Bernardo Bátiz V.
L
to constitution that all We must know and enforce, in its second title of the first chapter, called “of national sovereignty and the form of government” establishes as the basis of our political organization, that sovereignty, that is, the supreme power over which there is not and there can be no other, it lies in the people. This is enshrined in article 39, but immediately, the following is determined, it is defined with all sharpness “which is the will of the Mexican people to constitute a representative, secular and federal democratic republic.” All adjectives attributed to our Republic constitute at the same time a definition and a declaration of principles. I will stop for now in some terms that seem to me capitals and columns of our definition, in which our Republic is “representative and democratic.” This means that we are not a monarchy, the government of a single person or an aristocracy, the government of a social class over the others, that of a superior, privileged community of the community, powerful, that subjugates the people or, rather, to the rest of the people.
It is clear, we are not an aristocracy (as some would like) in our republic the people have the power, that is, all and as we all know, demos It means people and Kratos Government or power. He is the owner, the head of power and people we all integrate it. But when you send one, in a tyranny or in a monarchy it is easy, the one who decides does it individually, he alone and the others obey, he, “the supreme”, gives orders, makes them mandatory with the public force and, as a popular phrase says: “He who commands commands and if he is wrong to send again.” In a democracy, where everyone sends, how do they? Or, rather: how do we do it?
The answer can be one of two, if the sovereign people are made up of a few who meet in the “agora” discuss and vote as the Greeks in Athens have done hundreds of years ago. This is what is known as “direct democracy.” It only works exceptionally since the great political communities no longer have their dimension or place or opportunity to meet and vote in a living voice. Then they do it through elected representatives, a few, who, if they can meet in a congress, a parliament, one or two cameras and there vote, but their vote is on behalf of all, our Constitution says that the deputies represent the nation and in it are included those who favored the winner with his vote and those who voted for another option.
This is our system, this has been established since the mid -nineteenth century the constitutions that have happened, especially that of the reform of 1857 and that of the Constitution of 1917. (By the way, this is recognized as one of the great achievements of the Revolution).
But recently an old debate reappeared, partly because of our president’s proposal, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo; This is the issue of “party” or proportional representation deputies. Every time this topic is touched, explanations must be given again. The Pluris They are worth the same as Unis? Is this way of being elected democratic? Who do they represent?
In my opinion, they constituted a remedy to a disproportion that was frequent between votes obtained by a party and the seats in the Chamber of Deputies. It could be the hypothetical case that a single party won all districts with a small majority proportion of 1 percent, and with that minimal difference, 51 percent of the votes, would reach 100 percent of the seats.
To remedy that imbalance, party deputies were incorporated who established a more equitable relationship between votes and recognitions.
The remedy works and worked better when they reached the cameras as Pluris The best losers, those who had approached their competitor in a district.
In my opinion, that old system must be maintained simply by removing the leaders of the parties the possibility of presenting lists so that those appointed by them are representatives on equal terms with the majority winners.
Voters take into account the candidate and vote for him, but they also take their party, a current of thought and convictions, represented by an emblem and party colors; If those that make up the list of Pluris They are the ones who participated and lost but contributed more votes than other losers, they must be the ones who integrate the lists of Pluris; That way we get closer to justice and think that the intention of those who voted and, therefore, popular sovereignty is also respected.
Of the forms of government, democracy is a more complicated system than the monarchy or dictatorship, but is the only one consistent with popular sovereignty and the system of Pluris It is the one that takes into account the intention of the people expresses at the polls. Labor, but more fair.
