It must be said in all letters: Carlos Negro's security management is a disaster. Point. The numbers don't lie, neither do the shootings, and ordinary people aren't surprised when they hear about another homicide. Criticizing that isn't an act of courage; it's the bare minimum required. Anyone with two front fingers and a minimal sense of reality can see that the State, in matters of public order, is failing dramatically.
But beware: Bordaberry and the Republican Coalition are not criticizing because they care about the substance of the problem. They criticize because it comes as a gift. It is the criticism of low political costs, the one that does not risk a single penny of the donations that arrive on time each campaign, that does not jeopardize ties with that friendly businessmen who prefer that the State continue to distribute privileges rather than open the doors
to real competition.
Because if they really wanted to disassemble the root causes of why Uruguay doesn't finish taking off, they would have to talk about something else. They should point out how certain groups have almost absolute control over the importation of essential goods—Lestido is the most visible example—thanks to regulations and barriers that the State itself maintains in place. It's not a “market”; it's a captured market. It's political privilege disguised as a company.
They would have to question the very existence of public companies, those inefficient mastodons that live out of the taxpayer's pocket, that compete with an unfair advantage and that, instead of generating wealth, generate deficits and clientelism. There is no true economic freedom when the State is judge and party, owner and regulator at the same time.
And most of all they would have to talk about the cost of living. The one that doesn't go down even if the dollar collapses, because the problem isn't the currency: it's the structure that prevents real competition from lowering prices. It is the de facto network of protections, subsidies and monopolies that makes four players keep the income that should be distributed among millions of Uruguayans who
work and consume.
But no. They don't touch that. Because touching it would mean facing the same people who sign the checks for the campaigns. It would mean admitting that part of the model they defend is also rotten by interventionism and prebendism. It's easier—and more cost-effective—to focus on managing Black. Yes, there: guaranteed headlines, applause from the anti-government rostrum and zero risk of losing the support of those who really pull the economic strings
.
It's the same logic as always: you attack what hurts the electoral adversary because it hurts the electoral adversary. But what hurts the country is protected because it hurts your own pocket and that of the sponsors. It's a balance of opposition. She's the one who barks loudly where there's nothing to lose and quietly shut up where the real interests are
at stake.
Bordaberry and the Republican Coalition are not the alternative to statism; they are another version of the same problem with a different uniform. They criticize security because there are no checks to lose there. But when it comes to truly opening up the economy, ending artificial monopolies, eliminating public companies that distort everything, and lowering the cost of living through genuine competition, they
prefer complicit silence.
As long as they keep doing this, they can keep shouting at Negro. It sounds harsh. It sounds oppositional. But it does not deceive those who understand that fundamental problems are not solved with campaign speeches. They are resolved by breaking the privileges that the State distributes among friends. And that, unfortunately, does not seem to suit them.
