Introduction
In the past, during periods of imperfect but established institutionalism, it was commonly heard that the real challenge wasn’t bringing the Navy or Army onto the streets, but getting them back into their barracks. This statement carried many considerations.
The Difficulty of Returning to Barracks
Firstly, it implied that soldiers, being human beings, would find it hard to willingly return to the austerity and tedium of their barracks after experiencing both hardships and pleasures on the streets. Secondly, it suggested that once away from barracks, soldiers would start encountering poverty, wealth, and everyday life in the world, forming opinions about their surroundings. This could reignite political ambitions, draw them towards specific interests, or lead to alliances with external forces.
Unrelated Tasks and Risks
Lastly, it was crucial that military tasks remained tied to their professional lives. Assigning them non-military roles, without proper preparation, could expose them to human temptations leading to abuse or corruption. This oversight by the previous president, with the intent now suspected, made military forces complicit in business dealings to ensure their loyalty—similar to Maduro’s actions in Venezuela or Ortega’s in Nicaragua.
Giving the military tasks like port and customs administration, as was done in the previous six-year term, would eventually have consequences. The Tren Maya project temporarily boosted Southeast Mexico, enriching certain entrepreneurs, presidential relatives, and undoubtedly some military officers.
Public Administration and Military Integrity
Engaging the military in public administration undermines their professional roles, breaking the bond between them and their subordinates. A general or colonel with a position that suggests corruption risks breaking institutional loyalty. Subordinates might then extort their superiors, as seen in a case where a marino denounced his superior last year, leading to his mysterious death.
The True Danger
The real danger lies in shifting military loyalty to money and business partners, rather than their original commitment. This shift poses a greater threat than the initial concerns about military involvement in public affairs.
Recent Events: The Navy and Fuel Theft
Last week, news broke about the seizure of 10 million liters of gasoline, falsely labeled as lubricants. This incident triggered investigations resulting in the arrest of eight individuals, six navy personnel, and two businessmen involved in tax-free fuel smuggling. Their positions in customs facilitated their illicit activities.
While the misconduct of a few should not condemn an entire organization, we can expect to learn more about similarly serious matters involving the military.
Key Questions and Answers
- What are the risks of involving the military in public administration? The risks include undermining military integrity, breaking the bond between officers and subordinates, and shifting loyalty to financial interests rather than their original commitment.
- What happened in the recent case involving the Navy? Ten million liters of gasoline, falsely labeled as lubricants, were seized. This led to the arrest of six navy personnel and two businessmen involved in tax-free fuel smuggling, facilitated by their positions in customs.
- How does military involvement in public works impact military culture? Assigning unrelated tasks to the military can erode their professional spirit, endanger unit cohesion and loyalty, and shift their allegiance to financial interests or business partners.
