The scene is disturbing to say the least. A man approaches Claudia Sheinbaum from behind, kisses her on the back of the neck and tries to run his hands over her body. Seconds later, a guard blocks his path to separate him from the president. A moment that ended in an anecdote but which could very well have changed the history of Mexico.
Beyond the unacceptable abuse represented by the physical interference of a man with a woman, which has already been discussed in other spaces in the last few hours, it is an outrage that also leaves an uncomfortable lesson. If something more tragic did not happen it is because the excessive enthusiasm of this reckless and violent person was not destructive. But this should make us think that the country has gone to the detriment of the mood of an exalted person. The ease with which a spontaneous person was able to come into physical contact with the president reveals the enormous vulnerability in which the presidential figure finds himself.
It should be remembered that President López Obrador, despite the pleasure it gave him to be surrounded by people, travel on commercial lines and shake hands with anyone who approached him, at a certain point stopped doing so. After a couple of years of frequent bathing in the village, he must have received some signal to introduce a drastic change. He did not lose the habit of touring the territory almost every weekend, but for the rest of the six-year period he did so in compliance with strict security measures: only on military planes and public events were generally held in army hangars, in the cities visited or in closed places.
The specific reason that pushed López Obrador to change the habits that had accompanied him for decades has never been revealed. And it must not have been easy to accept that change, because he always stated that direct contact with people was a strategic part of his political conception and his personal nature. That is to say, the reason that forced him to take that distance must not have been trivial.
Whatever the reason, logic would suggest that the reasons are still valid. Worse, they could have gotten worse. Most of the political attacks in recent months relate in one way or another to organized crime. This is undoubtedly the case of the execution of Carlos Manzo, municipal president of Uruapan, which shocked the country; as well as the dozens of assassinations of councilors and officials we have suffered recently.
Claudia Sheinbaum has left behind the “hugs, not bullets” strategy and the frontal crusade led by her Security Secretary, Omar García Harfuch, to weaken the cartels is visible. He himself, as we know, narrowly escaped an attack on him in the previous six-year term, apparently orchestrated by the CJNG.
This is not only an unprecedented rate of arrests of criminals (34,000 in the first year), but also weekly beheadings of executives and strategic leaders of these organizations. The economic blows inflicted on the operation and the seizures of drugs, piracy and fuel worth billions of pesos must undermine the functioning of criminal organizations not exactly known for their kindness or their Franciscan detachments.
But surely the most irritating thing for the crime bosses was the breaking of an unwritten but quite widespread tradition in Latin America, which consisted of not extraditing drug lords to the United States. The sending of the 51 most important leaders who were in Mexican prisons to North American prisons should have been interpreted as “the violation” of a tradition, the transgression of a limit. For all of them, isolation from their group and separation from their family constitutes the worst nightmare, accustomed, as they are, to leading a life of privileges, respect and consideration in our country’s prisons.
Therefore, if in the previous six-year mandate the president deemed it appropriate to adopt a more cautious attitude, there would be more reasons to resume it now, considering that the main generator of violence in the country is certainly affected by the changes promoted by the current administration.
And, moreover, it is not the only source of danger. The political polarization, the exaltation of hatred and passions provoked by the new public conversation based on visceral and fake newsthey are fertile ground for deranged martyrs and desperate fanatics. Access to the president, apparently guaranteed, as demonstrated by the images of public events released every weekend, is the worst incentive for an unbalanced person with initiative.
And finally there are the hidden agendas of the greedy economic and political interests of the troubled river that would result from the instability generated by an act of that nature. Or worse yet, the perverse strategy that could lead some political force or actor to carry out an act in order to attribute it to an opponent.
It is not about making bad omens, but about doing what is necessary to substantially reduce the probability of an irreversible tragedy and avoid the regret of not having done something to prevent it. It will be said that if a powerful force really wanted to try, there would be no way around it. But that’s not the case. First of all because a protection strategy, as exists in other countries, reduces the possibility of spontaneous and possible interested parties. Secondly, because even trying decreases your chances of success. It is precisely for this reason that García Harfuch survived.
We understand that the president rejects such precautions and considers contact with people necessary. But it is not a question of courage or trust in the affection of citizens. With 124 million people and a society riddled with violence, the risk is clear.
Ultimately this is an institutional responsibility. It is no coincidence that in other countries the interim president is forced to follow security protocols that are beyond his control. Whoever wears the presidential armband, in a certain sense, “no longer belongs”, as López Obrador said. From the moment he becomes head of state, he takes on considerations and responsibilities that go beyond personal tastes or a high dose of courage. It is not right that the country’s fate, on this point, lies in the pilgrim hope that no one, in that crowd that surrounds it every weekend, harbors other, more perverse intentions.
