Democracia, gobierno y administración pública en la Ciudad de México

FRANCISCO JOSE DIAZ CASILLAS (2004, [Capítulo de libro])

Capítulo de la sección: Comunicación y Sociedad Sustentable.

Hablar de democracia, gobierno y administración en la Ciudad de México, nos remite a dos momentos históricos del pasado reciente: el primero hace referencia a 1994, fecha en que aparece la Ley de Participación Ciudadana, primera normatividad político administrativa de corte ciudadano, que presenta objetivos que enlazan el quehacer gubernamental con las necesidades ciudadanas; el segundo se da en 1997 con la aparición y ascenso de un Jefe de Gobierno, que a diferencia de sus antecesores, que fungían como Jefes del Departamento del Distrito Federal, eran nombrados por el Ejecutivo Federal y actuaban con facultades delegadas, en tanto que el Jefe de Gobierno es electo de manera directa y actúa con facultades autónomas. De esta forma con un gobierno autónomo, los habitantes de la Ciudad de México dejaron de considerarse como "ciudadanos de segunda", como en algún momento se les calificó, debido a que no contaban con sus derechos jurídicos de votar por las personas que los gobernaban, con el primer Jefe de Gobierno electo en 1997, se marca un "parteaguas" en la vida del Distrito Federal en donde las formas de hacer gobierno y administración pública provocan nuevos esquemas y formas de actuación política y administrativa.

Political participation--Mexico--Mexico City. Public administration--Citizen participation. Democracy--Mexico--Mexico City. Mexico City (Mexico)--Politics and government. Administración pública -- Participación ciudadana. Democracia. JS2137.A2 CIENCIAS SOCIALES CIENCIA POLÍTICA ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA

Voter´´´'s dilemma between honest and competent candidates in the 2018 elections in Mexico and Brazil

José Daniel Sousa Oliva (2023, [Artículo, Artículo])

This article is dedicated to understanding and explaining the electoral dilemma “Dishonest, but competent” and “Honest, but incompetent” in the elections of legislators, governors and municipal presidents in 2018 in Mexico and Brazil. The research questions that guided the investigation are: Why are there voters in Mexico and Brazil who vote for “dishonest” candidates? And how do the voters of those countries decide their vote in the face of this dilemma? The theoretical approach of this work is Social Psychology through two analytical tools: the Funnel of Causality and the Tripartite Model of Attitudes. The methodology is mixed, quantitative and qualitative, using statistical models with data from the international surveys World Values Survey and Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems, as well as the application of Focus Groups in the distance modality. In this way, four categories of voter are proposed: moralist, moralist-moderate, pragmatic-moderate and pragmatic. The arguments of this work are: first, that regardless of cultural differences, there is an “affective voter” “non-rational” who makes decisions based on emotions and intuition, demonstrating that the affective components of attitudes are more relevant than the cognitive ones in electoral choice; second, that voting for “dishonest” candidates is determined under a greater influence of “short-term factors” such as candidate characteristics and short-term events rather than “long-term factors” such as party loyalties and ideology.

politics, electoral behavior, political culture, democracy, public opinion. política, comportamiento electoral, cultura política, democracia, opinión pública. CIENCIAS SOCIALES CIENCIAS SOCIALES

Voter´´´'s dilemma between honest and competent candidates in the 2018 elections in Mexico and Brazil

José Daniel Sousa Oliva (2023, [Artículo, Artículo])

This article is dedicated to understanding and explaining the electoral dilemma “Dishonest, but competent” and “Honest, but incompetent” in the elections of legislators, governors and municipal presidents in 2018 in Mexico and Brazil. The research questions that guided the investigation are: Why are there voters in Mexico and Brazil who vote for “dishonest” candidates? And how do the voters of those countries decide their vote in the face of this dilemma? The theoretical approach of this work is Social Psychology through two analytical tools: the Funnel of Causality and the Tripartite Model of Attitudes. The methodology is mixed, quantitative and qualitative, using statistical models with data from the international surveys World Values Survey and Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems, as well as the application of Focus Groups in the distance modality. In this way, four categories of voter are proposed: moralist, moralist-moderate, pragmatic-moderate and pragmatic. The arguments of this work are: first, that regardless of cultural differences, there is an “affective voter” “non-rational” who makes decisions based on emotions and intuition, demonstrating that the affective components of attitudes are more relevant than the cognitive ones in electoral choice; second, that voting for “dishonest” candidates is determined under a greater influence of “short-term factors” such as candidate characteristics and short-term events rather than “long-term factors” such as party loyalties and ideology.

politics, electoral behavior, political culture, democracy, public opinion. política, comportamiento electoral, cultura política, democracia, opinión pública. CIENCIAS SOCIALES CIENCIAS SOCIALES