Mario Luis Fuentes

ANDMax Weber’s theory of domination articulated the widely cited idea that the state has the right to exercise a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is so because it is assumed that in a rational-legal regime, such as democratic systems, the authorities have the right to guarantee the peaceful coexistence of citizens, even using force and violence, against real threats that can put the constitutional order itself in danger.

In connection with the foregoing, it is legitimate to think that in a rational state of law it is not only necessary, but also required that the state use all legal means at its disposal, including the use of force, to fight and prosecute within the framework of the legal order, lawful, to those who violates public order; but even more to groups that may try to challenge the state for using violence to establish a certain state of affairs.

This is the context in which Mexico finds itself; and for this reason the distortion that the State had, in the sense of allowing, first, the actions of criminal groups who acted with complete impunity outside the law, must be included in the equation of the public safety debate; but that they have gone into a worse situation, which is that they are criminal organizations with sufficient power to challenge the imposition of decisions that must be in accordance with exclusively constitutional and statutory authority.

The note that the mayor of Tijuana had to permanently move his residence to a military camp represents one of the most critical moments of this situation in recent times in our country; whereas this implies that the supreme authority of the municipality has reached such a level of threat and insecurity that the guarantee of its immunity depends on its withdrawal from public life; that is, to renounce civilian life in the broadest sense of the word.

The issue becomes more relevant when the demographic and economic aspects of Tijuana are taken into account; and even more so, its geographical position, since in many areas it is the second most important border city of the Mexican Republic, considering the number of people crossing, as well as trade with the United States.

That municipal power is under threat is, unfortunately, no longer news to the country; but the fact is that this is the administration of the municipality, combined with San Diego, California; that is, one of the most economically significant border points on the planet.

The problem becomes more acute because there has already been a history of frontier mayors who were on the Mexican side during the day, and to increase their personal and family security, they spent the night in cities on the North American side; but the fact that they now have to seek refuge in a military camp speaks volumes about the level of political and social decay in the region.

Thinking about the southern border, beyond Tapachula and its complexities, the question is no less pertinent: who governs, formally but also in fact, the municipalities with the 600 kilometers of border checkpoints that it shares? Guatemala? What’s going on at the other border, at the Tenosique-Balancan border in Tabasco?

The problem becomes more complicated if we consider customs as “other borders” which are points of entry and exit for goods. Mexico has 50 customs offices, including a new one located at Felipe Angeles International Airport. But 75% of the total value of the country’s foreign trade operations is concentrated in 10 of them: Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana; Veracruz; Manzanillo; Reinosa City; Colombia, Nuevo Leon; Black stones; Nogales and Mexico City International Airport.

All these customs offices appear to be located in municipalities which had, or at various times had, critical moments of public safety; to which should be added the so-called inland ports, which have customs on the national territory. There are 11 such customs, and in addition to those already mentioned in Mexico City, they are found in Puebla, Aguascalientes, Torreon, Guanajuato, Chihuahua, Monterrey, Toluca, Querétaro and Guadalajara.

The management of the country’s customs and ports was transferred to the Mexican Navy; and since that decision was made, no significant changes, let alone structural ones, have yet taken place. And it should be remembered that the argument of the federal executive power was mainly that they were in the hands of criminals and corrupt employees.

That is why the situation announced in Tijuana is of great concern; because it is not known how long he will remain; and because there is no plausible horizon in public statements to tell the public with certainty when they can expect things to improve; because the other message, the message of permanent insecurity, represents a concession to crime and a repudiation of the most basic tasks and responsibilities of any government.

Unless the situation changes radically in Tijuana, but across the country, a paradoxical message will be sent out that “even the authorities are not safe”; and this, strictly speaking, means that the vacuum left by the government is already being filled by organized crime.

PUED-UNAM researcher