Candidates for the governorship of Puebla, Eduardo Rivera and Alejandro Armenta, used misleading data to defend their past administrations, revealing a lack of rigor in public communication on crucial issues such as security and transparency. Rivera incorrectly claimed that all crimes decreased during his term, when in fact the official report shows an overall increase, with significant rises in theft and harassment, although there were declines in some high-incidence crimes. For his part, Armenta questioned his own transparency by insisting that his asset declaration was already public, omitting the fact that much of this information is censored or inaccessible. This contradiction highlights the difference between the formal availability of data and its real usefulness to citizens, showing how officials can technically comply with the law while limiting the capacity for public scrutiny. This case is relevant to the open data movement because it exposes how the misinterpretation of statistics and the indirect obstruction of access to information can erode civic trust. It demonstrates that transparency is not just about publishing documents, but ensuring that data is complete, verifiable, and understandable. By hiding details or presenting partial figures, politicians hinder effective accountability, reminding us that open access to information is fundamental for a healthy democracy and to allow society to properly evaluate the performance of its leaders.
Source:Published on 2024-05-10