This week two topics will be up for discussion.The first is the death of Hugo Chávez. Chávez was polarizing while alive and continues to be polarizing after his death. Thus, I have chosen two articles from the same source - the New York Times - which present fairly different interpretations of the man, his work, and his legacy.
The second topic is one which we will study later in the semester. However, I wanted to get the converation started now as it is a very pressing issue for many Latin Americans. The issue is crime and insecurity and the articles I have chosen look at the issue in the region where it has been most pressing and tragic. Central America is likely the world's most violent region, even when war zones are included. Violence is an issue that destroys futures while also influencing political stability, economic growth, gender equality, and countless other important outcomes.
Here are the articles:
Hugo Chávez, a polarizing figure who lead a movement
Latin America after Chávez (by Luis Ignacio 'Lula' Da Silva)
Central America: out of control
El Salvador's Gangs: The year of living less dangerously
Discussion questions:
1) 20 years from now, what will Hugo Chavez's legacy be in Venezuela and beyond?
2) Honduras and El Salvador are states with limited political and economic resources. How should their governments best use those resources to address elevated rates of murder, extortion, robbery, and other violent crimes?
Enjoy!
Honduras and El Salvador are facing extreme times due to the amount of violence that is coming due to drug trafficking. Personally speaking, I had a foreign exchange student from Honduras living with me while I was studying in Costa Rica. He told me from personal experience the reason he went to Costa Rica for school was because of the high amounts of violence that he was surrounded by in his hometown. Additionally, two of his friends from high school were shot and killed with M16s driving down the highway.
ReplyDeleteIn order to combat these drug lords, the government needs resources, which they are lacking. Since the government is lacking the resources, they need to take an approach like El Salvador already did. Work with the drug lords so violence is cut down. Additionally, they need to look to other wealthier countries such as the United States to help them with aid and troops. They need to persuade the United States that these problems of violence and drugs is only a stones throw away from them, and their problems will eventually leak into our territory as well.
Nik, I agree that the United States can trace cocaine etc from El Salvador and Honduras (especially the latter). However, it would be difficult for the United States to assist in any direct manner. The policy options available to combat drug trafficking and violence are few and at best, the U.S. can throw money at the problem. Giving money to a corrupt government will not reduce the flow of drugs across the boarder. Nor will citizens unaffiliated in trafficking be better off from U.S. funds. Before corruption levels decrease, it will be difficult to appropriate any funds towards the reduction of violence.
DeleteAfter everything we've read, I cannot but disagree with your assertion that the U.S. is more or less limited to "throwing money at the problem" (in regards to the drug-related violence to our South). History has shown repeatedly that not only is the U.S. prepared to commit vast amounts of money and resources to protecting its interests - whether foreign or domestic - but that in many instances the government is more than willing to take direct measures (even covert direct measures, as we've seen time and again in Latin America). I do agree that simply giving money to these weak/corrupt governments will do little to help solve these problems, which is the very reason why, as Nik suggested, the U.S. must be persuaded to send both Aid AND Troops (to lead the battle and provide oversight to ensure proper use of resources sent). Ideally, the way to achieve these ends is for the U.S. to first approach this issue diplomatically - respecting the sovereignty of these nations while at the same time working with other allies in the region to establish a collective plan to tackle these problems. Cooperation, Collaboration, and Coordination moving forward can bring great benefit to us all. That said, in the end, the U.S. should tread softly, but still carry a big stick.
DeleteI agree with Nik's point but the first thing that comes to mind for me is the question of where else would these people who participiate in gang violence generate income? There's a reason Latin America (especially in Central America) for the high levels of violence, and it is because the per capita gdp is very low - people aren't going to become rich off selling bananas and coffee (well a few will benefit, but the vast majority won't). Drug trafficking however, is very lucrative and doesn't require a higher education and for the average person, it can be seen as a way to make a different life. I like the idea of conditional cash transfers and microloans, and I think through these methods and the corresponding increase in GDP we will see violence and drug trafficking decrease overall.
