A proposed change to Panama’s electoral code is generating significant controversy and accusations of political suppression. The amendment would restrict how independent candidates can campaign together, a move critics call a direct attack on rising citizen political power. This legislative effort follows the historic success of non-partisan candidates in the most recent national elections.
The proposal specifically targets Article 424 of the Electoral Code. It seeks to mandate that voting for candidates running via “free nomination” must be strictly individual. This would eliminate the possibility for these independent candidates to form associated lists or for voters to select more than one such candidate as a bloc. The change is seen by many analysts as a reaction by traditional political parties to their declining influence.
Legal expert and commentator Rigoberto González Montenegro has been a vocal critic of the plan. He argues the foundation for independent candidacies was a pivotal democratic shift.
“We moved from a democracy where political parties reigned, without eliminating them, to a democracy of citizens,” González Montenegro stated. [Translated from Spanish]
He traces this shift to a key constitutional reform in 2004 that introduced the “free nomination” path alongside traditional party nominations.
A Historic Shift in Political Access
For decades, Panama’s political landscape was dominated by party structures. The 1983 constitutional framework required all members of the then-named Legislative Assembly to be chosen “through party nomination and direct popular vote.” This system granted parties a monopoly on political access. Any citizen aspiring to become a legislator needed a party’s endorsement, a dynamic that concentrated immense power in the hands of party leaders.
The 2004 constitutional change broke that monopoly. It amended what is now Article 146 to state that members of the National Assembly “shall be elected by party nomination or by free nomination, through direct popular vote.” This created a parallel path to office, fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and the state. It allowed individuals to bypass party gatekeepers entirely and appeal directly to voters.
The practical impact of this reform became undeniably clear in the last election cycle. Independent candidates, leveraging the free nomination system, achieved what analysts describe as a “resounding” success. They secured seats in the legislative assembly, challenging the long-held dominance of established political machines. This victory demonstrated the system’s power and, according to observers, triggered anxiety within traditional party hierarchies.
González Montenegro contends the current proposal is a fear-driven response.
“They are afraid of the citizens, they fear the democracy of citizens,” he argues. [Translated from Spanish] He notes that citizens in the last elections “rebelled against party democracy and, with the same rules as these parties, defeated them.” [Translated from Spanish]
The proposed rule change, he asserts, is an attempt to rewrite the rules after losing under the existing ones.
Legal and Democratic Challenges
Opponents of the amendment are mounting a two-pronged argument against it, labeling it both undemocratic and unconstitutional. Their central claim hinges on equal rights of association. They argue that if citizens can freely associate to form a political party and compete as a unified group, then citizens opting for the free nomination route must possess the same right to associate and present themselves as a collective.
Making the free nomination path strictly individual, critics say, creates an unequal playing field. It handicaps independent candidates by preventing them from pooling resources, coordinating messaging, and offering voters a cohesive alternative slate. This structurally advantages party-nominated candidates who inherently run as part of an associated list. The debate touches on deeper issues of political representation and citizen engagement within Panama’s evolving democracy.
The controversy also highlights ongoing tensions within Panama’s governing institutions. The national assembly itself has become an arena where these competing models of democracy clash. The success of independents has introduced new voices and disrupted traditional legislative dynamics, a shift that some veteran politicians find difficult to navigate. Observers like Rigoberto González often analyze how these political struggles intersect with other national issues.
Proponents of the amendment have not yet presented detailed public arguments beyond the text of the proposal itself. They may frame it as a measure to simplify the ballot or ensure clarity for voters. The political subtext, however, is widely understood as an effort to curb the growing influence of the independent candidate (free nomination) movement before it consolidates further power.
What happens next will test the resilience of Panama’s electoral reforms. The proposal must navigate the legislative process where the growing bloc of independent lawmakers is likely to oppose it vigorously. Their presence itself is a testament to the system the amendment seeks to curtail. Legal challenges are also anticipated if the measure passes, potentially pushing the question to Panama’s Supreme Court for a constitutional review.
This dispute is more than a technical tweak to electoral law. It represents a fundamental struggle over who controls political access in Panama. The outcome will signal whether the 2004 constitutional vision of a “democracy of citizens” will continue to expand or if the gatekeeping power of traditional parties will be reasserted through new legal barriers. The debate confirms that for some in power, a more engaged and independent citizenry remains an uncomfortable, yet potent, democratic force.