Yellow Card for COTE: When restoring institutional trust, transparency, and public accountability are not prioritized, we are facing a futile process

"There will be no justice in a society where the laws are designed by criminals."

Public institutions are not evaluated solely by the extent of the powers conferred upon them by law, but above all by the trust they manage to inspire in the society they serve. This trust constitutes a political and moral asset, built slowly through coherence, impartiality, transparency, and accountability. When an institution like COTE assumes particularly sensitive responsibilities for public life, the expectation also grows that its actions will be not only legally correct, but also sufficiently clear to respond to what...andThe reason for its creation and the citizens' dissatisfaction with COTE suggests that they understand it as an empty and unclear mechanism if we look at the criteria that guide its analysis.

It is in this context that the idea of ​​a "yellow card" should be understood. It is not a condemnation or a definitive judgment on the COTE, but rather a metaphor expressing the need for institutional reflection. Just as in sports, the yellow card represents a warning to correct procedures before the trust of those watching the game is compromised. Translated to the public sphere, this image suggests the importance of improving communication practices, strengthening transparency mechanisms, and consolidating a culture of accountability to citizens.

However, we need to understand that in contemporary democracies, institutional legitimacy no longer depends exclusively on adherence to legal norms or romantic narratives. While respect for the law remains indispensable, public perception of the independence, impartiality, and openness of institutions has become equally crucial. Improved access to information and technology places ordinary citizens in privileged positions vis-à-vis those in power, demanding profound accountability and rigorous scrutiny of their actions. In short,andIt is reasonable to consider that citizens' trust in their rulers does not result solely from what is done; it also results from how decisions are explained, justified, and subjected to public scrutiny.

COTE, by the nature of the functions it performs, is inevitably subject to this scrutiny, and although initially perceived as pertinent, in the last phase of its activities it has been the target of significant doubts or questions in society. It is clear that the most effective response to this dissonance consists of strengthening the channels of clarification, disseminating information in an accessible way, and demonstrating, with serenity and rigor, the rationale behind the adopted options, and involving more actors, with the aim of depoliticizing the situation.hereThe nature of the debates must be perceptible and discernible. These measures alone are not sufficient as long as there is a lack of genuine willingness on the part of the organizers to find consensus that contributes to reducing deep social divisions and reshaping the relationship between citizens and institutions as part of a broad project aimed at restructuring the foundations of citizenship, which have been deteriorating in recent times. An institution confident in its actions does not see scrutiny as a threat, but as an integral part of the democratic process and as an opportunity to strengthen its credibility.

It is important to recognize that institutional communication is no longer a secondary activity, and that in a context marked by the rapid circulation of information, the absence of clarification can favor divergent interpretations and fuel perceptions of distance between institutions and citizens. Even when the procedures observed fully respect the law, insufficient public explanations can affect trust, precisely because legitimacy is also built through the social understanding of decisions.

Another relevant aspect concerns accountability. This principle does not mean that institutions must constantly justify every action to the public; rather, it means that they must cultivate a culture of openness, providing information, responding to relevant concerns, and creating conditions for citizens to understand the exercise of their responsibilities.theOf course, in this regard, the COTE (Commission for the Evaluation of Electoral Prosecutions) responds to a pre-established system that, moreover, obeys the logic of a strongly partisan administration of justice, undermined by the political system. The COTE forgot that a transparent public administration tends to strengthen trust and reduce room for unnecessary speculation and doubt, acting in the opposite direction, like a sounding board, a subtle way for the government and the party that supports it to regain lost trust and justify an apparent constitutional change that favors them under the pretext of a hypothetical national consensus forged in useless consultations throughout the country.

At the same time, it is important to avoid confusing institutional criticism with hostility. In any consolidated rule-of-law state, reasoned criticism is a normal element of democratic life. It allows for the identification of weaknesses, encourages improvements, and promotes a culture of continuous improvement. Robust institutions are not defined by the absence of criticism, but by the ability to respond to it with composure, technical rigor, and commitment to the public interest.

Therefore, the true meaning of this "yellow card" lies in the call to strengthen good institutional practices. The greater the relevance of the functions performed by a public entity, the greater the demand for transparency, impartiality, accountability, and communication should be. These values ​​do not diminish the authority of institutions; on the contrary, they constitute the foundation of their legitimacy before society.

Ultimately, the prestige of any public institution depends on the relationship of trust it manages to establish with citizens. This trust is renewed daily through the consistency of decisions, the clarity of procedures, respect for the principles of the rule of law, and the willingness to be accountable. It is in this spirit that critical reflection can play a constructive role: not to weaken institutions, but to encourage their continuous improvement and contribute to a public culture increasingly based on transparency, accountability, and mutual trust.