Controversy over the National Guard Law: Military personnel could be deputies and presidents

The most controversial article in the new National Guard Law opens the door for its members to run for political office. Discover how this "special license" works and why it threatens democracy.

At the heart of the controversial new National Guard Law lies an article that could redraw Mexico's political map: Article 44, which grants members of the militarized body a legal path to run for elected office, including the Presidency.

The approval of the new National Guard Law has not only transferred control of the Guard to the Ministry of National Defense (SEDENA), but has also introduced one of the most explosive and hotly debated provisions in recent Mexican legislative history: the possibility that its members, trained under military discipline, could become legislators, mayors, or even the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.

This change, contained in Article 44 of the new law, has raised alarm among the opposition and analysts, who see it as a direct threat to the historical separation between military and civilian power in Mexico.

The "Special License": The Bridge from the Militia to Politics

The mechanism enabling this transition is a measure known as "special leave." According to the approved law, members of the National Guard will be able to request this leave to separate from their duties and run in elections. The established deadlines are clear:

* For positions such as deputies or senators: They must resign from their position 90 days before the election.

* For the office of President of the Republic: They must separate six months before election day.

The Official Justification: A Constitutional Right

The ruling party has defended this measure as a simple matter of legal consistency. Ricardo Monreal, Morena's coordinator in the Chamber of Deputies, argued that the Constitution guarantees all Mexicans the right to vote and be voted for. From his perspective, the law only regulates how members of the National Guard can exercise that right, establishing the necessary separation periods, as is done for other public officials. "What is being done now is to provide consistency in ordinary legislation," Monreal stated.

The Opposition Alarm: "Militarization of Public Life"

The opposition's reaction has been outright and resounding. They consider this clause not a mere technical adjustment, but a fundamental change that could have disastrous consequences for Mexican democracy.

"It's not just an administrative change (...), it's a reform that consolidates the militarization of public security, and not only that, it consolidates the militarization of public life in Mexico." – Laura Ballesteros Mancilla, Representative of the Citizen Movement.

The main concerns expressed by legislators from parties such as the PAN and Movimiento Ciudadano are the following:

* Conflict of Interest: A legislator or official who comes from the military ranks may have divided loyalties between their constituents and their home institution, especially when voting on defense budgets, oversight of the armed forces, or human rights investigations.

* Erosion of Civil Power: The creation of a political "caste" with military origins could normalize the presence of the Armed Forces in decision-making spheres that, by tradition and democratic principle, should be exclusively civilian.

* Authoritarian Model: The PAN has warned that, under the pretext of security, an attempt is being made to impose an "authoritarian model that puts democracy at risk."

A Debate with History and Uncertain Future

The sensitivity of the issue lies in Mexico's history and the decades-long effort to keep the Armed Forces subordinate to elected civilian power. The new law not only blurs this line, but also creates an entirely new career path: from the barracks to the bench.

This raises crucial questions for the future: Will we see the emergence of a parliamentary bloc with a pro-military agenda? How will the power dynamics change if a former National Guard general comes to govern a state or hold a senior cabinet position? Critics view the short separation of 90 days or six months as a mere legal formality, insufficient to erase a lifetime of military training, loyalty, and vision. The door has been opened, and the consequences for those who cross it remain to be seen.