DeleteI think an important point to bring up in that education needs to be incentivized in countries such as Honduras and El Salvador to improve issues of gang violence. I think a lot of these people turn to hang violence because they feel they have no other option. And obviously "throwing money at the problem" is not the answer but countries such as these do need some aid when dealing with these pressing issues. If aid was provided and used toward improving education there would be less drive for people to participate in such violence. I think that it would be beneficial to implement something like Bolsa Familia in Brasil in these countries. This would help in providing incentives for families to keep their children in school, creating a brighter future for these countries.
DeleteThe legacy that Hugo Chávez will leave behind may be just as controversial as was the man himself. For those who did not live under Chávez in Venezuela, he may be considered a tyrannical and manipulative ruler who suppressed civil liberties and only received such popular support thanks to the timely boom of the world price of oil. It is difficult to say how Venezuelans will view Chávez twenty years after his death, but I think it safe to say that they will consider him as a strong, energetic leader who greatly benefited the country’s poor. Latin American culture puts great emphasis on the charisma of leaders and their ability to bring a sense of nationality and integration to a country’s people—Chávez did just that. As observed by the mass mourning at the funeral of Chávez, it is quite clear that the citizens of Venezuela loved their former leader and valued the stand he took in support and defense of the poor. However, beneath the allure of Chávez’s character is the state that he left Venezuela in—soaring crime rates, high inflation, declining oil production, and the like. Those who lived under Chávez for the fourteen years he held power, however, most likely will not consider these factors when looking back on the legacy that the former president left behind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lizzy in that the people of Venezuela will have difficulty in remembering everything that Chavez worked for and did to help the poor people of Venezuela. All of the poicies that he implemented may and will change over the years, and there is still a lot of reform necessary to keep venezuela afloat, but the strengths and passion that Chavez showed throughout his 14 years will remain strong.
DeleteThe saying goes, "time heals all". I think with his death, Chavez will almost become a martyr for the Venezuelan poor. They will remember only the good things he did for them, and not the intense violence and corruption that came along with his reforms. Chavez did do a lot of good for Venezuela, but it definitely came with a price. But people tend to remember the good in people and look back on the good times, so I think Chavez will go down in Venezuelan history as someone iconic and great.
DeleteYour prediction that it will be hard for Chavez supporters to remember the rocky state in which he left Venezuela is sound, but only applicable to the Chavez supporters. There were many other Venezuelans who aligned their views with many other foreigners: that Chavez was tyrannical and a suppressor of civil liberties. In the NY Times video, we can see that the poor were the biggest supporters of Chavez's policies. Policies that made the lower classes feel like they had a say in politics and that Chavez was their voice in the international arena. But there's a whole other side of the population who disagreed with Chavez and his policies, believing that he was giving the poor everything at the expense of the ones who had essentially "made it," the middle and upper classes.
DeleteAlthough there was a divide, you are right to say that Latin Americans put great emphasis on a more personalized politics. This thinking also applies to the Venezuelans who disagreed with Chavez and I'm sure that even for them this is a scary time because the next ruler could make it harder for the middle class and easier for the poor or any other way, it is unclear. Chavez to them was not the best option, but he was the face of a revolution and without that face anyone could come in and make it their own.
Chavez’s Legacy or burden?
ReplyDeleteLuiz Inácio Lula da Silva, close friend of Hugo Chavez and with whom he shared a similar humble background and political interests, asserts in his NYT article, “few have believed so much in the unity of our continent and its diverse people…as he- Chavez- did." This statement indeed represents one of Chavez repeatedly expressed ideas of uniting Latino America as Bolivar did. However, in reality this same person ended up creating the biggest division within Venezuela and its people, a division between the oposición (those who do not embrace communist ideals and would like to see the country prosper and its people improve), and the chavistas (those who supported Chavez and his regime). Considering results from the Consejo Nacional Electoral (www.cne.gob.ve) on October 2012 presidential elections, 55% of Venezuelans supported Chavez willingly or not (20% of the total working force are government employees who are threaten to loose their jobs if voting against); 45% voted for Henrique Capriles representing the oposición. After 14 years of Chavez feeding and exarsevating separatist feelings, the division and animosity among Venezuelans seems like is going to end up being one of, if not the biggest, Chavez's legacy.
