It does very well Xochitl Galvez in placing on the axis of your Campaign the unsafety. It is the worst evaluated chapter of the federal government and is a claim that is supported by hard data, incontrovertible facts.
But I continue to observe so much in Xochitl like in Claudia Sheinbauma manichean vision of the security and neither of them seem to have clarity about what to do if they become president or, being generous, they are consciously hiding it. Xochitl He was right to start his campaign in Fresnillo and finish that first day of proselytizing in Irapuato. And to emphasize insecurity. What was incomprehensible to me is that the proposal raised Xochitl is to emulate Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, to build a megaprison that houses the main criminals.
The truth is that we have a prison system that has been devalued during this six-year term but we do not need the construction of a mega prison. It would be enough to correctly manage the maximum security prisons that we have in the country, many of which have notable deficiencies. The government's strategy of purchasing prisons that were managed by private initiative was not successful in terms of prison security.
But the most important thing is not that: Bukele's mega-prison system, which other countries are copying, also implies very important changes that are much more difficult to make in Mexico than in a country as small as El Salvador. It implies ending rights, judicial guarantees, protections. It implies imposing deeply authoritarianism. Come on, in the Salvadoran scheme a fair trial is not even guaranteed.
I am convinced that we need much more legal toughness, a heavy hand some would say, especially in the area of organized crime, but let's not fool ourselves, there are about 15 federal prisons in the country and parameters have seriously deteriorated. Not only has the number of people arrested and convicted of federal crimes fallen radically, but control of maximum security prisons remains controversial, to say the least.
But the Salvadoran model as such is inapplicable to a country as diverse, plural, and heterogeneous as Mexico. Instead of building a large mega prison (it reminds me as a solution of the nonsense of building a megapharmacy to address the shortage of medicines) what we need is to make the justice system efficient and that the conditions of maximum security in our prisons really are. Do we need more prisons? Yes, but we need a whole new system, which completely changes what we now have. We don't need a mega prison.
Claudia, on the other hand, has tried to emphasize that she has good numbers in the field of security in Mexico City. And it's true. But the scheme that was followed with Omar García Harfuch and continues today in general terms with Pablo Vázquez, is not one of hugs and no bullets. On the contrary, Claudia could obtain greater returns by explaining why her capital strategy is not the same as the one followed by the federal government and what it consisted of. She's not going to do it, but she would have to.
He is also wrong when he declares that Xóchitl's speech is a security reissue of Calderonism or the insistence on maintaining the basic principles of hugs and not bullets.
He is wrong because the only real reduction in the criminal onslaught occurred towards the end of the Calderón administration. There are more than one specialists in the area who are close to Claudia who admit that if Calderón's strategy had been followed in 2012, today we would be in a different situation, completely different in the field of security.
Secondly, because no one doubts that social work is necessary to combat crime, but in the situation we are in it is impossible to move forward without a tough but effective, intense and directed strategy from federal and local levels, building a police system that transcends, and a lot, the simplified (and partly meaningless) debate on the military assignment of the National Guard.
At the beginning of his campaign, Xóchitl said that he would end the militarization of the country and Claudia that he would keep the military in the streets. Both are definitions without any real deep meaning. What does Xóchitl mean by ending militarization? Removing the military from some of the tasks that it is unnecessary for them to perform? It seems good to me, but which ones? Does Xóchitl think that the military does not have to cover security tasks or, as some of his advisors tell him, bet on these tasks returning to the civilian sphere? How? With whom?
Claudia should be asked how she will maintain the current security scheme and at the same time change it. How will it keep the army in security tasks, which is essential, but what responsibilities will it concentrate them on and what will it do with everything else that includes an ideal security system, if not like that of Denmark, of loss like that of Chile. If it maintains a line of continuity with the current administration, will it be with the line of the federal government or with the one followed in the city?
If we do not assume that the current federal strategy is a failure, that a security strategy is needed that is equally removed from occurrences and politically correct readings, the country will continue to sink into the swamp of insecurity. To adopt new and fundamental policies, positions and strategies, a comprehensive vision is needed and the courage to assume them without complexes.
More from the same author:
#Xóchitl #Claudia #insecurity #hesitation