By Olivia León
Since 2006, Mexico has been living through a war known for its senselessness. The declaration of the war on drugs by former President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) not only led the country into a cycle of violence and insecurity, but also marked the beginning of a process of militarization that has affected various sectors of society.
Calderón presented drugs as the new public enemy, a problem that until then did not have the magnitude he attributed to it. This strategy, also promoted by the United States, made it possible to divert public attention to a supposed crisis of insecurity linked to drug trafficking and consumption. However, far from solving the problem, violence increased, plunging the country into a human rights crisis.
Since then, the armed forces have taken on an increasingly prominent role in tasks that previously corresponded to civilians, not only in public security, but also in administrative areas. The presence of non-state armed groups (organized crime groups and self-defense groups, for example) and the inability of the state to respond to violent events have been consequences of this militarization.
CONTEXT
Eighteen years after the declaration of war by Felipe Calderón, the political, economic and social map of the country has also become more complex. On the one hand, public institutions (weakened) are in a constant struggle for territorial power. There are complicities between elements of the State and organized crime that are intertwined, allowing the expansion of the latter. State agents protect and collaborate with organized crime groups, which aggravates the situation of impunity and security at the local and national levels.
Inequality is a determinant factor as well. In Mexico, the richest man in the country owns as much as the poorest half of the population, some 63.8 million people. In Mexico, these levels of poverty and inequality become fertile ground for young people to be tempted to join organized crime or the army, thus reproducing a logic and narrative of war throughout the country. Researcher Karina García has identified common patterns among former members of organized crime: poverty, marginalization, violence and lack of formal education. These conditions create a cycle of violence that is difficult to break, where violence becomes a path to power and money, with a macho narrative that glorifies aggression and domination. She finds that there is an aspirational narrative of reproduction of violence, i.e. young people seek to have more money and be better positioned than before. In addition, machismo adds to the mix: “The narco discourse also produces the idea that ‘a real man’ has to be aggressive, violent and a womanizer.”
THE ADVANCE OF MILITARIZATION IN MEXICO
For many years, military functions in Mexico were limited to their constitutional mandate of defense against external enemies and natural disasters. However, in recent decades we have seen the exacerbation of the militarization process under the argument that the armed forces are the only ones that can maintain public security in the face of organized crime.
Since 2006, the number of military on the streets has increased significantly, while the number of police has decreased. This militarization of public security is reflected in the increase in the functions and budget of military institutions, which in AMLO’s six-year term expanded to include participation in the distribution of goods and services, infrastructure construction, immigration control and airport administration, among other tasks outside of traditional military duties.
According to the annual reports of the Secretariat of National Defense (Sedena), in 2001 19,893 elements were deployed, in 2006 there were 37,253 and in 2011, 52,690. The last report they published, in 2019, reported the same number. AMLO’s administration disappeared the civilian Federal Police and created the National Guard (on paper defined as civilian, but 82% managed and operated by the military), which today has the power to act, together with the military, against organized crime groups. On the contrary, since 2006, the number of police deployed in the country has decreased from about 434,000 troops to 231,491 active police in 2019, according to INEGI data. In the following years, a decrease in the number of police officers was observed, reaching 225,544 in 2020 and 221,281 in 2021. By 2023, the total number of members of the Secretariat of Public Security (SSP) was 143, 169 (excluding Mexico City). The increase in military presence on the ground, the increase in logistical and administrative capabilities and the increase in the military budget have gone hand in hand with the administrative, logistical and capacity weakening of a large part of public security under civilian command.
This is all part of a cycle: by acquiring new capabilities, the military has greater economic, social and political visibility and power, and such expanded capabilities and powers imply even more political power and the proliferation of military values and practices in originally civilian spheres.
THE IMPACT ON WOMEN AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
One of the main criticisms of this war is the impact it has had on the lives of women and other historically vulnerable sectors. Since 2006, we have seen a significant change in the frequency and type of violence suffered by women in the country. While from 2000 to 2006, 3 out of 10 homicides of women were armed, between 2018 and 2020 this violence increased: 6 out of 10 cases were perpetrated with a firearm. This change is related to militarization and the flow of weapons, and militarized masculinity, dominant values and norms in social institutions that maintain the patriarchal social and political order as well as the expansion of military values that associate masculinity with violence.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) condemned the actions of the Mexican armed forces for forced disappearances (Radilla Pacheco, 2009), extrajudicial executions (Trueba Arciniega, 1998), torture and violation of procedural rights (Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, 2010) and sexual assaults in Fernández Ortega et al. (2010), Rosendo Cantú (2010) and Alvarado (2018). In addition to demonstrating the violent and indiscriminate actions of the armed forces, these paradigmatic cases also reflect the absence of accountability mechanisms on the part of civil society and the incapacity of ordinary justice in the face of the national military institution. As the Inter-American Court has noted in its rulings, these cases show the strong institutional limitations in the investigation and delivery of justice at the local and national level in Mexico.
