Complicity and Complacency. By Juan Carlos Bajanda. Now that it's fashionable on social media to, on the one hand, assign blame for the complicity of public officials with organized crime, and on the other, to label as traitors those who request their extradition to the USA, it's important to make a few observations. On the one hand, I don't believe there is a single ruler who is immune to the influence of criminal groups, without this necessarily implying that they are complicit. And on the other hand, I highly doubt that someone who asks for corrupt politicians to be brought to justice in the USA can be called a traitor, given the more than justified lack of confidence in Mexico's justice system. When I say that it's almost impossible for a public official from Governor Down to be immune to the corrupting inertia of drug trafficking, I'm not saying that they are necessarily complicit, or at least not by their own initiative in every case. When we see on the news that a mayor has been murdered by a criminal group, we immediately assume complicity with that group or with its rivals. But it's equally likely that their murder was precisely for the opposite reason: for refusing to be complicit with one or the other. Similarly, it's almost impossible not to think that those who aren't murdered collaborate in one way or another with organized crime, whether by actively participating with police resources or simply by turning a blind eye when crimes are committed. One of the maxims of politics is that power abhors a vacuum. When a political figure or institution abandons a territorial or leadership position, another force immediately occupies it. The official policy of hugs, not bullets, did precisely that relinquishing the power of the state to the detriment of local governments first, then regional governments and finally national governments. That's why I think it's almost impossible for any mayor or lately any high-ranking official to be beyond the corrupting reach of organized crime. They may have the best intentions at the start of their political careers, but once in office, they face a harsher reality than they expected. Either silver or lead, Escobar used to say, and they can't expect protection from the central government, which has abdicated its state power with its policy of inaction. Does this mean these officials are innocent? No, the moment they agree to a deal in exchange for their lives or the lives of their families, they are automatically guilty, whether or not they accept money in return. This is the price to pay when the government refuses to use the Leviathan, the full force of the state. And excuses like I didn't know or I expected government protection are useless. In these violent times, any politician knows what they're getting into, regardless of whether their intentions are good or bad. It's the result of complacency, the vulnerability of institutions in abstract terms, but objectively, it's a death sentence for well intentioned public officials, or failing that complicity with organized crime due to a lack of options. In the end, with an action we all lose, and the result is hugs and bullets.