Two former Panamanian electoral officials have issued a stark warning about the nation’s political system. Guillermo Márquez Amado, a former magistrate of the Electoral Tribunal of Panama, and Boris Barrios, a former electoral prosecutor, argue that current laws systematically disadvantage independent candidates. Their critique came during a November 23rd television program focused on the ongoing work of the National Commission for Electoral Reforms.
Despite acknowledging progress since the 1990s, both experts contend that the system remains fundamentally skewed. They identify specific legal hurdles and institutional practices that protect established political parties from genuine competition. The core of the problem, they suggest, lies in a structure designed for a “party democracy” that has yet to be fully dismantled.
Structural Hurdles and Intentional Exhaustion
Guillermo Márquez Amado did not mince words when describing the challenges facing non-aligned candidates. He labeled the requirements as “shackles” deliberately crafted to wear people down. The existing framework forces an independent candidate to gather signatures equal to two percent of the electorate within a single year. Political parties, by contrast, have a full decade to meet that same threshold for maintaining their legal status.
Democracy is not a matter for parties alone, it is a matter for all of society. The current system creates an intentional drain on independents, pulling them away from their jobs and families for an exhausting process. This is intentional wear and tear. [Translated from Spanish]
Márquez Amado insisted that a constitutional amendment is the only real solution. He believes the formula for electing deputies must be replaced entirely. The present method, in his view, is engineered solely to perpetuate the power of party leadership.
Internal Party Dynamics and Closed Doors
Boris Barrios directed his criticism at a proposed reform known as “tacit resignation.” This rule would automatically eject any party member who publicly supports an independent candidate. Barrios called this concept a significant error that would stifle renewal from within traditional political organizations.
It is a mistake to close the door on those who, within the parties, are seeking renewal. We must remember that support for independents in the last elections came precisely from voters registered with traditional parties. [Translated from Spanish]
He also denounced the abusive use of a legal mechanism known as the “forty percent reserve.” Party leaders can use this rule to unilaterally assign a large portion of candidacies, often under the guise of forming alliances. Barrios argues this practice concentrates power in the hands of party “bosses” and strips regular members of their right to compete in internal primaries. The ongoing debate over these rules continues to stir controversy within the tribunal electoral.
Clientelism and Institutional Conflict
Both former officials identified the misuse of public funds and systemic clientelism as the central corruption problem. Márquez Amado stated that public subsidies ultimately finance the campaigns of those who control the parties. Barrios raised a separate but critical institutional concern. He emphasized that the Electoral Tribunal must separate its core functions to ensure impartiality.
The Tribunal cannot organize elections and, at the same time, be the judge of the electoral challenges. That contaminates electoral justice. [Translated from Spanish]
This dual role creates an inherent conflict of interest, according to Barrios. He also pointed to chaos in the electoral challenge process and the operation of circuit boards as areas requiring urgent reform. Some fraudulent activities were never properly investigated because existing procedures protect those who benefit from the outcomes.
The unified message from these two experienced voices highlights a critical juncture for Panama’s democracy. As the National Commission for Electoral Reforms continues its work, it faces pressure to address these deep-seated structural issues. The calls for change focus on creating a more level playing field that genuinely reflects the will of all citizens, not just political organizations.