by Miguel Angel Lara Otaola
University of Sussex (m.a.laraotaola@gmail.com)
The issue of integrity has long been of concern in
Mexico, given many decades when clientelism and corruption were widely used to
influence elections and their outcomes. In recent years, reforms have been
introduced and have managed to strengthen significantly the transparency of the
electoral process and stamp out malpractices. Nevertheless, some concerns still
remain about these issues. For example, following the July 2012 presidential
elections, the losing candidate for PRD, López Obrador, claimed there had been
widespread irregularities by PRI, involving the distribution of store credit
cards to buy votes. These claims were dismissed by the country’s Electoral
Tribunal as no significant evidence was presented but nevertheless a shadow of
doubt remained amongst certain sectors of the population.
To explore the integrity
of elections, the Electoral Integrity Project coordinated the Perceptions of
Electoral Integrity Mexico Study (PEI-Mexico 1.0). This was conducted after
June 7 2015, when Mexico held federal and local level elections in 17 out of 32
states in the country[1]. The
study was organized by researchers at the Universities of Sydney and Harvard,
in association with Nicolás Loza and Irma Méndez, both
professors and researchers in FLACSO México.
This study gathered expert
perceptions about whether elections meet internationally recognised standards.
The survey asked national and international election experts to monitor the
quality of the elections based on 49 indicators grouped into eleven stages,
ranging from electoral laws to the impartiality of electoral authorities. The
survey was sent one month after the elections and covers the 17 contests in the
following states: Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chiapas, Colima, Distrito
Federal, Estado de Mexico, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos,
Nuevo León, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Sonora, Tabasco and Yucatan. In total 734 expert respondents were
contacted, generating 292 completed replies. The average response rate was 37.5%
overall.
Moderate
integrity and varied state performance
The results show that
experts rated the quality of state elections in Mexico as moderate (53 points
out of 100). This is lower than the
Mexican presidential elections in July 2012 (scoring 62 points) but identical
to the score in the June 2015 Congressional elections. Figure 1 shows the absolute
PEI index results for the 2015 state elections in Mexico.
Yet significant
differences are found amongst the states. While Queretaro, Jalisco and Baja
California obtain scores close to 60, Estado de Mexico, Morelos, San Luis
Potosi and Tabasco score under 50, with Chiapas obtaining only 37. Figure 2
shows the ranking of PEI scores for all 17 states. This variation may be explained by the many
political, economic and social differences between states.
Figure 1. Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) Mexico
subnational election (absolute values)
Figure 2. PEI Ranking in
17 Mexican states.
Note: Scores on the PEI
100-point index by state in the 7 June 2015 elections. Source: PEI-Mexico 1.0
N.292.
Threats from violence and
organized crime
One issue of concern in Mexico is the increase of violence
associated with drug related activities in the country (Aguirre and Herrera, 2013; Shirk and Wallman, 2015). The general
issue was monitored by the statement “Some voters were threatened with
violence.” The results in Figure 3 show that the perceived threat of violence
was indeed correlated with the overall quality of the state elections.
Figure 3. Perceived threat of violence and electoral
integrity in 17 Mexican states.
Source: PEI-Mexico 1.0
N.281.
But violence can arise from multiple causes and actors. To
monitor the issue in more detail, the PEI-Mexico survey included a battery of 6
items on the topic. These questions ask in particular about the influence of
organised crime on a number of issues such as candidate selection, threats to
candidates, campaign finance, voter turnout, voter’s choice and on its role
defining results in cities that concentrate half or more of the state’s
population.
In general, out of the six issues, Table 1 shows that organised
crime’s greatest influence was seen to lie in financing political candidates.
In addition, the states of Distrito Federal, Estado de Mexico, Guerrero, and
Michoacán are seen to be slightly more affected by the influence of organised
crime. In comparison, we can see that organised crime is thought to have no
influence in elections states like Campeche, Yucatan and Queretaro.
Table 1. PEI survey – influence of organised crime in
17 states
Note: Respondents were
asked to give their opinion on a five point scale ranging from 1 or “strongly
disagree” to 5 or “strongly agree”. Higher
marks mean that organised crime is believed to have a greater influence on
elections.
Source: PEI-Mexico 1.0
N.281.
The PEI-Mexico subnational index
compares the integrity of the 2015 elections in Mexico across 17 states and
allows systematic research on issues such as voter registration, vote count,
electoral procedures, campaign finance and campaign media, amongst others. All
the data is free and can be downloaded from https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/PEI
References
Aguirre, J., & Herrera, H. (2013). Institutional
weakness and organized crime in Mexico: The case of Michoacán. Trends in Organized Crime, 16(2), 221-238.
Eisenstadt, T.A. 2004. Courting democracy in Mexico:
party strategies and electoral institutions. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Greene, Kenneth F. 2007. Why Dominant Parties
Lose: Mexico's Democratization in Comparative Perspective. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Instituto Nacional Electoral- INE, (2015)
“Numeralia Proceso Electoral 2014-2015” Available from: http://www.ine.mx/2015/Docs/Numeralia_ProcesoElectoral_2014-2015.pdf (Accessed
9 December 2015)
Norris, Pippa;
Martinez i Coma, Ferran; Gromping, Max; Nai, Alessandro, 2015,
"Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Version 3.5", http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UO9ABD, Harvard Dataverse, V1
Norris, Pippa; Martinez i Coma,
Ferran; Nai, Alessandro, 2015; Gromping, Max "Perceptions of Electoral
Integrity-Mexico, (PEI-Mexico 1.0)”, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UO9ABD,
Harvard Dataverse, V1
Shirk, David, Wallman,
& Joel. (2015). Understanding Mexico’s Drug Violence.59(8), 1348-1376.
Simpser, Alberto. 2012. ‘Does electoral manipulation
discourage voter turnout? Evidence from Mexico.’ Journal of
Politics 74(3): 782–795.
Zamudio, Pedro
(2015) “La casilla única: reto para las instituciones” Available from: http://democracia-elecciones.mx/abril2015/ (Accessed 9 December 2015)
[1]
Elections for 16 states were held on 7 June, 2015 while local elections for
Chiapas were held on 19 July, 2015.