For decades, feminists and thinkers have challenged and questioned military power and have taken a stand against war and militarization. Recently, Silvia Federici called for a total halt to war:
FEMINISMS IN THE FACE OF MILITARIZATION
“I am heartbroken with what is happening in Palestine and in so many other parts of the world, it is terrible. If we are consistent with what is said every March 8, when we express our solidarity with women around the world, we must reject and oppose any kind of war, we must oppose the increase in military spending and the expansion of armies. We live in increasingly militarized, more securitarian and punitive cities. The feminist movement should stop persecuting women in sex work and focus on generating a movement that clearly says ‘no’ to war. There is nothing more violent than war.”
Cynthia Enloe and Rita Segato have explored the direct and indirect effects of militarization policies on women’s daily lives and have already pointed out how such power dynamics and state violence fuel patriarchy as it transforms gender relations. Ann Tickner described how militarization and militarized security policies have deep masculinity at their roots, as well as their effects on women and other historically vulnerable groups.
Feminists from the global south have pointed out that Latin American, African, Asian and Caribbean experiences challenge the hegemonic feminist perspectives of the global north. Thus, feminism from the global south includes a historical-cultural contextualization. For example, Mohanty also proposes to analyze the structures of domination and colonial history that shape the realities of the populations, in addition to gender inequalities of power. Rita Segato places as a central axis the political and contextual perspective to understand the different forms of articulation of power in society.
That is to say: from feminisms we have seen a critique of State institutions that systemically perpetuate violence, and feminists from the global south have pointed out the importance of dismantling, as well, the power imbalances that today cross racialized territories and populations, native peoples, rural areas, rural women and communities, migrants, day laborers, domestic workers and dissidents in these territories, as in Latin America. Militarization, Segato argues, is the continuation of colonial practices of occupation and exploitation: on the one hand by its physical presence and, on the other, by the imposition of a Westernized development model. It is crucial to point out that the opacity enjoyed by this state body allows and feeds the dynamics of violence without civil society knowing the details of what, how and why, as well as whether or not they fulfilled their operational objectives. From here, it is up to us to point out, delegitimize and dismantle this state body that has historically violated the territories and the bodies of those who have inhabited these lands with care and respect. It is also fundamental to demand participatory, transparent and accountable processes as part of the feminist agendas throughout the region.
A SECURITY AGENDA FOR MEXICO
Today we have a country with more than 115,000 missing persons and a homicide rate of 24 per 100,000 inhabitants. Moreover, Mexico continues to be a key player in the production and trafficking of illegal substances in the world.
Eighteen years of war on drugs have demonstrated that the militaristic, prohibitionist and punitive strategy has not served to reduce drug trafficking or consumption and has been the cause of the increase in violence. However, the country’s decision makers are increasingly investing in this strategy imported from the United States. AMLO’s electoral promise was to support search groups and peace movements. However, his administration decided to increase the operational and budgetary capacities of the Army instead of further strengthening other policies that could build a more just path towards a lasting peace together with the affected society. Although social programs focused on combating poverty and the lack of opportunities, particularly for young people at risk of being recruited by crime, have advanced with significant budgetary allocations, they do not in themselves constitute a security policy.
For decades, civil society has provided a series of alternative proposals for a sustained, comprehensive security strategy that addresses the root causes of the problems. Among them are controls at the northern border to limit the entry of illegal weapons into Mexico; budgetary and technical strengthening of municipal, state and federal police forces; the gradual demilitarization of public security; sustained campaigns to prevent violence in general and gender violence in particular; the regularization of marijuana to reduce the illegal market and be able to address high-impact crimes; the provision of health care and risk and harm reduction to consumers of psychoactive substances; and the implementation of a comprehensive care system that protects the dignity of people regardless of their gender identity, age, occupation or nationality.
Several media in Latin America and the world have taken a positive view of the upcoming arrival of a woman to the presidency of Mexico. From here, we know that her gender does not imply a direct compatibility with the demands of activists, women, feminists or that she privileges the interests of historically vulnerable groups. However, in two weeks, Claudia Sheinbaum will have the opportunity to prove herself an ally of the progressive and feminist agenda in Mexico and Latin America. To do so, she will need to establish participatory dialogues with feminist groups, land and water defenders, media, activists, migrants and other civil society groups that have historically been expelled from decision-making spaces.
The diversity of feminisms has recognized the urgency to create new paths towards another policy and this need goes far beyond just a change of six-year term.
