Home

Authoritarianism on the rise: the War on Drugs and Mexican democracy

With no end in sight for the War on Drugs, the Mexican government will only further restrict civil liberties and endow the military with unchecked powers. The collapse of liberal democratic values heralds yet another age of authoritarianism.

Otto Raul Tielemans Jr.
25 August 2014
1026178.jpg

War against drug trafficking in Mexico - Culiacan. Demotix/Enrique Perez Huerta. All rights reserved.

Church bells that once called Mexico’s pious to mass no longer carry the uplifting melody that they once did. For nearly a decade, church bells throughout the country have echoed the multiple sounds of sorrow and pain experienced by Mexico’s parents, siblings, and spouses - all of whom have lost loved ones in the War on Drugs.

Since its inception in 2006, the War on Drugs has succeeded in amassing a death toll estimated to be over 120,000. 1.6 million people have been displaced. All the while, the Mexican government continues to bankroll a multi-billion dollar ‘war’ with the unilateral help of its northern neighbour, the United States.

As if the Latin American country has not suffered enough, the War on Drugs has progressively managed to disintegrate the country’s ever frail democracy. Through the enactment of “estados de excepción” (states of exception), Mexico’s executive branch has enabled itself to rule by decree, effectively circumventing Congress and bypassing the nation’s constitution. Freedom of press, speech, and movement have all been left handicapped, with the military being able to operate freely outside of its constitutional confinements. These infringements on democracy highlight the danger that human rights periodically face in this most troubled country.

Restoring public safety: Mexico fights back

Responding to crippling levels of violence, President Felipe Calderon swept into office in 2006 with the intention of combating organised crime. His declaration of a ‘war’ on drugs was met with the deployment of Mexican military personnel to combat the country’s numerous criminal organizations. At the end of 2008, some 40,000 soldiers and 5,000 federal police officers were involved in the fight against drug trafficking.

Although President Calderon’s decision to use the armed forces was highly controversial domestically, his administration was quick to obtain support abroad. The United States, Mexico’s largest trade partner, pledged 400 million USD for military assistance in 2008. Since then, the Americans have given an excess of 1.3 billion USD, an exuberant amount that continues to grow under both Republican and Democrat presidencies. Ironically, Washington has been extremely hospitable to an influx of another cohort of Mexican citizens, all of whom are soldiers that stay temporarily to be educated in American military tactics, necessary to the execution of counter-insurgency operations in their own country.

The pooling together of these assets (US-trained military personnel, foreign financial assistance, and so on) has enabled the Mexican authorities to orchestrate systematic counter-narcotic operations in which soldiers attempt to apprehend criminals involved in drug production and trafficking.

While drastic in its goal to tackle organized crime, the drug war has shown considerable success in the apprehension of more than 121,000 criminals. With less than 9,000 convictions made, the government has shown some success in crippling the production and trafficking of narcotics, even if the impact on criminal organizations is only temporary.

 An imperial presidency restored

When commencing the War on Drugs, the Mexican government aspired to freely persecute those it believed to be part of the illicit drug trade. However, the country’s 1917 constitution, designed to safeguard civilians from an overbearing government, prevented the government from initiating broad military campaigns.

In 2009, President Calderon submitted a bill to the Mexican Congress that would effectively enable the executive branch to circumvent the nation’s various constitutional restraints and legislative “checks.” Although the Calderon administration legitimised its power grab by emphasising the need to restore public safety, the bill catalysed the erosion of various democratic institutions that resulted in the consequences analysed below.

Circumventing Congress: the waning power of Mexico’s legislature

To his credit, President Calderon followed the constitutional procedures required to enlarge his powers as chief executive. His actions, while damaging to civil liberties and the country’s democracy, did obtain the required legislative approval.

That being said, President Calderon’s 2009 bill endowed the executive with the ability to have his Consejo de Seguridad Nacional (National Security Council), an entity filled with presidential appointees, declare “estados de excepción”. This power, previously reserved for Congress, abandons legislative approval and allows the executive to suspend civil liberties systematically with little to no opposition coming from the country’s major political ranks.

