The Roman Catholic church has had a highly ambiguous attitude toward democracy. Historically, it fought tooth and nail against the expansion of the vote, be it to women or to other classes, and as is well known, largely backed the brutal dictatorships of the 1970s. There are notable exceptions - above all the valiant actions of priests and bishops inspired by liberation theology in Central America and elsewhere - but from the high clergy - from the Vatican down to cardinals and archbishops - the church's record as a defender of democracy is hardly stellar. The case of Mexico, to be sure, is no exception.
One would therefore expect the Roman Catholic church in Mexico to tread a tad warily when it comes to issues of democracy. Not so with Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez of Guadalajara. I remain personally convinced that this extreme reactionary falangist does not really want democracy, based on his many extremist declarations over the years. I'll leave that aside and for the sake of the benefit of doubt argue that the cardinal is frighteningly ignorant of what democracy really entails. The most recent case in point: Sandoval Íñiguez calls the Mexico City government a "dictatorship." Why? Because of the laws the ALDF, or the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District, democratically elected since 1997, has made. Adamantly against the Mexico City laws that allows abortion up until the 12th week and moreover gay marriage and adoption, the cardinal think this is anti-democratic. Why? According to the Cardinal,
1) they are against "natural" law; 2) they damage or contradict the "holy scripture"; 3) they go against majority opinion.
Let's try to ignore for a moment the stunning stupidity of the cardinal's first "arguments" and focus on this third point : Because the cardinal has in possession opinion polls that state that there is a majority against the law, the fact that the ALDF passed them make the Mexico City government a "dictatorship."
Cardinal, for your information, I take the liberty to pass on the following information, based on concepts taught in my introductory course on comparative politics. I think you ought to sit in on our classes.
1) The ALDF is Mexico City's legislature and consists of 66 elected deputies. This is called electoral representative democracy: These deputies are elected to represent the citizens of Mexico City. Marcelo Ebrard, Government Chief of Mexico City, did not appoint this legislature. You seem to mix up the two by calling the Mexico City government a dictatorship: ALDF is not appointed or controlled by Mayor Ebrard.
2) Ebrard was democratically elected in 2006 with around 47 percent of the vote, more than 20 percent above his closest opponent. Hence, he is hardly a dictator. Yet since you apparently meant that the ALDF is dictatorial, it is worth reminding you that ALDF, ever since 1997, is democratically elected by Mexico City voters. It is therefore not dictatorial, but democratic.
3) A majority of these 66 legislators voted to pass these laws. While a minority may strongly disagree, and while protection for minority rights is also a key quality of representative democracy, in the final instance democracy is about the rule of the majority. Hence, even if we may disagree with the outcome of the vote, the minority must also accept that it lost and respect the decisions made by majority rule in a legislature. You can, of course, take the cause to the Supreme Court and argue it is unconstituti... - never mind, you already know this, because you did complain to the Supreme Court, which did approve the laws, so you know this part already, and clearly will respect the Supreme Court decision, right? Moving on:
3) That an opinion poll that you have in your possesion shows a majority of Mexicans or Mexico City voters reject these changes, does not make the ALDF or the Mexico City Government a dictatorship. To reiterate, Mexico City is a representative democracy: Citizens elect deputies on their behalf, and sometimes they make laws that may be, at some given points in time, against the majority will of the "people" that you refer to. You seem to suggest that ALDF should rather function based on opinion polls. This is hardly a practical undertaking; for example, the majority will is quite fickle and changes many times, and it would be a little tough to have a vote on every law. Moreover, one can also argue that some basic human rights shouldn't necessarily be put out to vote - should we have asked the majority of voters in Mississippi in the 1960s, for instance, whether they though African Americans should have basic civil rights such as the right to vote? Yet to keep it simpler, for the sake of this argument: If these voters feel strongly about it, they can always elect new deputies down the road that will overturn these laws. This is called democracy: We have the right to hire and fire our legislators.
As I noted earlier, I am not entirely convinced you really do support democracy, given other statements you have made in the past. Yet for the benefit of the doubt, I will try to believe that it is rather the case that you simply don't understand it. I hope the above points can serve as a brief, hastily written introduction to representative democracy; the part of the Mexican church you represent seem sorely in need of such a lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment