A Failed Mexican State? Challenging the Oversimplified Narrative of Mexico's Drug War

The general understanding of Mexico's drug war has tended toward simplistic, particularly in our assumption that the states in which the drug war exists are failed states based on a narrow definition of state legitimacy as dependent on a monopoly of violence. Through the cartels' use of violence and the use of violence by the Autodefensas born to fight the cartels, the Mexican state's monopoly of violence is put into question. Although this monopoly of violence is an incredibly important factor of any state, its central use in labeling Mexico as a failed state may not be fair or useful.I look at the accuracy and fairness of contemporary failed state accusations for drug exporting countries by looking at Michoacán, Mexico as a case study and examining this case study in its transnational context to also include the Mexican drug trade’s origins in Colombia. I explore the failed state debate through the classic theoretical literature upon which it is based, but also engage the contemporary rhetoric emanating from political actors and non-governmental organizations that seek to define state failure in clear cut terms through analytical tools such as predictive models of state failure. I use statistics on violence and cartel activities compiled by the Mexican government and NGOs to illustrate the context that informs this debate.I have found that assessments of state failure depend too heavily on an understanding of state legitimacy as dependent on monopoly of violence. This interpretation of state failure is often devoid of nuance, failing to reflect important differences between different substate groups that challenge the monopoly of violence (i.e. groups’ organizational strength, ideological motivations, the multiplicity of groups, objectives of their violence). All these specific differences are important in the context of state stability, yet they are often not included in assessments of state failure. Uniform assessments of state failure are too broad to capture the important particularities of specific states. These assessments of state failure can then be unfair because they may prematurely label a country as failing, and not useful because they may push international actors to intervene prematurely, further destabilizing already complicated issues