Informing

Felipe Calderón is presently in the midst of giving an oral informe report at the Palacio Nacional, an event attended by his collaborators rather the full Congress, as was the format in years past. Alberto Aziz Nassif wrote yesterday that the end of the meticulously choreographed informe event is simultaneously a cause for both celebration and lamentation:

The most probable result is that the [Calderón] repeats a ceremony with his allies in the Palace, like last year. Therein lies the end of the spectacle and also the interlocution. The time of spots, the policy of informing being managed completely through the media, has arrived. So far gone is the informe that in 2008 legislators decided to analyze the informe and if they had any questions, they established that they would respond in print. What would those who believed that the democracy is debate and communicative action say?

The change in format for presenting the Informe has an advantage at this moment: no exposure to direct criticism; no accountability; no showing your face.

The problem with this is that the "debate and communicative action" upon which democracy depends doesn't in turn depend on the oral informe. It isn't the only method of interlocution between different political forces, nor is it irreplaceable. Useful political dialogue isn't exclusive to the days leading up to and following the informe. Quite the opposite, in fact, insofar as all the attention on the day encourages cheap sound-bites and political point-scoring. Furthermore, the dialogue that surrounds the informe isn't predicated on the informe being delivered orally. To wit: Look, dialogue.

Nor was the president any more accountable in the past simply because he had to show up in front of Congress, at least, not in the sense of having his behavior modified or punished. Anything the informe accomplished in terms of accountability is still well within reach of the president's critics working within the standard media channels.

The informe event (and its American cousin, the State of the Union Address) is valuable in that it can offer presidents the bulliest of pulpits, but it is not a vital pillar of democratic checks and balances. As far as trumpeting the government's accomplishments and offering its critics the chance for rebuttal, well, that's a perennial task for both sides in a modern democracy, something we should be doing 365 days a year, not only on September 1st.