“The collective model is not suitable for superpowers”
Claudia Zavala, former electoral advisor, issues a direct warning. The election of three new advisors of the National Electoral Institute (INE) has a clear mission: shielding the autonomy of the organization against any de facto power in the country.
In an interview with EL UNIVERSAL, the UNAM Law teacher recognizes the resilience of the institute. It has endured direct attacks since the executive’s morning conferences. But there is a but, and it is big.
“In his collegial spirit the reform known as ‘Taddei’s superpowers’ does not suit him, which has somewhat diminished his functioning as an electoral referee.”
There’s the scalpel. Zavala does not shout; points out precisely. The internal reform that granted special powers to the president of the INE to appoint the management team breaks with the collective model. For her, these decisions must come from the consensus of the General Council, not from a single person.
A call for citizen vigilance
The biggest risk today? That the new General Council leans towards a single political force. Zavala resorts to historical memory: the INE was already controlled by the Ministry of the Interior in the past. Its autonomy, achieved in 1996, is not a minor fact.
His recipe is simple, but requires work:
“This process should not give in to the INE model, each of its votes must be monitored so that we can adopt an opinion on the matter.”
Translation: citizens must be alert. Every vote counts and must be scrutinized.
Regarding the latest electoral reform approved by Congress, his criticism is twofold. He misses more robust tools for oversight and asks for urgent clarity during campaign times. Some parties, he warns, are already seeking to take extra time in advance.
With concurrent elections and a process for the Judiciary on the horizon, the system becomes more complex. For Zavala, strengthening the referee was not an option; It was the only way out. And in that, he says without saying it, the reform fell short.