Lula also refers to Chavez's social campaigns, the so-called Misiones, which were meant to help the poor people by giving away material goods and free services such as health and education. In Lula's words "(Chavez) succeeded in improving the standard of living of tens of millions of Venezuelans." Just to clarify this statement, the total population of Venezuela is 27M; originally the Misiones were implemented before any presidential election or referendum in order to guarantee people's loyalties; and due to the government's incapacity to provide educational and health services, Chavez brought Cubans to serve as teachers and doctors in exchange of the free oil given to Cuba. Therefore, on paper Chavez's social campaigns might sound good but the reality was that during Chavez rule, a dramatic setback in education was registered. Cubans were in charge of developing the curricula. So we stopped learning about our history but instead had to learn only about Allende, Castro and military dictators, we could not study foreign languages or computer science.
Cont.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, job opportunities where significantly reduced due to the nationalization and the bankruptcy that was caused by the government confiscation of private property. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas (www.ine.gov.ve) from 2002 to 2012, 36% of businesses closed down in the country. These factors reduced greatly the opportunities and chances of improvement in the life of the poor. Consequently, once the government started to give away “benefits” people stopped trying/ striving for a better quality of life and decided to just stay where they were and wait for the government to give them things or a minimum allowance to survive This is, in the long run, the biggest problem that Venezuela has yet to face, the lack of strive, the willingness for improvement in life based on merits and motivation for work of great part of the Venezuela population which have been taught for 14 years that they need nothing but to sit, wait for the government to give and vote for the party when elections come.
Another issue not mentioned in the articles, yet critical in today's Venezuela, is the increase of violence. This has many different explanations among which the most important are the economic/social/political/educational gap between Venezuelans; fueling resentment; government distribution of firearms for its parallel army; and current lax policies to narcotraffic. Therefore, data from the Venezuelan Violence Observatory (observatoriodeviolencia.org.ve) show that in the first 10 years of Chavez in power 118,541 homicides were registered. Comparing homicide rates in Latin America, Sao Paulo has 14/100,000, Bogotá has 22.7/100,000, Honduras, according to The Economist article, has 86/100,000, and Caracas 200/100,000.
I believe all of the above will be Hugo Chavez legacy or, better yet, burden that we, Venezuelans, will carry on for 20 years and further beyond. An ideology in which the rich, meaning anyone that has worked hard, must be brought down instead of helping the poor by educating or training them to achieve a better living. This is most likely the legacy that will remain from Chavez. However, my utopian idea, would be to have a new type of government where the rich will be able to be rich and the poor will be brought up to higher live standards while all of Chavez's mess will be wiped from the country and with the lesson learned so it will not repeat itself in Venezuela.
As the recent development of Venezuelan society has so heavily relied on the figure of President Hugo Chavez, the death of this charismatic leader brings with it great uncertainty for the nation. While the nation is divided between Chavez aficionados and those who disapprove of the radical changes he made to politics, it is undeniable that this political figure will leave a lasting impression on Latin America. The legacy of Chavez is as complex as the man. Chavez exemplified a political leader with undeniable concern for the poor and established a model of consideration for the marginalized which has spread throughout Latin America which will likely remain far into the future. Contrastingly, however, it is promising that the dictatorial political policy of Chavez will not have as lasting effect as his example of concern for the poor.
