This isn’t the first time I’ve used this space to .
I return to the topic because, before making any change, you need to be clear about the problem you want to solve. Without this, we cannot evaluate the suitability of the proposed remedy. This also applies to the debate about .
Usually, these two reforms – the adoption of one and/or a pure majority system (also known as district) or combined with the proportional system (the mixed system) – are presented as magical solutions: they would solve all the problems of Brazilian politics.
Now, that of political representation against organized crime. According to the president of , changing the electoral system will “preserve the policy of criminal financing.” It just doesn’t explain how this shielding would occur.
Before defending this causal relationship, we should look at the Mexican example.
In addition to suffering from problems of control of territories by groups linked to drug trafficking, Mexico has adopted a mixed electoral system since the 1990s, the same defended as a solution for Brazil.
Illicit financing from drug cartels is a reality in Mexican politics.
Edgardo Buscaglia, a professor at Columbia, warned more than 10 years ago that somewhere between 55% and 65% of electoral campaigns in Mexico were infiltrated by drug trafficking organizations, including the transfer of resources.
A quick visit allows the reader to access several articles published on the occasion of the 2024 elections in Mexico, which highlight the growing concern about the increase in illicit financing coming from drug trafficking groups.
With campaign spending caps considered insufficient, candidates use cash, made available by these groups and not declared to the Electoral Court, to finance their campaigns.
We can even argue in the opposite direction to that defended by the president of the Chamber of Deputies: by drawing districts, the system can facilitate the territorial coordination of organized crime and encourage the dispute for control of areas, expanding its influence on electoral results.
The fear of violence imposed by organized crime would be enough to direct the voter’s vote, and, with the district defined, there would be no doubt as to which candidate is supported by the criminal factions.
More than that. As in the mixed district system, voters are entitled to two votes for legislative positions, one for each different electoral rule, we can argue that the system has the potential to increase the crime bench.
There is no electoral system capable of preventing organized crime resources from interfering in electoral results.
Measures in this sense must have other origins: in intelligence activities, public security, supervision of the electoral process and effective presence of the State, with the provision of public services and decent living conditions, making association with crime less attractive for young people and vulnerable populations.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
