Upon learning about the incident in which Andrea Ben\u00edtez, daughter of the head of the Federal Consumer Office, managed to mobilize a group of verifiers from the aforementioned institution with the aim of closing down a restaurant who wouldn\u2019t assign her the table she asked for, it was impossible for me not to think about two issues: 1) In Mexico, cases of an almost patrimonial use of public service persist, where having a high-ranked public official as a relative may even close down a business without any justifiable reason 2) However little or anecdotal the tantrum may have seemed, it inevitably sends a message to society that there are classes in the exercise of citizenship (as well as the consumer\u2019s role): first-class citizens with the ability to mobilize authority and second-class citizens unable to receive help from the bureaucratic apparatus.<\/p>\n
I will not go further on the implications of the first element about legal certainty to do business in Mexico, a matter that Carlos Puig clearly exposes in his Milenio article (Goodbye, Humberto Ben\u00edtez Trevi\u00f1o<\/a>). Implications of the second element are not minor, either. Taking up the idea on the Luis Rubio article published on Reforma (CNTE and citizens<\/a>), there still remains a division in Mexico regarding the legitimacy of authority and, consequently, of the acceptable mechanisms to transform reality or defending particular interests. To sum up, there are those who consider blocking roads or universities is acceptable because \u2013 given that the authority is perceived as arbitrary \u2013 anything goes and, on the other hand, there are those who see it as a clear transgression. The answer to the affirmation \u201cauthority in Mexico is arbitrary\u201d, obtained through the Values Survey<\/a> (done by CIDAC along with the Tufts University), sets an example.<\/p>\n