ReplyDeleteOf his many radical policies, perhaps the most revolutionary was the way in which Hugo Chavez approached the age-old consideration of how government should address the issue of poverty. What distinguished Chavez from previous political leaders in this regard was his “almost visceral connection with the poor” (A Polarizing Figure). “He made the poor feel included in a society that had long ignored them” (A Polarizing Figure). And further, the legacy of Chavez’s inclusion of the poor into the sphere of politics is backed by the fact that no one “can deny the level of camaraderie, of trust and even of love that Mr. Chávez felt for the poor of Venezuela and for the cause of Latin American integration” (Latin America After Chavez). The article Debating Chavez’s Legacy refutes the notion that Chavez was generally successful in promotion of the poor because “while poverty went down significantly during Mr. Chávez’s years as president, other countries, like Brazil, Peru and Colombia, made progress in reducing poverty while following paths very different from that of Mr. Chávez” (Debating Chavez’s Legacy. However, while he was perhaps less successful in universally implementing specific policies, what Chavez did achieve was an increase in universal acknowledgement of the poor. It is perhaps this greater attention paid to the poor, propagated by Chavez’s example, which has sparked the arrest of Mexican Teacher’s Union Leader Elba Gordillo in Mexico in order to reform the public education system available to the Mexican public (and especially the Mexican poor). Likewise, the reconsideration of Brazilian Favelas may have been encouraged by such a shift in consideration for redistribution of resources. In this, “Mr. Chávez, a strong, dynamic and unforgettable figure whose ideas will be discussed for decades in universities, labor unions, political parties and anyplace where people are concerned with social justice, the alleviation of misery and the fairer distribution of power among the peoples of the world” (Latin America After Chavez).
Continued.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while Chavez was successful in implementing a change in political consideration of the poor, “legacy of Mr. Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution remains more limited than he would have liked,” in that his agenda of establishing a totalitarian leftist regime may face greater opposition than foreseen (Debating Chavez’s Legacy). The preferred outcome for Chavez, perhaps, would have been a firm establishment of unshakable leftist’s dictatorship in Venezuela. A central element in understanding Chavez and his legacy is the consideration of his “political style that his critics viewed as autocratic” (Latin America After Chavez). And, in fact, following the example of dictators of the past, “Vice President Nicolás Maduro, Mr. Chávez’s designated successor, announced that the government intended to embalm the body — “just like Ho Chi Minh, like Lenin, like Mao” — so Venezuelans could see him eternally on display in the Museum of the Revolution” (Debating Chavez’s Legacy). But, while “Most political observers expect that Mr. Maduro will ride a wave of loyalty and grief over Mr. Chávez’s death to an election victory,” it is less likely that an extensive totalitarian dominance over Venezuela will persist (Debating Chavez’s Legacy). This is suggested by examples of long-term failure of dictatorships in recent Latin American History. While corrupt dictatorship was common throughout Latin America for many years, in recent decades, the examples like Chile’s overthrowing of Pinochet in favor of democratic election suggest a general favor of greater democracy. Chavez’s example of authoritarian rule “didn’t catch on… The important thing is that Mexico has not followed his example, Chile has not followed his example, Peru has not followed his example, Colombia has not followed his example, Brazil has not followed his example… big countries with large, sustained economic growth” (Debating Chavez’s Legacy). This lack of success of dictatorship parallels the struggles of Cuban society, and specifically the fall of Cuban economy which resulted from broken ties with the United States after the Cuban Revolution. This American disapproval of dictatorship was cast on Venezuela under Chavez as well, and the “fiery clashes with the United States were seen by many as counterproductive” (Debating Chavez’s Legacy).
Thus, While Chavez leaves behind him the legacy of encouraging greater political concentration on and incorporation of the marginalized masses, his authoritarian policies have less of a chance of withstanding the test of time in Latin America. Undeniably, Chavez, in all his complexity, is a figure of immense significance in understanding the dynamics of Latin American Politics in general.
