More Worrying about Local Governments

Following Mauricio Merino last week, two more El Universal columnists worry about the local governments. First, Macario Schettino:

The state and municipal governments in Mexico don't have the capacity to provide public goods, which is of course the case with security, the same as in many other cases. Nor can they collect taxes, to be sure. If they can't take these elemental actions of a government, why do they exist?

At this moment, they are only good for losing government funds. Although we can know how much the federal government spends, on what, how and when, we can't know that for the state government. While congress has the president permanently on his toes, in the states the congresses are subordinated to the government.

Second, Jorge Chabat:

Although before the law drug-trafficking is a federal crime, in practice it affects all levels of government. It's similar to education: if primary education is deficient, than it's worthless to improve masters and doctorates programs. You have to attack the problem at its root. And the lack of protection and lack of resources in the cities and states is the root of the incapacity of the state to combat drug trafficking. Is it not time that Mexico, as a whole, commits to resolving this situation, before there's not even one honest cop alive?

With its present voting rates, reelection alone wouldn't be the answer, because that could imply Mario Marín and Ulises Ruiz in control of Puebla and Oaxaca for decades. But local and state politicians today have neither the time (since most of them are there only four years) or the incentive (because their next election depends much more on their cronies in the party than on their performance in office) to improve city and state government.