The Va por México coalition, made up of PAN, PRI and PRD, gave in to a “constitutional moratorium” in which it sought not to address Morena’s proposal on electoral reform, and today its deputies participated in the first round of discussions on an initiator.
Lawmakers from PRI and PAN attended the beginning of the forums aimed at coordinating the various initiatives, with a warning that the Va por México alliance would not give way to approval of the original proposal by Morena and President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, whose plans Elimination of the National Electoral Institute (INE), creation of a new national body and dismissal of existing board members and electoral judges.
So far, 49 initiatives related to electoral reform have been submitted, which will be discussed in the forums for a month.
“We will continue to make our voice and our positions on electoral reform heard, because we want to be heard clearly and loudly in defense of democracy and our institutions, such as the National Electoral Institute or the Electoral Court. However, we want to make it clear again: We will not go to any constitutional reform that seeks to weaken the National Institute. for elections and our democracy,” the coalition said in a statement.
He added that although the freeze is “firm and in effect”, the bloc will continue legislative work.
The Va por México stand represents a change of heart compared to Monday night, when the leaders of PAN, PRI and PRD, Marco Cortes, Alejandro Moreno and Jesus Zambrano respectively said that none of its parliamentary coordinators will attend the House of Representatives forums, as I mentioned before expansion.
Today, however, the Open Parliament was attended by the head of the Institutional Revolutionary Party bloc, Ruben Moreira, and Cristina Ruiz – from the same party – and party deputy Jorge Triana.
Moreira, who is also the president of the Political Coordination Council (Jokobo), asked the leaders of the Va por México parties to enable legislative dialogue on electoral reform.
“Some of us have expressed our position on certain points, and our leaders will always be aware of the responsibility that lies with us, but our leaders also understand and should help us have a deep dialogue here on many other issues and on issues that concern them and serve Mexico,” he said.
The PRI chairperson added that a “dialectical method” would be followed during the forums, meaning that a counter-proposal would be proposed for each proposal, in order to group both proposals into committees.
Moreira’s statement means departing from Va por México’s initial position by not entering into the discussion of any of the reforms that Morena was seeking.
“It will be part of the political task of the parliamentary blocs to decide what can be done, I say in the best plans, to move towards a better law and which political parties, which are essential actors in electoral processes, will not come to an agreement.
He concluded by saying, “What we cannot stop doing is accomplishing our legislative task, which is dialogue, discussion, and finally decisiveness.”
After Moreira’s statement, the coordinator of the Morena Caucus, Ignacio Meyer, suggested that his party was willing to contradict and include the proposals in the 49 initiatives.
The legislator from Puebla indicated that Morena would follow this “dialectical” method to prevent a repetition of what happened in the issue of energy reform, when the majority party tried to defeat the opposition without incorporating its proposals.
Well, it would be a dialectical process (…) Humans said in vain: Sometimes, when we leave for the sake of simple logic, we say no to everything, and even more so to politics, without reading it , without studying it, without knowing it, a mechanical reaction, because this is what suits our party and political parties and the interests of the highest party bureaucracy, and it does not suit the people,” he said.
“So, before acting on the logic, we’d better work in an argumentative process, based on its merits, the 49 initiatives, on the positive, without excluding any of the 49 to avoid this rhetoric and at the end say ‘hello, but they didn’t include anything in the reform’ ….” We do not want the same thing to happen with electoral reform, because vanity then prevents people from realizing mistakes.