The report from a group of experts at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has been convincing—and not just because it is an irreproachable document with flawless technical and legal precision. In fact, it is a very limited text, which leaves many doubts as to the conclusions of the official investigation presented in January by Jesús Murillo Karam.
However, the text’s effect on the already-damaged credibility of the Mexican State has been devastating, especially for the hyperbolic excess committed by the former attorney general. The excess in the effort to quickly close a case that stings the government ended up turning back on them. Few people believed the official version, other than hired hacks, and now, whatever the attorney general’s office does to defend its actions, what was said by Murillo when he claimed what he presented was the "historical truth" about what happened a year ago in Iguala will be remembered, rather, as a histrionic hoax....
Behind the storm unleashed by the IACHR experts’ report is the deep distrust of society in any of the Mexican security forces' actions, but this is only a small part of the serious legitimacy crisis that consumes the State edifice. Similar to the simulation and lies—expressed in the cryptic tones and confusing syntax that were a traditional practice of the old regime that has not finished dying—everything that today’s government says is suspect, even if it might be true. Social skepticism about the words and actions of the State has tremendous consequences on communal life and economic performance.
One of every State’s main functions is creating trust. State credibility is essential both in economic exchange, where State action is key to reducing transaction costs, and in people’s everyday lives, where the existence of an organization with the advantage in the use of violence that protects life, liberty and property is an indispensable component to guarantee communal life. If the impartial arbitration or coercive capacity of the State is misleading, then the uncertainty will limit the efficiency of economic performance and the safety of people, and will result in permanent threats from those who have enough strength to commit robbery, kidnapping, or murder.
The true fortitude of the modern State does not lie in the physical inventory of weapons it possesses, or the number of soldiers and police making up its security forces, but in the certainty of its actions in effectively and impartially handling contract violations, deviations from legitimate regulations, or unlawful acts of violence. A strong, legitimate State is one that only has to use its force sparingly, bound by the laws and in specific cases, such that most social relations develop in a peaceful manner to the extent that they may establish mutually advantageous exchanges and that citizens may live in peace, without fear or constant threats.
The Mexican State is far from that symbolic strength. Its physical strength is unstable and has traditionally been at the disposal of the highest bidder or at the service of groups who have gotten some special protection from a specific State agent who acted like an boss to an employee. In a political arrangement like ours, only those benefit who manage to use to their favor the partiality and forgeries of the State, which, if not totally failed, does fail quite often.
The war against drug trafficking, transmuted into an open confrontation with organizations seeking to supplant the state where the cracks of a poor institutional architecture have left power vacuums, both real and symbolic, has ended up decomposing the situation. Mafia groups thrive where the foundations of the client pacts [agreements with criminal groups as to territory and limits on their actions]—which, for decades, permitted reducing violence thanks to the special "appropriation" of public income —is sinking.
The State's response to the deterioration of these traditional negotiation tactics that allowed for reducing violence was the brutal use of force [President Felipe Calderón in 2006]. The Army has taken to the streets and the countryside to openly combat criminal organizations turned into irrepressible enemies, while local police, who traditionally had the job of negotiating the disobedience controlled by the law, have become suspected collaborators with the enemies. Instead of the State containing its physical ability for violence and limiting it with protocols and laws, evidence of abuse, killings and human rights violations contribute to further discredit and undermine the legitimacy of State actions.
The government, flustered, does not seem to be clear about how to stop the damage to credibility that corrodes the same foundations of the State edifice. There is a long list of recent actions by the Attorney General's Office that remain in question, while suspicions spread about the Armed Forces’ actions, with their high fatality rates and blatant abuses, as documented in Tlataya; Federal Police not far behind with actions like those of Aptatzingan or Tanhuato. The damage is structural, deep, and mere declarations or symbolic gestures will not reverse society's disbelief in a State that has become accustomed to lying. Spanish original
*Jorge Javier Romero Vadillo is a political scientist, professor and researcher in the Department of Politics and Culture of the Autonomous Metropolitan University, Xochimilco Campus. He holds the masters in Political Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a doctorate from the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology of the University Complutense of Madrid. He is a regular contributing columnist for Sinembargo.
