Negative prospects for National Guard reform

A constitutional reform is being voted on in the Mexican Congress that would transfer control of the National Guard, currently under the Ministry of Citizen Security (SSPC), to the Ministry of National Defense (SEDENA). While the reform formalizes an already existing organization, de factoThe formalization of this situation, to varying degrees, over several decades has had massive implications for security in Mexico.

The impact of the reform on the security situation in Mexico is negative. The main reason for the reform appears to be the inability of the civilian authorities to curb crime and violence. However, apart from the strong public support for military organizations in Mexico, there is insufficient evidence to assume that the military is more effective and less corrupt than the civilian population in carrying out public security tasks.

The changes to the law create a kind of state of emergency, as the military personnel of the National Guard are partially subject to a different legal system. This significantly reduces their accountability for human rights violations and corruption. It also greatly reduces the transparency of their budget, as their spending could be classified as national security spending without sufficient justification. This situation is further aggravated when we combine it with the increasing economic and political power that the military is acquiring in Mexico.

The following section focuses on the impact of the reform on Mexican national security and bilateral relations between Mexico and the United States.

Impact on national security strategy

The motives of the reform speak to the need for a military force capable of confronting the growing and sophisticated power of criminal organizations. The state’s response implicitly assumes that we are at war and that the solution should therefore be in the hands of the military. This is very reminiscent of the policies of President Calderón, but on steroids, a policy that López Obrador and his allies have so often condemned but from which they have benefited politically.

The creation of such a powerful organization in a fiscally and politically centralized country introduces significant distortions in national security strategy. If the military effectively runs the affair (as it already does under the outgoing López Obrador administration), there will be significantly less focus on non-coercive solutions such as drug legalization or truly effective and targeted programs for populations vulnerable to joining criminal organizations (which is not the focus of current programs).

In a sense, the reform blurs the distinction between public and national security even further. This has a significant impact on the definition of national security, a term that has been used conveniently (and perhaps illegally) for several years to avoid transparency regarding government spending and actions. It goes in the wrong direction by reducing the specialization of police organizations. A more practical solution would have been to set up a specialized body to combat influential criminal organizations, rather than a multitasking, oversized military police that caters to the preferences of the incumbent executive, which may not correspond to the real needs of the population.

This expansion of formal military power has been accompanied by an informal process of militarization of state and municipal police forces, with many commanders coming from the army and navy. While this has led to greater alignment among different levels of government in the fight against organized crime, actual results do not indicate a reduction in crime rates. Moreover, this alignment has come with significant opportunity costs, including a relative reduction in attention and budgets devoted to combating ordinary crimes that directly affect most citizens. The reform reinforces a narrative that equates public safety primarily with drug cartel leaders and high-profile events such as massacres and street shootings in many Mexican cities. This narrative creates misguided incentives and diverts focus and budgets away from ordinary crimes that affect citizens’ daily lives.

Impact on relations between Mexico and the United States

As for the impact on Mexico-US relations, a scenario of an ambiguous response by the United States is likely to be similar to that seen in its relationship with President Bukele in El Salvador. On the one hand, the US recognizes the progress made in reducing crime and, as a result, reducing migration to the US. On the other hand, the US expresses its concern about human rights violations and the authoritarian tendencies of the regime.

If this also applies to relations with Mexico, the extent of the US government’s cooperation and support in security tasks will depend on the security policy results of the new Mexican government. Given past experience, it is unlikely that the reform will lead to greater security and will likely result in human rights violations and abuses by the authorities. Therefore, the prognosis for relations between Mexico and the US in light of the changes in security policy is not positive.

However, the US is unlikely to exert significant pressure on Mexico over human rights abuses. A more pressing issue for the US would be the growing power of the military, especially when combined with corruption and alliances with criminal organizations. Therefore, reform itself may not pose an immediate problem for bilateral relations, but its outcomes could be crucial in determining whether conflict occurs.

Unfortunately, the prospects for success of the National Guard reform are negative. It reveals a state that is unable to develop evidence-based solutions and move beyond harsh policies that lack sufficient evidence of success and are known to have harmful and regressive effects on human rights.