How curious our autonomous organs

Our autonomous bodies they are headed by fallible human beings, with different criteria and contexts, with different life histories and personal and professional goals. But the photographs that their decisions produce together end up the same: when it comes to the indigenous population, the autonomous bodies apply the full weight of the law; when it comes to private corporations, many, many human rights apply. How curious.

Recent weeks have offered us two pictures of the same. To the indigenous or to the common citizen, the force of the State, the unbreakable law; to the powerful, the benefit of sweet justice. (Maybe it’s because we already work for the powerful or because the powerful will offer us a job when we leave government, but this is purely my speculation).

Let’s review both cases. First, that of the indigenous people.

He INE (National Electoral Institute) forced a few weeks ago an indigenous radio station, whose community belongs to the Háhuat and Totonaca ethnic groups from the North of Puebla and Veracruz, to broadcast the spots of the political parties with electoral propaganda and a system of governance and management political and social different from their traditions and worldview.

The autonomous electoral body —headed by Lorenzo Cordova Vianellofamously famous, among other things, for the leak of a telephone call in which he cruelly mocked an indigenous representative— decided to comply to the letter of the obligations imposed on him by law and which also prevent him from exempting any radio concessionaire of the transmission of electoral propaganda.

The law is the law, they said from the INEand determined that Radio Tosepan must comply.

Despite the good faith of Radio Tosepan Limakxtum, the radio station in conflict with the INEto find a point of agreement with the electoral authority, as the counselor Martín Faz Mora admitted in the session of February 27: the radio station “is not refusing to broadcast the State’s times, but to the messages of the political parties”.

Despite what the Constitution says about indigenous communities and their right to self-determination, despite the judicial criteria of the Supreme Court in the same sense.

Let’s move on to the second case, the total contrast of our autonomous bodies, counterweight and guarantors of the rule of law. Let’s review justice for private corporations.

He IFT (Federal Institute of Telecommunications) forgave AT&T a penalty of at least 432 million pesos for refusing to deliver on time information requested in kidnapping and organized crime investigations on nine occasions, in cases in which life could be at risk and the integrity of the victims of crimes investigated by ministerial authorities.

He IFT interpreted the law and, before the matter went to court to determine whether or not that law that should be applied to the letter is excessive, the IFTmore papist than the Pope, applied the pro persona principle, which suggests seeking the authority’s decision that best favors the person and their human rights, and instead of penalizing 432 million pesos, he decided to do so for just 4 million pesos, for the benefit of of the human rights of the private corporation of American origin AT&T.

He IFT it robbed us of a judicial decision of the highest importance and created a mixed bag in which any illegal conduct by a telecommunications corporation can be penalized for the smallest amount, alleging pro persona principles.

Our autonomous organs are curious. But it’s good to have them: they maintain the state of affairs according to the position that each one has had in this Mexico.