Without a doubt, the figures that are most interested in the National Urban Survey on citizen Security (ENUS C 2019) are those of victimization or the rate of denunciation. However, this instrument allows to collect more extensive information, which can be used to analyze multiple phenomena associated with the management of citizen security.
Thus, the ENUSC includes, since 2015, a series of questions concerning the confidence that people feel about the main public institutions linked to this area. In this sense, it is possible to indicate that the tendencies observed so far would speak of an extended scenario of distrust, but that gradually has been diminishing its magnitude, assuming different nuances depending on the institution.
In this understanding, the data show that Congress would be the worst-evaluated institution, at about 80% of people claim to rely “little” or “nothing” on parliamentarians. Then, the Courts of justice (70%), the Ministry of the Interior and the government (both around 60%), in addition to the Prosecutor’s office (56%), would follow. Meanwhile, little more than half of respondents perceive municipalities as trustworthy institutions. Finally, the best evaluated institutions would be the police bodies, little more than 70% of respondents declare to have “much” or “something” of confidence in the investigation police, same perception that would have 60% of the population with regard to Carabineros de Chile.
The survey also indicates that, in general, mistrust has been declining since 2016. However, Carabineros would be the exception to this trend, with an increase of 8% in the percentage of people who declare to feel distrust in this institution (from 32% to 40% between 2015 and 2018); This is a clear indicator of the negative effect that the corruption and lack of probity scandals that have occurred over the last few years have had on the image of the institution.
However, despite this important setback, Carabineros is still exhibiting ‘ blue figures ‘ in terms of citizen confidence. In this regard, the same ENUSC provides additional elements that help to raise some hypothesis around the opinions expressed by the citizenry.
In the first place, both the police and the municipalities are the institutions with which people interact most and know their work. Thus, while 97% of respondents say they know these institutions, for example, only 80% would be aware of the functions of the Ministry of the Interior.
Second, people would assign a relevant role to police work within the causes of crimes. At the national level, 16% of respondents consider the lack of police surveillance as one of the causes of crime, however, such a situation is indicated as the main cause of crime at the neighborhood level (30% of the replies). Consistently with this, one out of three respondents declare that the increase in police manning would be the best measure to improve security in their neighborhood.
In short, although these data show a decrease in confidence in the Carabineros, they also make it possible to distinguish between the general affectation of the institutional image and the valuation that the citizens give to the work that they develop Police officers deployed at the local level. In this sense, the trust that the people would deposit in the institution of Carabineros would be based on the centrality that they give to tasks such as surveillance and control in the context of the ‘ fight against crime ‘.
Witnessing the adoption of this perspective by the citizenry is not a novelty, but simply reveals the complex picture in which the authorities must develop security policies. On the one hand, there is always the option of obtaining immediate political credits through populist strategies that offer to reduce crime by increasing police control, as is the case of “preventive identity control.” While, on the other hand, there is the more complex, but more effective, alternative of developing a policy based on evidence, which complements multiple prevention strategies with targeted policing, developed under the principles of efficacy and respect for the rights of the citizenry.
The content poured in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of the counter.
