with respect to information or the dissemination of pre-campaign and campaign activities of the political parties. As is the case, the agreements reached during the respective meeting will be formalized by the parties, and they will be made public knowledge.”
Actually, the meetings in question as well as the guidelines have been law for 13 years. And during every electoral process since 1994 the meetings have taken place and the guidelines have been issued. Furthermore, each meeting has been between the general council and the CIRT, and the guidelines have always been accepted by said chamber, after of course having been negotiated. So, the fact is that this reform would only further normalize that which is already a reality, and give it legal formality.
Obviously there are a number of other reforms, one being a change in leadership. According to the draft COFIPE, the Director of Prerogatives of the IFE would no longer head the institute’s administration. That role would go to the General Council. And there is the date change of the meeting.
However, what is most controversial is the replacement of the verb “to suggest” regarding the guidelines in the current code, with the verb “to introduce” said guidelines as proposed in the impending reform. This goes to the core of the complaints. Semantically, it is being said that “to introduce” is the same as “to impose” or “to dictate,” although in reality the word is neutral in character insofar as it does not presuppose acceptance, according to the Diccionario Manual e Ilustrado de la Lengua Española, Real Academia Española (1985).
Whatever, the problem of proper verb classification loses importance when faced with the added proposal at the end of the new text which the Senate committees have already approved. Again, it reads: “As is the case, the agreements reached during the respective meeting will be formalized by the parties, and they will be made public knowledge.”
This wording, careful and innocuous, leaves open the possibility for the media to accept or not accept guidelines that the IFE may introduce or suggest, and should they refuse acceptance there are no legal sanctions whatsoever, although there could be social and/or political ramifications. In other words, the new editing is harmless – in fact, it is helpful as its legal technicalities are better than those in the present code.
It would be easy to resolve the dispute by adhering to principles the reforms seek to guarantee: objective, balanced and ethical coverage and reporting on the candidates and campaigns; continued oversight authority by electoral officials to insure that media coverage is equitable; and keeping citizens’ rights intact, especially the freedom of speech.
Taking these principles into consideration, some legislators from Mexico’s three main political parties have suggested, in order not to complicate the climate of accord that has been developing towards approval of the COFIPE, that Article 48 be kept as is. And then, by using legal imagination and legislative means – as well as political skills, a similar or new regulation could be crafted, perhaps by creating an Article 48-A (bis) that could confer the right to review and evaluate news content a posteriori on the IFE, which would then publish the results of the assessments.
José Enrique Vallarta Rodríguez, a MexiData.info guest columnist, received his doctorate in Mexican Electoral Law from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Mexico City-based, he has worked for the Federal Electoral Institute. He can be reached via email at vej_2006(at)yahoo.com.mx.
Translation MexiData.info |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us