Reflections upon Security, Coexistence, and Disarmament

Abstract

All States coincide in monopolizing firearms in order to defend sovereignty, to guarantee independence and territorial integrity, and to fully embrace security of all citizens. Some countries such as Colombia, México and Venezuela set such principles in their constitutions.

The 1991 Constitution sustained the supremacy of the executive branch in order to maintain public order, thus getting closer to a federal scheme; and set the postulates of a new order: a municipality is a basic autonomous entity as are its authorities; a mayor is the person responsible for public order and coexistence in his/her territory as chief police officer. The latter does not hold a legal status, and it is only sustained judicially by the Consejo de Estado from an administrative viewpoint.

This issue has not deeply been covered by experts as there was no need to. However, sociopolitical circumstances that developed at the end of last century demand a thorough study to appropriately define the powers of majors as chief police officers. Our constitution coheres the executive branch with security and coexistence. The first holds the president as the main figure; the latter holds the president as the main actor.

The Constitution, by granting mayors the responsibility to preserve public order in their territory and the status of chief police officers, allows them to order temporary disarmament of citizens, acting independently from the central government, for national security purposes; – and for such purposes – they hold the monopoly to control and market fire weapons, and grant citizens permits to carry them. Yet, decree 2535, dated 1993, which has the reach of an act – the legal regulator on the matter – violates the Constitution and juridical logic since it subordinates the mayors’ will to the discretional decision made by a military officer.

In such an interim, the state has fallen prey to the game of waiting for the disarmament campaigns to bring about more results than the control activities themselves do, not being aware that by doing so the State debases itself – by blurring the role of the ruler –, loses its monopoly, and propitiates corruption in the midst of its security forces.