What came first, Improvement or Democracy?

In the articles for this week, the overarching themes were of the impacts of both service related political actions; and what would appear to be gradual improvement. If not universally, then certainly in some of the more chilling aspects of Central and South America (i.e. murder rates).

Approaching the articles with this in mind we can begin to analyze whether or not these events are occurring because somewhere the wheels of democracy are turning, or if the actions are setting them in motion. I would like to focus on what could tentatively be called a trend in Guatemala.

This article in the economist gives us a glimpse at what appears to be an increasingly "positive" trend in the decline in the murder rate. The article focuses mainly on the decline itself and not too much is said about the possible causes. A brief mention towards the end indicates that perhaps, in part, the medias reporting on the matter has helped bring the down the numbers. But what is the actual cause? In a 

seperate article the Vice-Minister of Security Marke Benitez is quoted, We have improved coordination between the state prosecutor's office and the police ... and we have a new school with more advanced training for officers." The same article describes President Otto Perez use of new more elite soldiers in order to combat the cartels who are being cited as responsible for a majority of the violence. So, do the actions by the government speak to an increase in its accountability to its people, or are these the actions of a state trying to maintain a semblance of control so that what little democracy does exist their can flourish?

My own opinion on this particular matter is closer to the latter. Considering that Guatemala has many other problems, not least of among them is the rampant malnutrition, or the states inability to raise revenue through taxes (as discussed in this article). It seems to me that at the moment Guatemala is fortunate to have a leader that appears to be tackling some of the more obvious issues; however, these issues also have the much more obvious answers and the more glamourous solutions. If President Perez is successful in bringing his country back from the edge, and manages to avoid being declared a failed state, then the real measure of Guatemalas ability to maintain a democratic state will begin. After all, it is easy enough to fight an enemy that you haven't elected into power. The test of a true democracy is when you don't have to fight to move on to the next leader.

So what do you think? Is Guatemalas improvement based on embracing more democratic values? Will a more secure population give rise to a more secure democracy? And what does the future hold? Will President Perez be able to confront the myriad of other problems facing his country, or will he be relegated to annals of history as a purely military leader?

EDIT: Sorry for the change in spacing halfway through the paragraph, I have no idea what i did.