However, the text’s effect on the already-damaged credibility of the Mexican State has been devastating, especially for the hyperbolic excess committed by the former attorney general. The excess in the effort to quickly close a case that stings the government ended up turning back on them. Few people believed the official version, other than hired hacks, and now, whatever the attorney general’s office does to defend its actions, what was said by Murillo when he claimed what he presented was the "historical truth" about what happened a year ago in Iguala will be remembered, rather, as a histrionic hoax....
Behind the storm unleashed by the IACHR experts’ report is the deep distrust of society in any of the Mexican security forces' actions, but this is only a small part of the serious legitimacy crisis that consumes the State edifice. Similar to the simulation and lies—expressed in the cryptic tones and confusing syntax that were a traditional practice of the old regime that has not finished dying—everything that today’s government says is suspect, even if it might be true. Social skepticism about the words and actions of the State has tremendous consequences on communal life and economic performance.
One of every State’s main functions is creating trust. State credibility is essential both in economic exchange, where State action is key to reducing transaction costs, and in people’s everyday lives, where the existence of an organization with the advantage in the use of violence that protects life, liberty and property is an indispensable component to guarantee communal life. If the impartial arbitration or coercive capacity of the State is misleading, then the uncertainty will limit the efficiency of economic performance and the safety of people, and will result in permanent threats from those who have enough strength to commit robbery, kidnapping, or murder.
The true fortitude of the modern State does not lie in the physical inventory of weapons it possesses, or the number of soldiers and police making up its security forces, but in the certainty of its actions in effectively and impartially handling contract violations, deviations from legitimate regulations, or unlawful acts of violence. A strong, legitimate State is one that only has to use its force sparingly, bound by the laws and in specific cases, such that most social relations develop in a peaceful manner to the extent that they may establish mutually advantageous exchanges and that citizens may live in peace, without fear or constant threats.
The Mexican State is far from that symbolic strength. Its physical strength is unstable and has traditionally been at the disposal of the highest bidder or at the service of groups who have gotten some special protection from a specific State agent who acted like an boss to an employee. In a political arrangement like ours, only those benefit who manage to use to their favor the partiality and forgeries of the State, which, if not totally failed, does fail quite often.
The war against drug trafficking, transmuted into an open confrontation with organizations seeking to supplant the state where the cracks of a poor institutional architecture have left power vacuums, both real and symbolic, has ended up decomposing the situation. Mafia groups thrive where the foundations of the client pacts [agreements with criminal groups as to territory and limits on their actions]—which, for decades, permitted reducing violence thanks to the special "appropriation" of public income —is sinking.
The State's response to the deterioration of these traditional negotiation tactics that allowed for reducing violence was the brutal use of force [President Felipe Calderón in 2006]. The Army has taken to the streets and the countryside to openly combat criminal organizations turned into irrepressible enemies, while local police, who traditionally had the job of negotiating the disobedience controlled by the law, have become suspected collaborators with the enemies. Instead of the State containing its physical ability for violence and limiting it with protocols and laws, evidence of abuse, killings and human rights violations contribute to further discredit and undermine the legitimacy of State actions.
The government, flustered, does not seem to be clear about how to stop the damage to credibility that corrodes the same foundations of the State edifice. There is a long list of recent actions by the Attorney General's Office that remain in question, while suspicions spread about the Armed Forces’ actions, with their high fatality rates and blatant abuses, as documented in Tlataya; Federal Police not far behind with actions like those of Aptatzingan or Tanhuato. The damage is structural, deep, and mere declarations or symbolic gestures will not reverse society's disbelief in a State that has become accustomed to lying. Spanish original
*Jorge Javier Romero Vadillo is a political scientist, professor and researcher in the Department of Politics and Culture of the Autonomous Metropolitan University, Xochimilco Campus. He holds the masters in Political Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a doctorate from the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology of the University Complutense of Madrid. He is a regular contributing columnist for Sinembargo.