Mexican Drug Cartels: Criminal Insurgency and State Power

Introduction

Governments in Mexico and most of Latin America are being challenged by drug gangs and cartels. The constant insecurity brought about by this power struggle erodes the authority of the state and its sovereignty, giving drug gangs and cartels both political and economic power. The constant conflicts produced by these criminal enterprises involve drug gangs and cartels seeking to detach themselves from state authorities and conduct activities that essentially make them "primitive rebels" sustaining what amounts to a criminal rebellion or insurgency. Their activities also include the provision of social amenities, the formation of narratives about power and rebellion, and gangs conducting themselves like modern social bandits to win support and power within their criminal enterprises and the geographical regions they control. They convey this message through violence and the manner in which they conduct their businesses.

The issue of Mexican drug cartels is of importance because these drug trafficking organizations have transformed into transnational criminal enterprises that have moved beyond the borders of Mexico into the United States and other Western nations, as well as West Africa and Asia (Bunker, 2013). This paper examines current studies on this particular subject, delving into the organization of Mexican drug cartels with inputs from academic, law enforcement, military personnel, and investigative reports.

Criminal Rebellion: Violence and Corruption

Mexican drug cartels have traditionally been viewed as criminal organizations to be dealt with by law enforcement agencies. However, in recent years these cartels have evolved beyond the structures of the traditional Italian Mafia model. Their operations are becoming increasingly comparable to those of terrorist outfits and insurgencies when examined under the rules of war (Cordero, 2012). Events over the past several years have repeatedly demonstrated that Mexican citizens are living in a state of terror. These drug cartels have turned torture, extortion, murder, and kidnapping into daily occurrences in Mexico. When citizens are faced with the choice of cooperation or death, there is effectively no choice. This state of terror is not confined within Mexico's borders; Americans also face these risks. Many experts have concluded that these drug cartels can be regarded as transnational terrorist organizations (Cordero, 2012).

It is well established that drug cartels use violence as an instrument in their business operations. Other tools deployed include coercion, torture, threats, and intimidation. However, these criminal organizations actively prefer to avoid detection and would rather corrupt state authorities than engage them in direct confrontations. According to Sabet (2009), drug cartels operate in a manner he describes as collusive corruption. As the current situation has demonstrated, these organizations can directly challenge the government when their interests are at stake. When the interests of both the government and criminal organizations come into conflict, criminal insurgency is one of the primary means these organizations use to confront the state. Criminal insurgency differs from traditional terrorism because the drug cartels' singular aim is to gain economic and political power over territory. They seek to achieve this by undermining the state and establishing criminal enclaves that give them the power to operate freely. When criminal organizations acquire, control, or disrupt important transport routes within transnational transport systems, the connections between these activities can have significant spillover effects (Flanigan, 2012).

Drug cartels not only seek to silence communities and rule them with impunity; they also seek to control perceptions through what has been referred to as narco-propaganda. This strategy involves the use of violent means such as murder, kidnappings, and bombings, as well as informational means including banners, barricades, orchestrated protests, and folk songs praising the virtues of these cartels (Sullivan, 2012).

Some researchers have gone so far as to equate Mexican drug cartels to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. These researchers examined the operations of the cartels, compared them to how different governments define terrorism, and then contrasted these operations against Hezbollah and Hamas. They reached several conclusions. The first was that Mexican drug cartels are confined to specific geographical locations out of necessity — similar to Hezbollah and Hamas — yet different from more networked and highly mobile terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. Mexican drug cartels seek to control specific geographical regions in order to manage trade routes and to access mountainous countryside, ensuring an advantage in evading authorities. Similar to these two Middle Eastern groups, Mexican drug cartels have deep and complicated links with the states in which they function (Flanigan, 2012).

Both Hezbollah and Hamas hold elected positions and maintain political branches, making them part of their respective governments and providing them with significant influence over government operations. By contrast, drug cartels' dealings with the Mexican government take the form of entrenched corruption and, at times, violence. Nevertheless, these strategies enable Mexican drug cartels to exert a degree of influence over the government that professionals have cautioned constitutes "state capture." Sullivan and Elkus (2010) have further asserted that Mexico is increasingly becoming a criminal state largely run by drug cartels and narco-gangs. Despite the differences between Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Mexican drug cartels — and the states in which each operates — the power and control exerted by the Mexican cartels is more comparable to these two organizations than to secretive terrorist groups like al-Qaeda (Flanigan, 2012).

Comparing Cartels to Terrorist Organizations

There are many different political, legal, and academic definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of this examination, this paper highlights how government agencies and global organizations define terrorism. Within the numerous definitions, several common ideas emerge. Nearly all definitions assert the perpetrator's aim of generating a situation of fear and terror within society. Other shared themes include the aim of influencing state actions, ideological motivations, and the targeting of civilians or government officials as part of strategy. All of these themes have been discussed in the context of how the features of Mexican cartels compare and contrast with those of Hezbollah and Hamas (Flanigan, 2012).

A frequent theme across definitions of terrorism is a group's aim of creating fear or intimidation through its activities. The notion that terrorism is theater is well established; Cohen (2009) notes that terrorism is a performance staged for viewers, the majority of whom live far from where the violent acts occur. Both Hezbollah and Hamas occasionally launch rockets into Israel which at times cause civilian casualties, and the mere possibility that a misfired rocket could strike one's home or children's school is a powerful generator of fear and an effective tactic for generating publicity about a group's political or ideological cause (Flanigan, 2012).

According to Hazen (2011), despite criminal organizations' capacity for violence, it is not their most important tool — less violence is often better for business, and violence is expensive, cutting into profitability. Research shows that criminal organizations that employ terrorist-type violence risk losing public support, which is crucial for maintaining the broad network of politicians, judges, police officers, businessmen, and bankers who protect them. Nevertheless, extreme violence in Mexico has generated an atmosphere of terror and intimidation, to the point that in December 2010 the Mexican government cautioned citizens living in the United States who were returning home for the Christmas holidays to travel only during daylight hours and in groups. Cartel violence today involves gruesome public acts, in stark contrast to the quick, clandestine assassinations of rivals that characterized the past (Flanigan, 2012).

Conclusion

Provision of utilities by drug cartels has dire consequences for democracy, sovereignty, and state security. As argued throughout this paper, the fact that a service is provided by a single party creates dependency on that party and thus confers significant influence over the recipients. When, as in this case, the service provider is a violent criminal organization, that dependency — and the power it grants over recipients — has a profound effect on democracy and stability, undermining the government's social responsibility to its citizens. Government legitimacy is eroded because officials cannot be held accountable by the public and come to be seen as unnecessary. The more that the public seeks protection and services from outside the democratic system, the less it supports that system.