Hugo Chávez, former revolutionary and President of Venezuela, died last week at age 58. Largely considered an autocrat by Western international powers like the US, Chávez rose to power by democratic election in 1998. His transfer to power was not without bloodshed, however, for he championed the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army named after his idol, Simon Bolivar. In 1992 the group attempted a coup against the Pérez government, but failed to take the capital. Chávez did find himself in prison, but not before publically appearing on television to broadcast his powerful revolutionary rhetoric, and only until he was pardoned two years later by former President Caldera (New York Times).
ReplyDeleteChávez is a controversial figure in part because of his willingness to say just about anything; no topic was off-limits, and his contempt for Washington’s role within Latin America was well known. This less-than-diplomatic approach drastically polarized his regional and international audience—people either loved him or hated him. 2012 electoral results indicate that the country was almost perfectly divided for/against his regime. So, after almost fourteen years in office, Chávez’s death could bring big changes for Venezuelan politics (New York Times).
Lula da Silva called Chávez “a strong, dynamic, and unforgettable figure” (New York Times). Yes, there is no doubt this man will leave a (polarized) legacy, as most strongmen do. Any leader—especially one inclined to autocracy—who serves for a significant period will. Clearly, Chávez was motivated to be remembered: he wouldn’t go to prison without presenting himself to the people, every Sunday he broadcasted himself on television for hours, he plastered billboards with his rhetoric, etc. I appreciate that the New York Times article made several references to caudillos because that’s exactly what Chávez was: a strongman, a revolutionary, nationalist figurehead, charismatic and powerful. Who else but an unwavering political power could change the time of day at will? It also seems fitting to me that he is said to have possessed “tremendous stamina, never sleeping more than two or three hours a night” in the same way that Pinochet has been described (New York Times). It makes me wonder what it is about the personalities of military men in power, of dictators, that makes them so restless… it must be all that anger…
Lula da Silva also said that in order for his legacy to prosper, Venezuelans must work toward a more transparent, accessible, open political system with the same “force of will” that Chávez possessed. To me, this is contradictory primarily because if Lula considers his legacy to be a positive one, why does he call for such drastic, internal changes? Maintaining a great legacy shouldn’t entail reparation. Secondly, the “force of will” to which he refers can be literal or theoretical because Chavez was no stranger to taking up arms for power. To me, Venezuelans need to shy away from this “force” in order to create the described democracy (New York Times).
I agree a lot with what Nik said. I think that El Salvador, given the limited amount of resources it has, has taken a step in a better direction and they are doing what they can given the circumstances. Working with the drug lords and maras may not seem like the greatest idea, but in a violent country like El Salvador, it is a good way, and the best measure they could have taken to try to put an end to the violence. Since it seems to be working so far, I think it is something that maybe Honduras can look into doing. However,I do feel that they need a strong, democratic leader in both of these countries in order to get anything done effectively. I also agree with Nik in that maybe receiving help from wealthier nations and have them send in troops and aid to try to help the situation could be a potentially good solution. While Honduras may seem like a lost cause at this point, at least things are starting to look up for El Salvador. Honduras should look to them as an example for what they need to start doing.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like everyone agrees the steps El Salvador has taken to reduce gang violence has significantly helped, then it only makes sense that Honduras take a similar approach. If the situation in Honduras is already completely out of hand, then it would not hurt to implement this type of approach and see what happens. According to the article, El Salvador's two biggest gangs made a truce which ended hostilities. As a result, the government promised jobs for the former gang members to earn the money to feed their families. Although this may seem immoral because in a way they are supporting gang members who have most likely contributed to many illegalities, but if it's working, why not? Most people who join gangs usually come from low-income areas and do so in order to earn 'easy' money, therefore, if the government provides them another means to earn money then it may help cease gang violence in Honduras as well.
