Essential requirements of an electoral reform

88

Parliamentary debates are advancing in Congress and the opposition is informing the Government of its criticism of different issues included in the “omnibus law.”

One of the strongest questions has been against the electoral reform. The Minister of the Interior, Guillermo Francos, hinted that the Government could withdraw that segment to facilitate the rapid approval of the rest of the content. “If the votes are not there for electoral reform, that will not hinder the treatment of the law,” said Francos.

Encouraging electoral reform may be an important decision, but it is not urgent. The rules governing an election are not neutral. They can influence the result. Therefore, any modification must be widely agreed upon with the entire political spectrum so that it has majority support, and must be established as far away as possible in time from the next election.

In other words, an electoral reform voted by Congress a couple of months before an election and sanctioned by just a few votes difference with the opposition would not have the necessary legitimacy.

Consequently, if the Government is determined to promote it, it should do so this year, but during the ordinary sessions and after having discussed its content with the political sectors and specialists in the matter to reach the necessary agreements. The representatives of almost all the blocks of deputies that make up the opposition agreed on this warning.

Let us remember that, in summary, the Executive’s proposal is to eliminate open, simultaneous and mandatory primaries (Paso), adopt the single ballot, replace the proportional system that governs the election of legislators with the single-member district system, in addition to updating the number of deputies, and modify the financing regime for political parties.

They are substantive issues that are based, with the exception of the single-member district model, on the same issue: reducing state spending. But an electoral system and the law that regulates the functioning of political parties cannot be determined by that principle alone.

Can an electoral reform be proposed with the mere objective that a future election costs the State less? Should the elimination of the Pasos be determined solely by budgetary issues? What could happen to political parties if the State stopped financing them and they were at the mercy of private contributions?

Our province is often used as an example when arguing in favor of the single ballot. It is undeniable that its use is more economical and allows the provisional count to be carried out in less time. But it was not implemented for those reasons, but for others: it reaffirms the secret vote, since it hinders the maneuvers of the so-called “chain vote”, makes the theft of ballots in the dark room useless and grants security to the small party structures by not require numerous prosecutors.

An electoral reform is plausible when it deepens democratic principles, not their subjection to economic variables.