Q COSTARICA — The path was outlined by Rodrigo Chaves when he was still president: they took Zapote (Casa Presidencial), they took the Legislative Assembly, and now they will try to find the votes to seize the last bastion of resistance: the Judiciary.
And although Chaves disguised it as a holy crusade to “cleanse the last bastion of the corrupt elites” so that the people could “recover this power,” in practice, it represents an offensive to consolidate totalitarian authority by conquering the last bastion of the separation of powers, the defense of the rule of law, and the limit on the power of the government.
This offensive revealed a new line of discourse after President Laura Fernández’s meeting with Supreme Court authorities on Monday, May 18, in which she requested “an agreement to depoliticize and stop the political persecution by the Judiciary against officials of this government.”
This falls within the standard tactics of Chavismo: questioning the judiciary, attacking it to weaken it, and subsequently trying to dismantle any act of institutional resistance, presenting it as a political attack.
But this is Fernández’s first step in maintaining the siege, which includes seeking reforms in a Legislative Assembly where the ruling Partido Pueblo Soberano (PPSO) holds a majority.
“This follows a trajectory similar to totalitarian governments, whose most important objective is, literally, to seize control of the judiciary. It is the ultimate goal, because it not only means control over criminal investigations, but also who can be arbitrarily subjected to the force of the state,” stated Rotsay Rosales, coordinator of the Observatorio de la Política Nacional—National Politics Observatory.
Rosales also emphasized that the Judiciary is responsible for upholding the rule of law by ensuring compliance with laws and the principles of separation of powers. “It is the pillar of that balance, and that is why it is uncomfortable. In a republic governed by the rule of law like Costa Rica, the Judiciary is what guarantees balance; it is the last bastion of the rule of law,” he stressed.
Gustavo Chan, director of the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas y catedrático de la UCR—Institute of Legal Research and professor at the University of Costa Rica, echoed this sentiment.
“One of the most important tasks of any society is to consider how to limit power. Therefore, a fundamental principle is that of legality: citizens are allowed to do what is not prohibited, and officials and institutions are only allowed to do what is permitted by enabling regulations. But a weakened Judiciary is incapable of imposing rational limits on anyone exercising power,” he stated.
This is an unprecedented situation, as described by José Manuel Arroyo, former magistrate and former vice president of the Supreme Court.
“In the relationship between governments and the judiciary, there are always tensions, essentially of a budgetary nature. But it had never been framed in terms of a lack of dialogue; it feels like aggression, a direct intervention by one branch of government in another, which had not occurred before,” he recalled.
Polarize, polarize
Rosales emphasized that the Cháves government, and now the Fernández government, are betting on polarization, which includes delegitimizing and weakening the Judiciary. This allows them to later propose a “reform” to make adjustments that will allow them to “conquer” the Judiciary. “It’s no longer just an intention, but a strategy; they are betting on that objective,” he stressed.
It’s not just a power struggle with a branch of government that isn’t aligned with Chavismo and that has blocked the government’s flagship initiatives, but there are also clear attempts to influence its decisions. Arroyo cited Fernández’s statements that there is persecution from judicial circles as an attempt to ignore the rule of law, in which judges have the obligation to investigate. He even warned that there could be manipulation to send the message to their audiences that they are victims, and even to subtly suggest a dangerous attempt to justify impunity for their collaborators.
Chan also considered it “absolutely improper” for a president to attempt to interfere in how judges decide cases. “It is absolutely wrong; not even a magistrate can tell a judge how to rule. This is the foundation of judicial independence,” she stated.
Similarly, the three experts believe it is incorrect for the president to seek to establish criteria for case progress in order to define a budget that—Chan emphasized—was allocated at 6% by the Constitution solely for the fulfillment of jurisdictional functions, not including those that have been added since, such as the Organismo de Investigación Judicial (OIJ), the Public Defender’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Victim and Witness Protection Unit.
A Vaccinated Country?
This opens a door: reforms to the Judiciary, which Fernández has placed at the top of her priorities.
On this point, Chan emphasized that for months there have been calls for reforms to the Legislative Branch, on issues ranging from the election of judges and their almost lifetime tenure, given the difficulty of securing votes in the Legislative Assembly to prevent their reelection. Therefore, improvements must be proposed. “However, I don’t currently see an intention to criticize the Judiciary in order to improve it, but rather to weaken it,” he warned.
This also opens the door to the debate of whether a country like Costa Rica is “vaccinated” against totalitarian excesses and reforms that, instead of modernizing the democratic system and its institutions, weaken it.
On this point, Arroyo considered that the country has shown itself to be “partially vaccinated,” due to the resistance it has maintained against attempts to undermine its institutions. However, he warned that joint efforts will be required, from the opposition in the Legislative Assembly, to remain vigilant for signs of coercion and threats, especially regarding public procurement.
Similarly, Rosales mentioned that he sees “signs of hope” stemming from actions taken by sectors of the opposition and the Judiciary itself, indicating a willingness not to “fall behind” in these processes, particularly in legislative reforms. But he emphasized that, ultimately, “everything will hold as long as the Judiciary continues to guarantee balance.”
Article translated and adapted from SemanarioUnivesidad.com. Read the original in Spanish here.