The theater of participation: when consulting is an art of simulation
In a twist that no one saw coming (a lie, we all saw it coming), the honorable members of the Constitutional Points Commission decided, amid claims of pure theater, to approve the holding of four forums. The goal? “Expand the debate” on the reform of article 35 for the revocation of mandate. Because nothing says “serious debate” like organizing events whose dates are a bigger mystery than the end of a soap opera. The vote, another episode of that saga called “The majority does what they want”, was 18 in favor (Morena, PT, PVEM) against 6 against (PRI, PAN, MC). A surprise comparable to the sun rising in the east.
The rules of the game (or how to make it look like a game when the board is rigged)
The document, a gem of ambiguity, indicates that the first consultation with specialists would be… this Monday, December 8! Such meticulous planning that it is a pity. The second, with the no less specific date of “to be defined.” Representative Noemí Luna (PAN), in an outburst of candor, dared to say the obvious: “We cannot accompany an agreement without clear rules… Citizen participation deserves respect, not simulation.” What a detail, asking for clarity in a process that is born opaque.
To prevent experts from expanding too much and revealing uncomfortable truths, each session will have a maximum duration of four hours, divided into two blocks. In each one, up to four speakers will be able to speak. Representative Iraís Reyes (MC) had the audacity to describe this as restrictive and not inclusive. But wait, lady, don’t you know that inclusivity is measured in minutes per person? With 16 voices in total, and a proportional selection according to parliamentary strength, the result is mathematically precious: majority of Morena and allies = majority of like-minded speakers. Voila! An open parliament where the openness is proportional to the seats. Ingenious, right?
The response of the ruling party was a monument to political dialectics. Representative Lilia Aguilar (PT), in a gesture of overflowing magnanimity, proposed expanding the debate to four forums instead of two. Problem solved! Double the forums, same restrictive logic. Then, he finished with the phrase of the year: “As the classic Enrique Peña Nieto would say, they are not happy with anything.” Nothing unites the political class more than using the former president as a rhetorical wild card to point out the grievances of the opposition.
Meanwhile, deputy César Alejandro Domínguez (PRI) dropped the bomb: the issue is relevant because there is a “political purpose to tie it with the election.” Wow, wow. Would they intend to use a mechanism of direct democracy for… political purposes? What a revolutionary and novel concept. Alejandro Peña (Morena) came forward, clarifying with the patience of a kindergarten teacher that it is only a consultation to listen to opinions, and that nothing has been determined. Of course, because organizing forums with narrow rules of participation and partisan proportionality is just the way to not determine anything in advance. Pure spontaneity.
In the end, the show is served. Four forums, counted hours, voices selected with a partisan calculator and the backdrop of a possible revocation of mandate tied to the 2027 electoral process, because, according to official logic, “it saves money and logistical capacity.” Of course, budgetary efficiency is always the best excuse for highly democratic decisions. Citizens, from their seats, can enjoy this work where the simulation has a script, a schedule and, now, four acts instead of two.
Ready to be part of the conversation (or at least, to observe the drill)? Share this gem of national politics on your social networks and explore more content about the absurdities and greatness of our legislative life. Your timeline will thank you.
