The recent initiative of President Felipe Calderon to form 32 state police corps who will be in charge of the security of the country's municipalities has, as any initiative of this size, pros and cons that should be carefully analyzed.
I am presenting in this article are some arguments for and against this initiative, and some questions that those in charge to jump-start this project will have to answer to legislators and the public at some point.
In a country where everything has historically been centralized in Mexico City, in the state capitals and in large municipalities, small towns and cities, which are thousands, would be the direct benefactors of this new proposal. With very limited economic, human and material resources, the small towns of the country will feel the relief that a greater law enforcement agency will take responsibility for public safety in their jurisdictions. For small towns -where the police force consist of 10 to 15 elements poorly trained, poorly armed and above all, poorly paid, that normally face commandos of 30 to 40 criminals trained and armed with grenades, Barrett rifles, Kalashnikovs, Glocks and elite military weaponry- the arrival of a more professional team, would take the hassle from thousands of mayors nationwide.
On the cons, I see two that should be weighed. In large cities the issue of safety is also an economic and political one. The city of Leon, for example, has a security budget of around 70 million dollars annually. Any municipality that receives a check of that size will not be willing to give it to the state government to manage their security. Let us remember that the budget is the blood and oxygen that feeds bureaucracies around the world and no mayor handling a sum that size will be happy to turn it back to the governor.
Another con I see with this bill is that the governors will control those police corps. Mexican governors already enjoy budgeting and spending powers with very little accountability. In addition, a tacit agreement with their successors –no matter from which party- in which they will not be prosecuted for the irregularities that they find at their arrival, gives Mexico’s state governors a look that is closer to feudal lords than to modern civil servants: they manage resources, programs and people as suits them and, since there is no reelection in the executive branches, they look for their personal projects and not for their constituencies. I do not know if you would want these gentlemen to be in charge of the safety of your cities and neighborhoods.
The following questions must be answered: Who will be in charge of training those police units? Under what regulations will these new units abide: federal, state or the current municipal regulations? Who will manage the intelligence and analysis, and who will be the final "clients" or end users of this information, the governors or mayors? Does this new initiative include a plan to prevent defections from newly trained agents? Experience in many municipalities shows that after they train new agents in advanced techniques, they resign shortly after the training was given to leave, in the best cases, to work as bodyguards for some rich guy or for a private security company, which means a waste of taxpayers money. How do you break the chain of corruption that exists between our police and their commanders? With such low wages, no principles, and with no vocation from our police officers, the daily bribes that they accept from 2 to 10 dollars, is the easiest way for those cops to pay for their bills. If this new option fails to encourage a police career plan, it will seem that we will be only cutting one of the intermediaries in the chain of corruption.
The most important questions are: Will the public believe again in their police? Will we feel someday protected, not threatened and offended by them? The answer, as Bob Dylan says, is blowing in the wind.
pesquera@gmail.com
Twitter @robertopesquera
I am presenting in this article are some arguments for and against this initiative, and some questions that those in charge to jump-start this project will have to answer to legislators and the public at some point.
In a country where everything has historically been centralized in Mexico City, in the state capitals and in large municipalities, small towns and cities, which are thousands, would be the direct benefactors of this new proposal. With very limited economic, human and material resources, the small towns of the country will feel the relief that a greater law enforcement agency will take responsibility for public safety in their jurisdictions. For small towns -where the police force consist of 10 to 15 elements poorly trained, poorly armed and above all, poorly paid, that normally face commandos of 30 to 40 criminals trained and armed with grenades, Barrett rifles, Kalashnikovs, Glocks and elite military weaponry- the arrival of a more professional team, would take the hassle from thousands of mayors nationwide.
On the cons, I see two that should be weighed. In large cities the issue of safety is also an economic and political one. The city of Leon, for example, has a security budget of around 70 million dollars annually. Any municipality that receives a check of that size will not be willing to give it to the state government to manage their security. Let us remember that the budget is the blood and oxygen that feeds bureaucracies around the world and no mayor handling a sum that size will be happy to turn it back to the governor.
Another con I see with this bill is that the governors will control those police corps. Mexican governors already enjoy budgeting and spending powers with very little accountability. In addition, a tacit agreement with their successors –no matter from which party- in which they will not be prosecuted for the irregularities that they find at their arrival, gives Mexico’s state governors a look that is closer to feudal lords than to modern civil servants: they manage resources, programs and people as suits them and, since there is no reelection in the executive branches, they look for their personal projects and not for their constituencies. I do not know if you would want these gentlemen to be in charge of the safety of your cities and neighborhoods.
The following questions must be answered: Who will be in charge of training those police units? Under what regulations will these new units abide: federal, state or the current municipal regulations? Who will manage the intelligence and analysis, and who will be the final "clients" or end users of this information, the governors or mayors? Does this new initiative include a plan to prevent defections from newly trained agents? Experience in many municipalities shows that after they train new agents in advanced techniques, they resign shortly after the training was given to leave, in the best cases, to work as bodyguards for some rich guy or for a private security company, which means a waste of taxpayers money. How do you break the chain of corruption that exists between our police and their commanders? With such low wages, no principles, and with no vocation from our police officers, the daily bribes that they accept from 2 to 10 dollars, is the easiest way for those cops to pay for their bills. If this new option fails to encourage a police career plan, it will seem that we will be only cutting one of the intermediaries in the chain of corruption.
The most important questions are: Will the public believe again in their police? Will we feel someday protected, not threatened and offended by them? The answer, as Bob Dylan says, is blowing in the wind.
pesquera@gmail.com
Twitter @robertopesquera
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario