Notimex
02/11/2025
By Naurah Salsabila
In the room of the Crisis Council, papers are passed, directives are drafted, and statements are delivered with conviction. But beneath the surface of procedural momentum lies a troubling pattern: the rise of symbolic politics, where action is measured not by impact, but by appearance.
Delegates speak of factories, rifles, and reform. They propose scholarship programs, weapon production, and intelligence restructuring. Yet, as the council moves from one directive to another, the question remains: are these solutions, or performances?
The FX-05 rifle scandal is a case in point. A weapon designed to symbolize national strength ended up injuring soldiers and costing lives. The general responsible was stripped of rank, but the damage was done. The rifle was not just a failed tool, it was a failed symbol. And in the rush to produce something “Mexican,” the council forgot to ask if it was ready.
Similarly, the closure of fruit factories in Milko Hakan sparked outrage. Delegates debated the economic fallout, but few addressed the deeper issue: why were these decisions made without public consultation? The factory became a symbol of state control, not community resilience.
Even the intelligence crisis, CISEN’s infiltration, was met with calls for reform, asset tracking, and oversight. But reform without accountability is just another symbol. And oversight without transparency is theater.
Symbolic politics thrives in crisis. It offers the illusion of progress, the comfort of motion. But Mexico cannot afford illusions. The war on cartels, the economic collapse, the erosion of public trust, these are not problems that can be solved with gestures.
Delegates must ask themselves: are we passing directives to solve problems, or to be seen solving them? The difference is not semantic, it is structural. A directive that looks good on paper but lacks implementation is not policy. It is performance.
This pattern of symbolic action is not new. Contemporary research shows that governments often rely on symbolic policy to signal responsiveness during crises, even when such policies have limited practical effect. In the context of Mexico’s current crisis, such gestures may temporarily reassure the public, but they do little to dismantle the systems that allow cartels to thrive.
Moreover, symbolic politics risks alienating the very communities it claims to protect. When decisions are made without consultation, when reforms are announced without follow-through, citizens begin to see the state not as a partner, but as a performer. Trust erodes, and with it, the legitimacy of governance.
Notimex urges the council to move beyond symbolism. Directives must be rooted in data, not drama. Policies must be measured by outcomes, not optics and leadership must be defined by integrity, not intensity. Mexico does not need more symbols. It needs solutions.
This reliance on symbolic gestures also affects internal council dynamics. Delegates often align themselves with proposals that sound bold or patriotic, regardless of feasibility. The FX-05 rifle, for instance, was not just a technical failure—it became a political litmus test. Supporting it meant supporting national pride, even when the weapon itself endangered troops. Similarly, the push for domestic factory closures was framed as a strategic sacrifice, yet lacked economic cushioning for displaced workers. These decisions, while rhetorically powerful, reveal a deeper issue: the conflation of symbolism with leadership.
Furthermore, the media plays a role in amplifying symbolic narratives. Headlines focus on dramatic directives, while implementation gaps go unnoticed. Public perception is shaped not by outcomes, but by announcements. In this environment, the council risks becoming a stage rather than a solution space. Notimex calls for a recalibration,where symbolism supports substance, not replaces it. Only then can Mexico move from performance to progress.