DeleteThe only thing I disagree with in this conversation is the influence of an outside military help. I believe that if you bring in an outside military into the streets you may provoke more violence in the streets because the Salvadorians may see it as an occupation and who is to say that a gang with a violent background wont strike out again especially at someone who isn't from their country. I support outside influence through political and economic policy structures but we should keep the boots off the ground if we can.
DeleteIn regards to the widespread gang/drug violence in Honduras and El Salvador, I agree with Archie that foreign occupation is not the solution. In fact, I think foreign occupation would only be a band-aid to the solution, rather than addressing the roots of the problem. In fact I believe occupation would actually increase resentment towards the U.S. The real problem, as other students have pointed out, largely involves the poverty and lack of opportunities for upward social mobility for these citizens. I would argue that if these citizens had better access to education, jobs, and wages, the violence would cease as a product of the drug trade. Of course the way to achieve this is much more complicated. In an ideal world, the government should invest in long-term solutions such as education reform and job creation. I agree with Jack however that another solution could also be conditional cash transfers. These cash transfers kill two birds with one stone - they provide families with short-term money to use for immediate needs while the incentives to actually receive the money help promote long-term solutions to end the violence.
DeleteRegarding the Economist article about the two major maras agreeing on a truce, I'm excited to see this. I wrote a paper last semester about maras in Honduras that left me feeling rather hopeless for the regions levels of violence. However, I feel the fact that the maras tend to be made of migrants that join gangs in U.S. jails and then are deported back to Central America to further gang activity is an underlying issue that needs to be combated.
ReplyDeleteCentral America, particularly Honduras and El Salvador, has long been struggling with violence, which both results from and is perpetuated by political instability and slow economic growth. As discussed last week regarding Brazil, poor countries with little economic opportunity for their citizens foster crime and violence. As the poor population attempts to fine new, more efficient ways to make a living, many people turn to gangs and drugs for profit.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this has a huge impact on the rest of the countries’ populations and their safety. Also like in Brazil, the Honduran government encourages further separation between the rich and the poor. While the government permits capable residents to block off their “barrios seguros,” it does little to defend the poorest communities, often badly constructed and built on steep hillsides (Out of Control). These communities provide criminals with an escape route and a refuge simply because their residents cannot afford the extra security that has become so necessary.
It is obvious that the lack of security needs to be corrected. Of course, lacking resources, these Central American countries have continued to struggle to build up and support an adequate police force. Because Honduras is unable to pay the already low wages, police have been getting fired and quitting and while their numbers have been falling, the murder rate has doubled (Out of Control). Honduras has attempted to address declining police numbers by recruiting forces and doubling training times. However, this could lead to problems regarding the quality of security. How can a poorly trained police force combat highly skilled (or perhaps just ruthless) gang units? El Salvador, which set up a 500-officer anti-gang police unit last year, has cut its murder rate in half, however, this was due more to their new negotiation tactics than their undertrained police forces (El Salvador’s Gangs).
El Salvador has turned to cooperation in an attempt to persuade gangs, maras, to decrease violence. Gang leaders, in exchange for their movement into lower-security prisons, allowing communication with their members, have agreed to end extortion and murders in designated “peace zones.” However, such truces merely perpetuate the governmental corruption. How can the government of El Salvador clean up its corrupt image when it is making deals with criminals? Not only does this give the gangs even more power, it is also impossible to guarantee that the maras won’t simply turn their backs on the truce.
In order for cooperation to succeed, there needs to be transparency. This means the government would have to strengthen as a democracy. Crime is a product of its environment; therefore, before violence will end, the governments and economy have to be improved.
Violence is linked among the Central American countries as well as with the US. 40% of the cocaine coming into the US goes through Honduras, fostering drug dealing within the region as well (Out of Control). It is in the best interest of the US to help end violence in Central America, both for the sake of its neighbors and its internal drug problem. However, monetary aid should be used strategically in ways that will help to improve and stabilize the Central American economies and governments as well as to strengthen security and police forces in the region.
