No, President, it is not enough to reform the Constitution | Article

Rogelio Muniz Toledo

“Graduality – a few modifications to our system
political and economic – inadequate to the task
In hand. We need a radical change”

Joseph E. Stiglitz*

ANDOn February 5, at a ceremony marking the 106th anniversary of the adoption of the 1917 Constitution, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador stated that “it is rare to find a reform of the Constitution in a neo-liberal period for the benefit of the people” and called for an inquiry into whether there had been any in this sense in these governments.

The logic behind the approach of the President of the Republic explains to a large extent why our country has failed to build a welfare state, or at least a social security policy that would progressively reduce inequality and eradicate poverty. Of course, constitutional reforms are needed to build a welfare state, but this is not enough.

Over the past four decades, seven governments — four from PRI, two from PAN, and the current one from Morena — have failed to reduce inequality and eradicate poverty. This shows that it would be a mistake to assume that a few reforms of the Constitution and laws are sufficient to achieve the constitutional goals of national development established in Article 25 of the Magna Carta.

Gradual change in the Constitution and reformism proved insufficient to ensure social justice and the well-being of the majority of the population, to ensure the prevalence and support of the highest principle and human rights: human dignity.

Neither under the previous six governments, nor under the current one, have all the necessary constitutional reforms been carried out to create a welfare state based on a set of economic and social rights recognized in the Constitution. But with the few reforms approved in them, it is sufficient to have at least a redistributive economic and welfare policy consistent with the constitutional goals of national development.

If we conduct the analysis called for by the president, we can see that, in fact, during the neoliberal period to which he refers, there was not a single constitutional reform that contributed to a significant change in the life of the middle and lower classes. or, even more so, those who live in poverty and extreme poverty, despite the fact that all the governments of that period – except the government of Enrique Peña Nieto – had constitutional reforms recognizing economic or social rights in the text of the Constitution. Constitution.

In the neo-liberal period of which the president speaks, which will include not only the governments from Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado to Enrique Peña Nieto, but also his, as his first finance minister Dr. d. Only 14 of them – less than 10 percent – have changed articles relating to the recognition of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights: three with Miguel de la Madrid, one with Carlos Salinas, two with Ernesto Zedillo, one with Vicente Fox, five with Felipe Calderon and two with Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Paradoxically, the three reforms published at the start of Miguel de la Madrid’s administration – the first of the neoliberal period the president spoke of – and the two approved under López Obrador’s government hold the most potential. transformation of the development model in the country towards a social legal state.

The reform carried out in February 1983 in Article 25 of the Constitution, which established the rector of national development by the state, introduced into the text of the constitution a program norm containing a new paradigm of state social policy. This little-studied reform could provide constitutional support for a solid welfare policy and even lay the foundations for a welfare state.

This reform of Article 25 of the Constitution explicitly stated that the goals of national development are “the full realization of the freedom and dignity of individuals, groups and social classes”, and the means to achieve it are “competitiveness, promotion of economic growth”. employment and a more equitable distribution of income and wealth”. This text, which has just expired 40 years without significant change, has been ignored by all governments for the past four decades, including that of López Obrador.

The reform of Article 25 of the Constitution and the two additions to Article 4. of the Constitution, also promulgated in 1983, which recognized the rights to health care and to decent and decent housing, as well as successive amendments to Article 3 of the Constitution, would allow for a significant transformation of social policy and lay the foundations of the welfare state.

Two reforms of the social content of the government of President López Obrador established guarantees for the exercise of the rights to education, health and a decent life. Three obligations of the state in terms of social rights were constitutionally enshrined: providing access to education, from primary to higher education; gradually expand medical services for comprehensive and free care for people without social security; and realize the right to a decent life through social policies to combat poverty through cash transfers for people with permanent disabilities, people over sixty-eight years of age and students at all levels of the public education system.

The constitutional reforms of the governments of Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, as well as those of Felipe Calderón, aimed at expanding levels of education on a compulsory basis, with a corresponding mandate from the state to guarantee its provision. Six more reforms, two with Ernesto Zedillo and four with Felipe Calderon, recognized the best interests of children and the full guarantee of their rights to meet their needs, as well as the right to a proper environment, access to food, water and culture. But they were of little use. Neither under the governments under which they were approved, nor under subsequent governments, the full exercise of these rights was guaranteed.

The 2011 human rights reform, which contains a new paradigm of their protection, guarantee and implementation, is necessary for economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER) to cease to be a single policy in our country and can be prosecuted with the requirement to comply and achieve its effective implementation, which would achieve the goal of article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees a decent life for all people.

If we analyze not only the content of each of these reforms of the Constitution, but also their meager legal and administrative development, it becomes clear why the gradual and path of reforms was not enough to improve the standard of living of Mexicans and close the gaps in inequality in our society, much less to achieve a more equitable distribution of income and wealth and end poverty in the country.

The absence of a left-wing or at least progressive political project in six previous governments and the current one, and the apparent failure of the government of President López Obrador to implement social policies that guarantee the rights to health, education, housing and a decent life, and to reorient the use of public finances, to make these rights effective, as he proposed at the beginning of his reign, made several constitutional reforms in social matters practically a dead letter.

A few constitutional amendments recognizing rights are not enough, legislative changes are required to move these rights from mere programmatic rules, and the political will of governments to ensure their effective implementation. In addition, a redistributive economic policy and social policy are needed to improve the welfare of the majority, a tax policy that allows the state budget to be directed to ensure the efficiency of the ESCER within the limits of available resources. available in accordance with the Limburg principles for the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and sufficient public finances to avoid a financial crisis of the state.

With a deep constitutional reform in the field of economic and social rights, or with a new Constitution with a strong social content, which in the conditions of polarization would only be possible if we went to the Constituent Congress, it would be possible to build a welfare state that, while maintaining economic freedoms, allows for a more equitable distribution of income and wealth based on a universal system of rights to education, health, housing and social security that guarantees the satisfaction of basic needs and a higher standard of living for all people.

This is possible by respecting economic freedoms, guaranteeing the right to private property, and promoting investment and economic growth, as was made clear in the last address of the President of the United States of America to the people of the Union. In presenting his economic plan, President Joe Biden proposed, as he did a year ago, massive investments in people’s well-being, including subsidies and cash transfers for health care, education and housing programs for the lower and middle classes, and tax reform to provide the state with the resources to do so. Nobel Prize winner in economics Joseph E. Stiglitz put it well: “Another world is possible, not based on the fundamentalist belief in markets and seepage economics that have led us into disarray.”

* Nobel Prize in Economics 2001. Headed the Council of Economic Advisers.
under President Clinton and was Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank