COLUMN | The Ministry of Public Security and the Debate We Have Yet to Have

What we must be able to determine, in a very responsible manner, is whether our public security problems can be resolved with a dedicated ministry or if it is more beneficial to make our existing structures function effectively, which involves identifying where we are currently failing.

The bill creating the Ministry of Public Security is entering its final stages after nearly 20 years since it was first discussed, and it has been supported by both the left and the right. Personally, I am not in favor of creating more bureaucracy, but if this results in something effective and provides better security than we currently have, then so be it.

The issue here is not the creation of the ministry and the corresponding undersecretariats, but rather how it is organized, its responsibilities, powers, and operational methods. This is a ministry that must be involved in both strategic definitions and operational matters, both of which are equally complex and important for its success.

If I were a deputy or senator, I would ask the proponents of the project to provide practical examples of day-to-day operations, the handling of high-profile crimes, operational relationships with the police, and similar matters. They say the devil is in the details, and in a ministry of this type, it certainly is.

Currently, we have a Minister of the Interior and Public Security, as well as two undersecretaries, fully dedicated to security issues, supported by a structure. The results show that they are not being effective, but – that said – there is no good analysis or diagnosis of why they are missing the mark, making it easy to say that everything can be resolved with a new ministry, which is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

That may be the case, but there remains a reasonable doubt that the problem is more complex and that, therefore, the creation of a new organization may fall short, especially if most of the operational actors are the same, referring to Carabineros, the PDI, the Public Ministry, Courts, SII, Customs, UAF, and many others.

What we do not want is to end up with something worse. We do not want to create organizations that ultimately become irrelevant or of little importance, such as governors and regional councils.

In order to give meaning to the creation of a Ministry of Public Security, we must all have answers to these simple questions:

• What will be the role and function of the Ministry of the Interior ex post the creation of the Ministry of Public Security? This question is relevant since one of the main political problems we have is security. Along with this, there is the question of what the ministries of the General Secretariat of the Presidency and the General Secretariat of Government will focus on if there is a ministry that, apparently, would be more concentrated on the overall leadership and administration of the Government (Interior) and its relations with other authorities.
• What will be the role of the presidential delegates? It is unclear what they will do. They no longer manage regional funds, and with this, they would have little or nothing to do. Along with this question, it is worth reflecting on whether it is necessary to have regional secretaries for public security. This is not clear, given that police zones and those in charge of the Public Ministry in regions report to their superiors in Santiago.
• If we have to declare States of Constitutional Exception, what role does this ministry play? Currently, while it is true that the heads of Defense report directly to the President of the Republic, the Joint Staff and the Ministry of Defense play a role in coordinating activities and resource allocations. This question also applies to the use of the Armed Forces under the concept of critical infrastructure. Issues like this must be resolved ex ante, as they create noise in the current structures and organizations, where the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, the respective undersecretariat, and the presidential delegates believe they have authority over the heads of Defense, but legally this is not the case.
• Who will have the relationship with the municipalities? A significant part of security in present-day Chile is in the hands of municipalities, which, either due to government inaction or the complexity of the public security problem at the national level, have had to take charge of the safety of their residents.

What we must be able to determine, in a very responsible manner, is whether our public security problems can be resolved with a dedicated ministry or if it is more beneficial to make our existing structures function effectively, which involves identifying where we are currently failing and, therefore, designing a national public security strategy that allows us to overcome the problems we face.

Not always putting the cart before the horse is a good idea, especially if we are not addressing the absence of an organization and intelligence system, a fundamental and basic element needed for success.

I would feel more at ease if, after conducting a shared diagnosis of public security, followed by a strategy to address the issue, it were determined – as a result of that process – that we need a dedicated ministry, then let it be so.

In conclusion, I assume that this ministry, if it comes to fruition, will assume, among its duties, the constitutional obligation of Carabineros de Chile to guarantee order and public security in the national territory, something that we know is not being fulfilled, and for which no one has been held accountable to date, and if this does not happen, it will lead us directly into the arms of a Bukele.