In fu in cause putting

In which we have gotten into: mornings, Tuesday of the jaguar (where the governor of Campeche broadcasts audios obtained without a court order), press conferences left and right and speeches from the senate gallery where attacks on the person abound with words of the long list of political mexicanisms: fifi, brunette, chairo, conservative, aspiring, potentate, good people, etc. The political discourse has not improved since Andrés Manuel López Obrador assumed the presidency, partly because he was already very rotten; partly because of his tawdry self-confidence and his frank disdain for civility; and because his fellow travelers and his opponents don’t try to change the tone either: I wouldn’t answer a peje with a Lilly Tellez. What little civility!

The Spanish philosopher José Rubio Carracedo makes a complete account of what to understand by civility. He took a few phrases: “it is the characteristic virtue of the citizen who seeks his particular good in accordance with the public good.” Without civility, he tells us: “democratic deliberation is impossible.” He added this last sentence, which sadly is a reflection of our current situation, but also of that of many countries: “we should denounce the scandalous spectacle, for being impolite and malicious, exhibited by the deputies of the majority of democratic parliaments […] with discourtesy, disqualification and even insults always ready […] their treatment of citizens, constantly riddled with demagoguery, is disrespectful and offensive: it seems that they are targeting minors».

Today the most visited debate is the one that provokes the electoral reform sent by the president. But instead of discussing, for example, the best way to choose INE directors, the debate sounds like this: “corrupt, thieves, coarse aspiring fifi, who just want to keep stealing; that is why they fear the people as voters». And the answer comes: «they are not the same, they are worse, ball of nacos, thieves, fucked up, equal». And so, the important thing, the method of choice, is not discussed. Horacio Duarte says in an interview with SinEmbargo that in the past the PAN and PRI put in and took out directors with the famous method of quotas and buddies. Therefore, it follows, we must change the method. They revive him with an argument that is already in Plato: if you are going to build a bridge, you would choose the best engineer, you would not go to an election. Well neither fu nor fa.

Undoubtedly there were some non-transparent and honest arrangements to appoint INE directors: «you two, I three». But acknowledging this does not force us to think that popular election is the best method of selecting directors: it would be expensive and harsh. We don’t need any more confrontation. If the debate did not go as I say: “damn corrupt fifi” against “dark-haired man who speaks with misspellings (I love that insult because it self-destructs when enunciated)”, we could arrive at a good method of election. It occurs to me, for example, a process in four stages: 1. Establish suitable profiles to be an electoral advisor. 2. Publish call. 3. Filter those who meet the requirements. 4. Sort out those who will occupy the position from among the ideal profiles. Such a method guarantees technical election without quotas or budgets or electoral expenses or political confrontation. We are in the same boat, it is irrational to break it up to hit us with the boards of the already battered hull.