While electoral democracy was established across most of Latin America during
the 1980s and 1990s, poorly designed economic policies, poverty, human rights abuses,
corruption, unaccountable leaders, and an unequal application of the law have plagued
many of these young democracies. Poor judicial performance is a major cause of many
of these problems. An effective, accessible, and independent judiciary can curb
executive abuse of power, hold leaders accountable, enforce equal rights, control crime
and thereby promote more effective democratic rule. A strong democracy depends upon
a well-functioning judicial system that can maintain public confidence. The judiciary is
particularly important for democratic accountability because it is responsible for
enforcing the rule of law, punishing leaders who have acted outside of the law, and
protecting the rights of individual citizens.
What determines how well judiciaries function? Why are some judicial systems
better equipped to check the power of the executive and enforce the rule of law than
others? This paper attempts to shed light on these questions by taking advantage of the
benefits of subnational comparisons to examine judicial performance in the Mexican
states.
Conceptual Clarification
Judicial performance is a broad concept, encompassing the behavior of the
supreme court, criminal and civil courts, prosecutors and police, as well as crime,
corruption, and human rights violations. Following the lead of other scholars in the field,
I disaggregate the concept of judicial performance into independence, effectiveness, and
access (Prillaman 2000, Staton 2004b). Insofar as the judiciary is independent, effective
and accessible, there is the rule of law.
3
Convention