The case in Mexico. A country where corruption is breathed has remained incredulous to the jubilation of officials, journalists and politicians due to the constitutional reform that has given rise to the National Anticorruption System (SNA)as soon as it is said: it represents an extraordinary advance; an enormous legislative effort that lays the foundations; a paradigm shift of all instances to prevent, detect and sanction corruption; and, “it is the most important initiative in the field of government auditing in Mexico (…) this only constitutes the basis on which it will be necessary to lay the foundations of the System, that is, the secondary legislation that will make it operational and define the competencies, responsibilities and coordination schemes for the institutions that comprise it ”(Juan Manuel Portal, National Anticorruption System: project under construction, www.eluniversal.com.mx, May 28, 2015). AND"He trusted that the secondary laws would provide it with sufficient powers for the system to work, because otherwise it would be a disappointment and something that the citizens themselves will reproach" (La Voz de Michoacán, April 23, 2015, p. 4 B). But, citizens do not have to wait to see if the anti-corruption system works or not to disappoint us. No, from now on we are disappointed with the legislators, audit officials, academics, civil society and public sector specialists who intervened at the working tables of the opinion of the united commissions on constitutional points, anti-corruption and citizen participation, governance and legislative studies that led to the constitutional reform in the fight against corruption.
The common thread to analyze the subject is the statements of the Superior Auditor of the Federation, his choice is for his preponderant role and the exposition of his thought, which has placed his ideas on the tightrope and when he became an acrobat is when his you can really judge.
In the beginning everything was harmony, “There are moments in public life in which all the factors and the wills seem to coincide in time to reach the necessary agreements that allow a qualitative change in government management and, therefore, in the relationship between the State and citizens: such is the moment regarding the integration of a National Anti-Corruption System (…) This initiative is born with good omens, represented by practically total adherence ”(National Anti-Corruption System: project under construction, ditto). But almost six months later, the Superior Auditor, alerting of the danger so that he fulfills his mission, "It is not a matter of adopting a catastrophic attitude that ends up paralyzing any initiative or spontaneity, but of putting our feet on the ground" horizon, La Voz de Michoacán,November 12, 2015, p. 22 A) and addresses those risks:
"Firstly, if we assume that the System is based on technical elements to achieve its goals, we must be especially alert to any attempt to politicize its operation (…) A second factor to take into account is represented by citizen participation in the System. The intervention of different social sectors and organized groups in the fight against corruption could be bureaucratized or be immersed in incentives that are originally what it is struggling to avoid (…) Thirdly, it is necessary to make a distinction between subjecting the System to evaluations improve it and turn it into a forum focused on questioning the institutions in charge of administering it (…) Finally, it is necessary to be very cautious regarding exclusively attributing corruption and its solution to the governmental sphere ”.
Juan Manuel Portal's warning to the executors who are carrying out the analysis stage prior to the issuance of secondary legislation is more than significant. Despite the fact that the SNA approved that the Citizen Participation Committee, “will constitute a sphere of action that does not cancel or diminish the citizen action of denunciation or the social control activities that have been carried out for several decades to give way to citizen control over public management ”. Attempts are being made to impose oversight as a directive and guiding axis in the SNA and, to a lesser extent, citizen participation. “In order for society to be effective in this process, their organizations need to have more information and technical strength to address the topic,it is not enough to hold a moral superiority acquired by displaying a citizen label ”(Juan Manuel Portal, Let's change and improve all, www.eluniversal.com.mx, June 25, 2015). Then, where was the enormous thanks to the Network for Accountability and citizen organizations for having contributed to making it a reality, if now they are alerted that their participation could constitute a risk, that the Superior Audit of the Federation is not willing to it is questioned, because the questioners lack the information and technical solidity. A debate that in the social comptroller's office has not been completely resolved, whether citizens should have the knowledge of auditing, administration, accounting, budgets, among others, to carry out their function or not.And evidently the Superior Auditor has taken sides in affirming that they must have technical strength, but what technical strength are they referring to?
Yes, from the start, the Superior Auditor of the Federation confuses the base with foundations, when they are synonyms. Therefore, responsibility has been transferred to secondary laws to define and specify the purpose of the Anti-Corruption System, when it should have been determined at the base, on the foundations and foundations, that is, on the reforms that gave rise to the SNA.
If there is a lack of rigor in the management and conception of the theory of the audit, and therefore, of the audit, and it is the cause of the evasion of the evaluation in the thought of the audit, it does not accept to be questioned, less in forums. Because its knowledge appears beyond doubt, fully legitimized by international audit and oversight institutions and organizations, and then, under the protection of the fallacy of authority, it has imposed itself and continues to impose itself as the holders of the truth of its knowledge.
