Authoritarianism, Constitutionalism and Populism: Courts and other Means

Populism increase in Latin America is characterize by the dismissal of evidence base decision. In Mexico the government has started a campaign to eliminate control by independent technical agencies. Using the Mexican case, we explore the role courts play in preserving checks and balances in populist governments. We suggest that administrative and constitutional courts are powerful tools for accountability, especially when populist temptations tend to overcome governance controls. We show how in the Mexican legal system, nullity trials, state liability trails and Amparo not only protect the rule of law, but also serve as tools for bringing the authorities to account, hence achieving to restraint to a certain point, populist measures. We approach the challenges the courts still encounter to fully work as accountability mechanisms and suggest ways to overcome them.

This paper discusses the trends of the current cycle of judicial reform in post-liberal Mexico aiming to clarify the epistemologies behind this process. After the election of President Lopez Obrador in 2018, Mexico has embarked upon a profound change of the transitional liberal institutions that were established in the last 30 years. This trend includes relevant reforms to the federal judiciary, considered one of the champions of the transition to democracy. While fighting impunity and corruption is at the heart of the debate, there is also a discussion about whether the process also intends to compromise judicial independence favoring hyper-presidencialism.

I will try to distinguish factors to consider in the relationship between contexts of democratic erosion and judicial independence. In this regard, 3 points of view can be adopted: external, internal, and decisional. Each of these views includes certain components that make it possible to assess the strength or weakness of the courts to maintain their independence.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine leaves some lessons on the use of internet as a weapon. It is important to compare the Russian actions using cyberwarfare and the responses, sanctions, and decisions using internet also as a weapon coming from west countries. What were the actions considered as Cyberwarfare -specially the denial of service as the main measure- to attack Ukraine and to respond to Russian attacks and what changed in 15 years between the Russian cyberattack in Estonia and the cyberwarfare actions used in the invasion of Ukraine. The cyberwarfare´s actions were used mainly by countries in conflict, but not exclusively: other actors (particularly big tech companies) had a role in the conflict. How to measure these private companies´ decisions that affect the use of internet in Russia, Ukraine and their people? In the end, some of the measures could impact not only military targets: they also impact citizens, their privacy and freedom.