Artículo de Ackerman

MEXICO'S ELECTION
Gracias a Jorge Zárate, que nos envía el siguiente artículo:

In search of political stability

By John M. Ackerman and Irma E. Sandoval
San Diego Union-Tribune, July 28, 2006

Mexico's Felipe Calderón faces his first great challenge. He can take the institutional road by supporting the call for a full recount or try to politically disqualify and corner his rival. Political stability in this fragile new democracy depends on a careful, mature decision.
Since the July 2 election, Calderón has aggravated the political climate by prematurely declaring himself victor, planning a "victory tour," casting dispersions on his rivals and refusing to accept a recount. His spokesman has even declared that a full recount would be equivalent to "throwing the votes of Mexicans into the trash."
The result has been massive protest. In one of the largest political rallies in modern Mexican history, a million people recently gathered in Mexico's central square to demand a recount of the votes in the presidential elections. This more than doubled in size a similar rally held only a week earlier. Another massive march is planned for Sunday.
Mexico has a long history of electoral fraud. The 1988 presidential election was stolen by the ruling party. Presidential contender Andrés Manuel López Obrador was the victim of fraud in the 1994 gubernatorial election in the state of Tabasco. Since 1996, 17 federal, state and municipal elections have been overturned due to systematic irregularities in the electoral process.
Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute, or IFE, has done admirable work in the past decade to clean up elections. But a recent political deal has compromised its claims to impartiality. The sitting electoral councilors were elected through an alliance between Calderón's National Action Party, or PAN, and a faction of the historic Party of the Institutional Revolution, or PRI. Unfortunately, López Obrador's Party of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD, was entirely excluded from the selection process. To make matters worse, the PRI faction that appointed the electoral councilors has since broken with the party and allied itself with Calderón.
López Obrador has offered evidence of questionable practices at ballot boxes and district counting stations, recordings of a top government official illegally trying to influence the vote, and systematic errors in vote counting by poll watchers and electoral officials. He has also pointed to the large role of illegal political advertising during the campaign and to government pressure on voters who receive social programs.

Some have questioned the validity of López Obrador's claims of fraud, but without a full recount they have placed a reasonable doubt on Calderón's slim 244,000-vote lead. By repeatedly refusing to accept a recount, Calderón has only increased suspicions as to the basis of his victory. In fact, Calderón's party has contributed to the cloud of doubt by presenting a barrage of legal challenges where López Obrador had a particularly strong showing in the elections.

The Mexican constitution explicitly states that the Federal Election Tribunal is the institution responsible for "conducting the final count" of the presidential election, and the tribunal has set formal precedent that permits recounts. Although Calderón has argued that a full recount is barred by law, this claim is flatly inconsistent with the constitutional text as well as the precedents established by the tribunal in previous cases.

Anything less than a full recount is a recipe for grave instability. A million Mexicans recently marched in Mexico City in support of López Obrador's claims. Many more will demonstrate if the tribunal simply rubber stamps the IFE count.

There is a longer-term threat as well. Mexico's new freedom of information law would allow independent citizens to do their own recount afterward, just as a consortium of newspapers did in Florida after the Bush-Gore election in 2000. If this citizen recount revealed serious failures in the official count, it would gravely damage the legitimacy of the election authorities, as well as Calderón's presidency.

The tribunal also has the power to throw out the results and order an entirely new election. The prevalence of illegal campaign advertisements, undue influence by sitting officials and alleged vote buying have tainted the election results and constitute grounds for such an action. Nevertheless, President Vicente Fox steps down on Dec. 1, and six out of seven of the justices on the tribunal leave their posts on Oct. 1.

The new Congress would be forced to simultaneously elect an interim president and select the justices who would rule over the new election. Since no single party has a majority in Congress, back-room political deals could lead to a constitutional crisis of tragic dimensions.
The best way forward is a full recount, and Calderón would prove himself a statesman by recognizing this fact. But if he continues to resist the obvious, it is up to the Federal Elections Tribunal to preserve the integrity of Mexican democracy.

Ackerman and Sandoval are professors at the Institute for Legal Research and the Institute for Social Research, respectively, at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, or UNAM. Sandoval is director of the Laboratory for the Research & Documentation of Transparency and Corruption at the UNAM. Ackerman's book on elections and accountability in Mexico will be published in February 2007.