And no, it is not strange that the Superior Auditor accepts that, “the professional practice of auditing is a discipline that must be removed as an elemental sense of subsistence, from the emotional part of public debate and social feeling. There are two tools that an auditor has in order to carry out his functions fully: independence and autonomy. The independence of the auditor lies, essentially, in the need for him to be alien to the audited entity, to the political contest and, even, to the currents of public opinion, in order to carry out his work on the basis of truthfulness and impartiality. For its part, autonomy is an indispensable condition so that the work of the institution it oversees is carried out without pressure and external influences ”(Juan Manuel Portal,The audit report: objectivity versus emotion, www.eluniversal.com.mx, February 5, 2015).
The above seems to be true in the audit. Because certainly, auditors are far from public debate, but it should not be a reason for recognition but for reproach. If auditing were indeed a discipline, it would be permanently reformulated, especially after the numerous scandals where its performance or omission has been suspected. But he remains impassive, unscathed, to the new times that claim that, it is not enough to hold an alleged intellectual superiority held in technical knowledge from a university education, updates and certifications in auditing or control, which have led him to believe that his knowledge it's true. For this reason, the assumptions or myths of autonomy and objectivity remain unquestionable and insurmountable.
How can an auditor be removed from social feeling or be oblivious to political contests and currents of public opinion?It is not possible, accepting it is a falsehood, a hypocrisy. But the world of auditing and control is a world of appearances, of illusions. The SNA accepts the principle of superior oversight of management and public resources in concurrent institutions "they have the technical and objective capacity to measure and evaluate the performance of the public servant within the framework of the principles of legality, honesty, loyalty, impartiality and efficiency ”. However, it is stated that to carry out the 'real-time audits' will be derived from complaints. For this reason, the Superior Audit of the Federation and the Secretariat of the Public Function (governing bodies) "promote that the figure of the protected and anonymous informant be promoted within the secondary laws of the SNA to detect corruption and other irregularities."Then, then, the method or procedures to detect corruption crimes are lacking. There is no principle in the SNA to detect, to establish, to put in place effective and proportionate measures against each of the corruption crimes. Defining not only with the help of legal dictionaries, what is corruption but addressing it from the audit, how it is investigated and proven. What systems must be implemented to guarantee detection procedures for possible acts of corruption. Yes, indeed, the guidelines for detecting and investigating possible corruption crimes, in terms of operations, must be formulated in the secondary laws. But, it is in the base, in the foundations or foundations where the object of the audit is determined, what should be understood by corruption and irregularity.Likewise, its terminology should be reformulated.
Enough of using notions like those of appearing or findings! Because it denotes that detection results from casual or fortuitous actions. Master Hegel said that 'a random search only corresponds to random results'. Thus, between chance and reporting (using protected informants, who since the operation detects the existence of irregularities and is willing to report them to the authorities) tries to solve the problem of detection in the SNA, to make each public servant an informer. A comfortable way of evading the problem, but the fight against corruption really does arise, is only possible through its search, determining the effective measures against each of the corruption crimes, the possible suspicion of cases and their investigation, notification mechanisms,information and monitoring.
And the point that calls into question the discourse of promoting the idea of "Open Governments". How can open governments be generated, if the audit and inspection are not open. Once again, the National Anticorruption System privileges secrecy in the activity of inspection. Then, why was a National Transparency System and a National Control System approved, if the constitutional principle of maximum publicity, of opting for the greater public interest, so that citizens can see and examine the procedures, of include conducting open meetings, issuing statements to the public, and examining not only the final report but the entire process.
But in as much, the Superior Auditor of the Federation, affirms that the SNA “represents a tool hitherto unprecedented in our country, to attack the phenomenon of corruption, discourage its permanence and offer new ways of participation to society, so that it do not be a simple spectator, but rather assume the responsibility that corresponds to you and act accordingly ”(National Anticorruption System: project under construction, idem).
An unprecedented tool that turns public servants into informants? O Citizens become vigilantes but not of the institutions of control and supervision? If indeed new ways are offered to participate to the citizens, the Superior Auditor of the Federation and all those responsible for the control and inspection bodies, as well as the associations and institutes of auditors and accountants should dispose of the myths that nest in the thinking about auditing and control, and opening up a new path, a sine qua non condition to truly fight corruption, but this is more than optimism, the reality is that social participation will continue as a simple spectator because the National Anti-Corruption System is only a quixotic fight.
