COMMENTARY | A Look at the Project to Create the Ministry of Public Security

The bill proposing the creation of a Ministry of Public Security aims to separate the political role of the ministerial cabinet chief from the technical role of the person responsible for the country’s security. While a positive aspect is that it gives a state policy stamp to security, it is important to analyze certain elements that should be present in the parliamentary discussion to ensure the project’s success. 

• The submitted bulletin states that this new ministry will assist the President of the Republic in matters of public security. It is essential to clarify that the ministry is not merely an assistant to the President, but rather the institution through which the President exercises political leadership over security. 

• This is fundamental because the leadership of security entails responsibility and political will to carry it out. Incorporating this into the project is a key aspect to address the main crisis facing Chile. 

• The President should develop and present security guidelines that become the cornerstone for the development of a strategy by the relevant institutions. Thus, the term collaborate is less appropriate than lead.  

• In this same vein, a thorough examination of the proposed Public Security Council is required, as if a key aspect of the project is coordination with other institutions, it would be more appropriate to consider a National Security Council that operates above the ministries under the authority of the President of the Republic, with powers to coordinate and integrate national efforts in security (both external and internal).

• Regarding civilian control of the police, it is important to emphasize that this should rest with the Minister, not the Undersecretary. It is understood that this responsibility falls to the second authority of the institution when the first also served as the cabinet chief. With the creation of a new ministry specifically for this matter, the dilemma between political and technical roles is resolved, so the one who should exercise civilian control over the police should be the Minister of Security. 

• The chain of command is a critical aspect. Defining the command structure and avoiding mutual interference should be at the center of the project; otherwise, the political leadership that the President must exercise could fail. 

• In relation to the above, the hierarchies and participation of the presidential delegate, regional governor, regional secretary, and mayors should be clearly defined to generate the necessary synergies and avoid mutual interference, which affects the appropriate response to security issues.

Final Reflections

The bill creating the Ministry of Public Security places significant emphasis on the concept of coordination, understanding that this new institution will be the articulator of the state’s response in matters of public security.

While there is a need for an articulating entity, that responsibility should not fall on a ministry, as it, like its counterparts, is responsible for implementing the President’s political leadership in various matters of national interest. Furthermore, the articulation of security is a task that goes beyond public security (the internal aspect of national security) since the state has all the instruments of power to provide security in its broadest sense to the population. These instruments of power must be utilized with varying emphasis depending on the context of crisis (political and technical). Therefore, to correctly implement the articulation in security matters, a system should be created that encompasses all institutions and aims to generate preventive, reactive, and punitive actions; this system should be articulated by an entity directly dependent on the President (the political leader of security) and endowed with the power to integrate and coordinate the institutional framework. In this way, the coordinating spirit that the project brings could be effectively and efficiently realized. 

In that scenario, the hierarchies among institutions, units, and services of the state, as well as with regional and municipal governments, are of great relevance. Integrating the different levels of the state is key to achieving a successful outcome; however, to reach that success, it is necessary to consider mutual interference and create a management model that avoids it. The focus should be on creating synergies.

Civilian control should be exercised by the highest authority of the ministry. It is the President, through their Minister, who exercises leadership over security, which also includes the political command of public order and security institutions, and that political command is held by the Minister, not the Undersecretary.

The internal structure of the Ministry should address the main weaknesses currently present in the Ministry of the Interior, in order to rectify problems and design a streamlined structure that allows for the implementation of the concepts of integration and coordination, which are so prevalent throughout the project. The internal security scenario is not the same, so maintaining the same bureaucratic structure will not be the solution. 

Finally, the project should demonstrate clarity in political leadership and in the accountability that the President should have in this matter. The security guidelines, which clearly express the political directives in this area, should serve as the guiding document for strategy and force planning. Defining the roadmap is the only way to begin to realize that coordination. We hope that the necessary aspects can be corrected in time for a better project.