Even more damaging is the fact that through “estados de excepción”, the country’s executive has been able to govern through decree. Allowing the president to circumvent Congress, the executive is able to pass bills without consulting the country’s elected representatives. Most recently, President Peña Nieto has initiated various reforms concerning taxation and water regulation, demonstrating his ability to manipulate current political instability in order to implement reforms in areas not relevant to the War on Drugs.

The siege of civil liberties: Mexico’s suspension of human rights

By means of declaring multiple “estados de excepción” in “states” throughout the countrythe Mexican government has acquired the power to restrict basic human rights. Freedom of speech, movement, and assembly are all suspended upon the request of the government. Much like the US National Security Agency, government officials also have the option of engaging in the systematic monitoring of citizens’ private communications. Those perceived to be involved in drug trafficking face even greater scrutiny – especially since habeas corpus is suspended under “estados de excepción” and suspected criminals can be kept in prison for 80 days without being presented with specific charges.

Although the Mexican government has a legitimate conflict to address, the suspension of previously guaranteed civil liberties not only cripples civil society, but also leaves citizens vulnerable to the mercy of government officials. In a country whose police force has 50 percent of its officers engaging in corrupt activities, it is disturbing that common citizens may be extorted or brutalised on a daily basis, with no one to turn to for help.

“Estados de Excepción”: a golden ticket for the Mexican military

Mexico’s military has played an extensive role throughout the country’s history, particularly in its governance. In order to prevent the armed forces from endangering the nation’s democracy, Mexico’s constitution confines the military to a role that is separate from the political process. While this confinement is beneficial in safeguarding the country’s democracy, Mexico’s military lacks transparency in its operations and is known to be indiscriminate in its acts of aggression.

Under “estados de excepción”the armed forces have been given sweeping powers to quell violence and demolish organised crime. Allegations have surfaced from two mothers that soldiers abducted their two sons, atrociously torturing one and brutally beating the other one to death. Reports of more than 70 individuals having been tortured, raped, and murdered by members of the military add to the seemingly unending list of atrocities committed by government forces that claim to be protecting the public.

While calls by the public to have soldiers prosecuted in civilian courts have emerged, the country’s judicial system has been active in ensuring that the Mexican military is shielded from public scrutiny. The Supreme Court of Mexico validated the authority of military courts to judge soldiers involved in crimes against civilians in August 2009. This strategic move not only further bolstered the strength of the armed forces, but also assigned them the approval to conduct mass violence against those they perceive to be enemies of the state without fearing any retaliation by the country’s judicial system.

In addition to their exception from the law, evidence has surfaced implicating various military figures in corruption scandals with narcotic trafficking organizations. Most notably, General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo was found to have accepted bribes from drug traffickers in 1997. Under the presidency of Vicente Fox, 2,600 federal law officers were fired or suspended for bribery and corruption-related charges. In 2008, both the head of the Sub-Prosecutor for Special Investigations into Organized Crime (SIEDO) and two heads of Interpol in the country were investigated for receiving bribes from a Sinaloa drug cartel. The list of corrupt military and state officials appears almost endless.

It should be noted that an excess of 120,000 Mexican soldiers, many of whom were trained in the United States, have deserted the military in order to pursue lucrative careers with drug cartels. Effectively, this leaves the government in a fight against a self-created enemy that contains vast insight into the military’s operations and tactics.

Violence and poverty: setting the stage for authoritarianism?

Mexico’s progressive shift towards authoritarianism is not simply the result of the executive and military actively pursuing greater power; it is also the net result of a crippling economic environment and violent social atmosphere.

Following a series of bank crises and global financial meltdowns, Mexico has been plagued with a series of economic catastrophes. Its economy has been estimated to have an annual GDP of 1.2 trillion USD, which is limited in its ability to expand due to the high cost of security that is needed for economic enterprises to operate within the country. According to some scholars, security expenditures add an additional 8 to 15 percent to business operations. And although the Mexican government has been on an aggressive campaign to attract foreign investors to the country’s burgeoning manufacturing sector, the fact of the matter is that the danger and high costs of business operations handicap economic prosperity. This, in combination with an increased level of militarised warfare, is estimated to decrease economic growth by approximately 1 percent. The combination of these factors inhibits the government from creating jobs that would otherwise help employ some of the county’s 6 million unemployed citizens.

