The paradox is clear: Mexico does not lack laws, diagnoses or structures; lacks the will to respect and perfect them. The result is a system that does not evolve, but rather constantly restarts, trapped in a cycle of simulation and institutional wear and tear that keeps public security hostage to political vicissitudes.
The partisan capture of security
One of the main obstacles to a lasting security policy is its capture by partisan interests. Security should be a state policy, but in Mexico it has been treated as an electoral tool. Programs, strategies and even institutions are molded with the logic of political benefit, not public benefit. Thus, each party arrives with its “brand” and its “narrative”, seeking to differentiate itself from the previous one, even if that means destroying what had already been advanced.
The National Guard is a clear example: it was born as a promise of demilitarization, but was quickly absorbed by the logic of political and military control. It was not consolidated as a civil institution nor was it allowed to objectively evaluate its performance. Something similar happens in states and municipalities: security councils or “citizen” councils are used as political platforms, funds are distributed based on partisan affinity, and evaluations are disguised to fit the narrative of the government in power. As long as security remains a partisan banner, it will be impossible to build stable, long-term policies.
Local personalism: power over results
Security policy at the local level is hijacked by the personalism of authorities that privilege political control over technical capacity. Governors and mayors frequently replace trained operational leaders with people of trust or political affinity, regardless of their experience. Security holders are changed as if they were campaign pieces, which breaks operational continuity and discourages any attempt at professionalization.
This phenomenon has a high cost: unmotivated police forces, loss of institutional knowledge and fragmentation in the chain of command. Each new starter arrives with his own team, restructures departments, changes uniforms, modifies logos and redoes protocols. In the end, the discourse of “refounding security” only conceals the desire for control. Instead of strengthening institutions, fiefdoms are built. And while the commanders vie for authority, organized crime maintains its pace, without worrying about the whims of local power.
Budgets without diagnosis: austerity that kills
Misunderstood austerity has also seriously damaged public safety. In many municipalities, the resources allocated are not related to the magnitude of violence or real needs. Local police operate with unmaintained vehicles, expired uniforms, and salaries that do not guarantee integrity or professionalism. But even more serious is that there are no public, technical and updated diagnoses that guide the allocation of resources.
Every year cuts or increases are announced without explaining based on what criteria they are determined. Municipal strengthening programs, such as the extinct FORTASEG, disappeared without solid alternatives. Instead, discretionary, centralized, and often opaque supports are distributed. Mexico needs a security budget policy based on evidence, where money follows the diagnosis, not the discourse. Otherwise, “austerity” becomes an elegant form of institutional abandonment.
Opacity as the norm: resources without accountability
The lack of transparency in security spending is an open wound that prevents any serious evaluation. Although official reports report investment figures, it is almost impossible to track how those resources are used, what programs are implemented, or what results they obtain. Audit mechanisms are often weak or complacent, and citizen reports are ignored.
Opacity fosters inefficiency and corruption. In some municipalities, training or equipment purchases are simulated that are never delivered. In others, federal resources are diverted to campaigns or administrative expenses unrelated to security. Without accountability, there is no institutional learning possible. And without evaluation, public policy becomes an act of faith: errors are repeated expecting different results.
