In Mexico, the military plays an increasing role while levels of violence and impunity are historically high. Political scientist Romain de la Cour Grandmaison (Sorbonne University) and Tyler Mattiace, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) researcher, analyze the paradoxical situation the North American country is experiencing today.
For many in Sinaloa, it is unthinkable that the municipal police could have carried out the operation to capture capo Omar Ovidio Guzmán, the son of El Chapo. This took place in the town of Jesús María on January 5.
The corruption of the local police is an open secret and also the caliber of the weapons used by the drug traffickers is far beyond their capabilities. In fact, 29 deaths were recorded in the clashes, 10 soldiers and 19 suspected criminals. 35 law enforcement members were also injured. It was a real pitched battle with helicopter gunships.
What does Tyler Mattiace, Mexico researcher at Human Rights Watch, think of this type of operation?
It was a terrifying situation. We can say that there has been a kind of ‘arms race’ between the military and drug traffickers. The result is terrifying levels of violence in many parts of the country. Part of the Mexican government’s strategy has been to arrest or kill high-level cartel commanders. On this occasion it was Ovidio Guzmán; In 2016, it was his father, Joaquín El ‘Chapo’ Guzmán. That is why I would answer his question with another question: after arresting those two men, does the Sinaloa cartel still exist? The answer is yes. So the strategy of going in very hard to stop one man has really been profoundly ineffective.
Now, do the Mexican authorities have a global strategy to combat drug trafficking?
No, what there are are sporadic actions to stop a drug lord, but there is no social strategy to deal with the underlying problems, in particular, what allows the cartels to hold power in certain places and recruit people.
With the coming to power of López Obrador in 2018, what has happened?
This government has completely weakened the other components of the public security system. López Obrador has eliminated the Federal Police. He has deployed more than 150,000 soldiers to perform all kinds of tasks in the country, many of which have nothing to do with public safety. For example, carrying out public works, taking charge of tenders for projects, buying medicines for the public health system. The military patrols the Mexico City subway, immigration controls, and distributes school books. They manage the use of irrigation canals in agricultural areas, they manage the distribution of fertilizers,” says Mattiace.
These activities have nothing to do with organized crime…
When we talk about militarization in Mexico, we are not only talking about these confrontations with cartels, but also about the deployment of these soldiers without a security strategy. They are given a lot of power over areas of public life that, in the past, were in charge of civil authorities. For example, the military now controls concessions, they control public companies, which gives them a financial interest. Now the military is going to operate the new airport in Mexico City through a company that belongs to the army. All the money that comes from this project will remain in the Ministry of Defense. When we talk about the militarization of Mexico, it’s not just about public safety, it’s also about the way the military is replacing civilians everywhere in public life.”
In Mexico, cartels have been created, an organized crime, around legal businesses, such as the cultivation of lemons, avocados, the felling of forests. How have drug traffickers penetrated these legal sectors?
Criminal networks have politicians, that is, actors who are in the government, who provide them with protection. Sometimes they are even the ones in charge. That depends on the criminal network. They also have businessmen with them, because you need all three parts. For example, a forest clearing network depends on a company that allows the wood to be sold on the regular market. It also depends on politicians who provide that protection and also depends on the armed group that takes control of those lands. For this reason, this effort, this strategy that focuses only on fighting armed groups as if they were two sides in a war, does not really understand the scope of the problem.”
We must focus, on the one hand, on investigations of all the chain’s commanders, in all parts of the criminal network. This includes investigations and criminal proceedings against corrupt politicians, but also demobilization programmes. Because we see that there are poor rural communities where these groups have power. For young people there are not many opportunities there and that is why joining an armed group is something that pays well. But as long as the State does not have a presence with basic services and the cartels function as a de facto government, these criminal organizations will continue to recruit people and rely on them. Hence, another element is the demobilization programs, but also making the civilian government have a presence in these areas.
One ingredient that makes the situation in Mexico explosive is the high level of impunity…
Police and prosecutors in Mexico are mostly incapable of preventing or clarifying most crimes or finding those responsible to bring them to justice. The effective rate of impunity in Mexico is 98%, that is, 98% of the crimes that are committed are never effectively investigated by the authorities. In other words, most crimes are not simply investigated. The morgues are full of unidentified people. The authorities make no effort to identify these people. Many of them go directly to the mass graves of each municipality or state. That is why I say that the answer to all this problem, which is structural, has nothing to do with the deployment of soldiers. What needs to be done is to improve the institutions that should carry out these basic actions, among others, investigation and crime prevention. In short, that there is a State”.
A risk to democracy
What danger does all this have for Mexican democracy? Are there reasons to worry about what may happen in the coming years? Romain de la Cour Grandmaison is a PhD in Political Science from the Paris 1 Sorbonne University in Paris and a senior expert at Global Initiative. Regarding the growing participation of the military in public life, this French political scientist recalls that the Mexican government justifies it by saying that “the army is one of the few, perhaps the only, public institution in which the President of the Republic allegedly trusts He, in any case, presents it that way.” This atypical situation raises concerns. Specifically, if the growing power of the military represents a risk to the future of Mexican democracy.
It is difficult to imagine what the scenario of political instability in Mexico could be if, for example, the army decided to take on much more weight in politics, in electoral life. This will be particularly tested in the 2024 presidential elections.
But, can we speak of a direct danger or a direct threat to Mexican institutions?
I don’t know. But what is clear to me is that the civil route, at least in relation to public security, the civil route of justice in Mexico, all of this has been greatly weakened, or has been further weakened, by this government when it opted for a military route and for the military institution to carry out strategies and tasks that should not be in the hands of the military.
Beyond “making forecasts”, for this political scientist it is evident that “it will be difficult to recreate or redevelop civil institutions; it will take us decades to do it, if someone wants to invest again in civil security institutions public”.
