The zero hour of this Friday put the final point. Television left political advertising behind; and the leaders, the speeches to defend or criticize the Law of Urgent Consideration (LUC) due to the incursion of electoral ban that disables proselytizing in the 48 hours prior to a vote.
But this new instance that will define the fate of 135 articles of the fundamental rule of the government of Luis Lacalle Pou exposes, once again, some gaps in the legislation that make some cheats possible and that, moreover, does not impose any sanction on those who do deaf ears to the ban. For this reason, both politicians and ministers of the electoral body recognize that it should be reviewed.
The legal framework that regulates political propaganda in this type of instance has almost 33 years. The prior to the first referendum in history settled the issue and in the discussion in the chamber they spoke of the need “of a period of reflection so that in the last days (of the campaign) people are not exposed to a real bombardment.”
Thus, the law textually disqualified the performance of “acts of proselytizing propaganda on public roads or that are heard or perceived from it, or that are carried out in public places or open to the public and in the written, radio or television media.” , which also includes the dissemination of surveys or any manifestation that may influence the citizen’s decision.
But for those who do not respect it, there is no punishment. The Minister of the Electoral Court Ana Lía Piñeyrúa explained in dialogue with The Observer that for those who disobey the law “there is a moral sanction” and that “in general” that makes it comply with the regulations, although nothing more. For Piñeyrúa, it would be a good sign to review the legal text because, according to him, “a ban without a sanction is not a ban.”
The Electoral Court cannot impose penalties because it does not have the capacity to implement them. In fact, it barely intervenes and analyzes a possible violation of the ban when it receives a complaint, according to the minister, because “there is no infrastructure” to act ex officio. In these cases, the agency meets, requests information from the Communications Services Regulatory Unit (Ursec) and if it verifies the transgression, its power barely allows it to order the infraction to stop, without any coercive mechanism.
The lack of sanction, however, is not the only legal gap in the legislation and the other fundamental point has to do neither more nor less than with the passage of time. The avatar of the years and the advancement of technology relegated a new scenario where social networks and digital platforms radically transformed communication.
The law, however, was never updated. And despite now being a central protagonist of the interaction, the gigantic world of the Internet continued (and continues) outside the regulations and only subject to the good will to respect the spirit of the electoral ban.
In this sense, the coordinator of the Broad Front bench in the Senate, Liliam Kechichian, assured in dialogue with The Observer that “it would be good to look at and analyze what can be done” to remedy this situation, although he acknowledged that internet regulation could be “quite difficult.” However, he admitted that, despite the fact that the LUC referendum is just around the corner, the issue is not being analyzed and a discussion is not in sight in the medium term.
The subject has already been in the discussion other times. The coordinator in the Chamber of Senators of the Colorado Party, Germán Coutinho, recalled that in the previous legislature a special commission was formed to discuss various issues concerning the electoral sphere and that the analysis of the ban was on the table. “But it was discussed and it was decided to keep it that way,” he recalled.
For the legislator, it is necessary to promote “a scenario of updating” several issues of the electoral law because “there are a lot of things that are out of date.”
The Observer He also wanted to know the opinion of the Whites’ bench coordinator, Carlos Camy, but he did not respond to messages or calls.
Internet: “quite an issue”
While within that special commission the regulation of electoral advertising was discussed, which defined when the political parties could start their propaganda for the different voting instances, the issue of social networks and digital platforms was at the center of the debate .
The bill in that 2017 included the word “internet” in the media repertoire where the parties were limited to making their proselytizing interventions, but the exchange between the senators finally gave up taking it into account due to difficulties in the comptroller.
“The issue of the Internet is quite an issue, so it seems to me that legislating it a bit hastily, without a more general reflection -which must be done- would be a mistake,” said then-senator Pablo Mieres, before proposing the elimination of that part of the project. Colorado Coutinho proposed to “explore” the matter and not erase it outright because that was “a very important tool,” something that was repeated by other legislators during the discussion.
However, as the matter was considered to involve a “very deep analysis” and “specific”, as stated in the stenographic version, the commission’s decision was to remove it from the articles and propose that closer to the national elections they discuss what to do. But that ultimately did not happen.
