Official Security Information: Analysis of the Morning Press Conferences
Transparency is crucial in a democratic regime, ensuring public access to information about governmental processes and decisions. Conversely, opacity, characterized by the unjustified withholding or unclear presentation of information, undermines accountability.
From December 2018 to December 2022, the Mexican President implemented daily morning press conferences, known as “Mañaneras,” as a transparency exercise to communicate government actions to the public. Despite the intent, various media outlets and researchers have scrutinized these conferences, highlighting that many presidential statements are misleading, ambiguous, or false. Causa en Común has engaged in an extensive analysis to verify the factual basis of these statements, particularly those related to security issues. This study focuses on the extent of transparency in the government’s responses to information requests related to security topics discussed in “Mañaneras”.
- Methodology
- Monitoring and reading stenographic versions of “Mañaneras”.
- Identifying security-related statements and institutional responses.
- Submitting information requests via the National Transparency Platform (PNT) to relevant federal security institutions.
- Classifying and analyzing the responses based on transparency and their congruence with public statements.
- Results
A total of 1,015 “Mañaneras” were reviewed, identifying 503 with security-related content. This led to 2,219 information requests directed at six key security institutions: the Secretariat of Security and Citizen Protection (SSPC), the National Guard (GN), the Executive Secretariat of the National Public Security System (SESNSP), the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA), the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR), and the Secretariat of the Interior (SEGOB).
A) Responses to Information Requests:
- 54% of the responses provided complete information.
- 17% provided partial information.
- 29% were evasive, citing incompetence (15%), non-existence of information (12%), or reserved status (2%).
B) Comparison with Public Statements:
- 62% of the responses did not substantiate the security statements made during “Mañaneras”.
- Only 38% fully aligned with the public statements, though this does not imply the information’s veracity.
- Key Findings
A) Institutions’ Response Patterns:
- SEDENA and GN provided the most complete responses but often the information did not match the statements.
- SSPC frequently claimed incompetence.
- SEDENA had the highest rate of non-existent information responses.
- GN was the most likely to reserve information.
B) Issues with Transparency:
- Frequent use of “incompetence” and “non-existence” to avoid providing information.
- Lack of clear attribution of responsibilities among institutions.
- Potential absence of supporting information for public statements.
- Conclusion
Causa en Común’s analysis reveals significant gaps in the transparency and reliability of information related to security topics discussed in “Mañaneras”. The study underscores the need for improved accountability and more rigorous fact-checking of official statements to ensure public trust and effective governance.