With more than 52 percent of the population living in extreme poverty, financial disparity makes the country’s impoverished persons prime bait for drug cartels. While dangerous, the hefty salary paid by organised crime ensures the loyalty and steady supply of countless workers. As it stands, drug cartels employ over half a million people in Mexico alone. Their growing network of well paid criminals not only ensures a steady flow of narcotics to North America and Europe, but also guarantees the perpetuation of the War on Drugs by having citizens feed into the very system that the Mexican government is attempting to dismantle.

Due to the increasing scope of the conflict, the government is likely to restrict civil liberties and continue to endow the executive and military with relatively unchecked powers in order to resolve the issue at hand. This erosion of liberal democratic values, regardless of good intentions, will ensure the growth of authoritarianism in a country whose history is blotched with right-wing dictatorships and vast periods of oppression.

The War on Drugs is approaching a decade of violence with increasing evidence that the endless violence is setting the stage for anti-democratic governance to engulf the country. With reports citing an approximate 1.6 million people as having been displaced, momentum has grown within the public to equip the government with the power necessary to end the drug cartels’ reckless actions.

Polls from 2012 demonstrate that 80 percent of the Mexican population supports using the army to combat drug violence. Studies show that almost three in every four individuals (73 percent) viewed the military positively in 2012. Moreover, trust in national government leaped from 54 to 65 percent between 2011 and 2012. With the average citizen demonstrating an increased sense of trust in their government and the armed forces, civil society has overwhelmingly rejected the notion of defending human rights and basic liberties. As a matter of fact, the argument could be made that the Mexican public has decided to trade basic liberties for security. Especially with one-third of the population being in favour of having the United States send troops to Mexico, sovereignty and civil liberties are viewed as insignificant by a considerable number of the Mexican populace when it comes to combating unmanageable levels of violence.

Finally, ambitious politicians and power-hungry military leaders are not the only catalysts in Mexico’s reactionary shift towards an illiberal democracy. The government’s failure to create an adequate number of jobs, in addition to prolonged warfare between government forces and criminal organizations, has driven desperate citizens into fostering a climate that favours the deterioration of democratic values in exchange for a perceived sense of security.

Prospects for a better tomorrow?

Mexico is cursed by its geography. Although blessed with vast oil reserves, the fact that the country is nestled between the United States (the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs) and South America (a region of vast narcotic production) ensures that it is constantly battling with drugs trafficking across its borders. Needless to say, US pressure to dismantle the operations of drug producers, in addition to social unrest, puts the Mexican government in a difficult position.

While everyone who loves Mexico wants to see it flourish as a developed country, the fact is that until Mexico can attract investments, create a greater number of jobs, and restore social tranquility, it is inevitable that criminal organisations will continue to prey on impoverished and poorly educated persons. These shortcomings will only add to the conflict, resulting in continued violence and countless fatalities.

It is highly unlikely that Mexico’s War on Drugs will be resolved in the near future. If violence does subside, then the country will have a much easier task addressing issues of wealth disparity, lacklustre education, and poor labour conditions. Sadly, the reality of the situation is that violence will continue and the government will actively attempt to grant itself greater, unchecked powers to combat the problem. Doing so will inevitably dismantle what remains of the country’s democratic fabric and condemn the nation and its people to oppression by corrupt government officials.

If the government truly wishes to help its people in its campaign against narcotics, then it should also be proactive in safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring that the country’s constitution, especially regarding the judicial and legislative bodies, is respected. The failure to reverse the erosion of liberal democratic values and traditions will condemn the country to return to another period of dictatorship and political oppression. This act, which would unjustly damage the daily life of every Mexican citizen, will also inevitably add to the country’s perils by condemning future generations to a life of continued hardship, disparity, and persecution.

Is the pandemic changing attitudes towards migration?

Will Canada give its undocumented essential workers their rights? And where are the immigrants in the country’s policy debates?

Join us for a free live discussion on Thursday 26 November, 5pm UK time/12pm EST.

Hear from:

Daniel Hiebert Professor of geography at the University of British Columbia

Andrew Parkin Executive director, Environics Institute, Toronto

Usha George Professor and director, Ryerson Centre for Immigration and Settlement, Ryerson University, Canada

Keith Banting Professor emeritus and Stauffer Dunning Fellow, Queen’s University, Canada

Chair: Anna Triandafyllidou Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, Ryerson University

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData