On May 11, more than 2 thousand people protested in the streets of Tampico to press the government in the state’s pacifying process. Using the motto “We want peace!” citizens of that stated demanded the federal government’s attention. This claim is absolutely justified; despite that the situation in Michoacán has currently grabbed media’s attention, the crime rates in Tamaulipas have considerably increased and authorities have not been capable of tackling the issue.
According to the federal government, violence in the region has increased due to the apprehension and murder of the two main criminal leaders, which caused a breakup process within the cartels. Because it is near the border, Tamaulipas is a strategic region not only with regards to the drug traded headed towards the United States, but also guns and human trafficking. However, the diagnosis of the federal government remains insufficient when determining why Tamaulipas has had three Presidential administrations as a permanent red flag. Both Fox and Calderón had tried to intervene in the state and both failed. Can a different outcome be expected with Peña’s approach?
It is inevitable to be suspicious about the actions that the federal government has announced. It has been initially decided to divide the state into four regions in an attempt to allocate resources in strategic points. Thus, it has been announced that there will be four regional prosecutor’s offices and a military deployment headed by the Secretariat of Defense as well as the Secretariat of Navy. Although the sector division and the prosecutor’s offices are new elements, the rest of the strategy is full of clichés. Once again, the immediate pacification depends on sending military troops. As obvious as it may seem, it is worth remembering that the army does not have an infinite amount of resources: military deployment necessarily implies leaving other areas of the country without proper protection, which state will be the chosen one: Michoacán, Chihuahua, Coahuila? Deploying soldiers throughout the entire country is materially impossible.
The direct influence of the federal government on local security issues implies the possibility of establishing perverse incentives with regards to the authorities’ responsibilities within the states. Those areas in which the omission (or collaboration?) of the local government has enabled the increase of insecurity are the ones that receive most of the federal attention (including, of course, a greater allocation of resources). The federal government’s modus operandi forces to review what can only be labeled as Mexicanized federalism: rather than empowering local institutions they are being replaced in their corresponding duties. Today, in 2014, we are seeing how the most outdated practices of the federal centralism and paternalism of the 20th century are returning. Within this context, the autonomy of federal entities is increasingly becoming a characteristic in name only.
If there is something clear is that are no general guidelines on security issues. The government has been characterized by acting in a divergent and uneven manner: the activities carried out in Michoacán, the State of Mexico and now Tamaulipas have all been different from each other. This is not always a negative trait as long as the expected outcomes are met, which is – in all cases –questionable. Lastly, it is important to remember that Tamaulipas is playing a relevant role in the energy industry given that the entity has an important port and pipeline-based infrastructure. The latter is an additional motive to seek its prompt pacification since violence may negatively affect the investments expected from the reform’s implementation last year. If insecurity continues with this negative trend investments may be discouraged, especially for those medium and small companies that are unable to cope with security costs.
Beyond the pacification that the government obtained in Michoacán and could attain in Tamaulipas with the resources that it is about to allocate, security does not depend on intense, yet short-lived events but from enhancing local judiciary and police capacity. Unfortunately, none of this is being constructed, which suggests that the solution employed might not last for long.
CIDAC
Comments