I completely agree with your concerns regarding the truce in El Salvador. After reading the article, it was unclear to me as to the main reason for moving the gang leaders to lower security prisons. It seems as though, in order to best honor the truce, the leaders would need to be in communication with their gangs to ensure that the illegal activities decline. I have a feeling, though, that this is not the case, and that the lower security prisons main purpose was to sweeten the deal for these gang leaders. Given that assumption, it is hard to agree with the terms, especially after reading about the community backlash. So many El Salvadorians have been affected by these gangs dealings in the past that it is hard to justify to them the lightened treatment of these violent criminals. It seems like a very risky move for the nation's officials to put any trust in these criminals. WIth that said, its hard to over look the statistics given in the article. That crime has dropped so significantly, shows that something is working.
DeleteAfter 14 years of presidency, Hugo Chavez has died after losing his battle with cancer. Beloved by Venezuelans, hated by the American government, Mr. Chavez leaves behind a polarized legacy that will have him playing both the villain and the hero in the years to come.
ReplyDeleteHe will forever be remembered in Venezuela as a champion of the poor as well as for his “social campaigns, especially in the areas of public health, housing and education, succeeded in improving the standard of living of tens of millions of Venezuelans.” (New York Times, Latin America after Chavez). He changed the political system in Venezuela away from “a power structure dominated by Europeanized elites” (New York Times, A Polarizing Figure who led a Movement). Instead, he embodied a good work ethic, rising from poverty to become President of an oil-rich country. Whatever your opinion of the man may be, there is no denying his impact in Latin America. He was “instrumental in the 2008 treaty that established the Union of South American Nations…In 2010, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States leapt from theory to practice…The Bank of the South…would not have been possible without Mr. Chavez’s leadership” (Latin America After Chavez). All of these accomplishments helping to increase the relevancy of Latin America in the international scene.
Internationally, his legacy is more black and white, he was either considered a visionary in Latin America, or a socialist anti-western leader. His anti-American rhetoric made him extremely unpopular in America, especially after statements like “The Hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species” after a speech at the United Nations, while also referring to George W. Bush as “the devil” (Polarizing Figure). He made no friends when he went on the record as supporting a Venezuelan terrorist. “I defend him,” Mr. Chaves said of his friend, who was jailed in France on charges of murdering two French police agents and a Lebanese informer in Paris in 1975” (A Polarizing Figure). However Mr. Chavez was not without international allies, allying with Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia. He found like-minded leaders in these countries who were attempting to “curb American influence” (A Polarizing Figure) in Latin America.
In the next twenty years Hugo Chavez’s legacy will become more clear, but for now I believe it will be one of a leader who loved his country, and did not want American influence in Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez leaves behind a country that has known only him as president for the past fourteen years. Although some saw him as a tyrant, or a man with socialist and communist tendencies; that drove him to rule his country into the ground. However, he also leaves behind the legacy of support for the poor. Chavez, who rose from poverty, himself, took great initiatives to set up social welfare programs inside his country. As the NYT article reminds us, however, these programs were sponsored by the government that has a lot of money flow due to corruption internally. I think that after Chavez’s death a lot will be revealed. First, I think changes will come when internal corruptions from the government have come to light. Over the next 20 years I envision that Venezuela will grow to find their true national identity and Hugo Chavez’s legacy will remain strong through influence, but the newly emerging country will struggle to recover from his rule and the decisions that he made for the country of Venezuela. We can imagine that Venezuela will undergo many changes politically and economically in order to maintain their status in the global market. I think his legacy will simply be that he was the reason the Venezuelan’s were able to grow economically, but also able to surpass what he put in place in order to build a newer, stronger government.
ReplyDeleteAs far as El Salvador and Honduras are concerned, I think the problem comes from the government and their lack of ability to keep violence down. The people don’t see an authority stopping the violence so it continues. Even if the economy in these countries is going up, it could never pay for the sadness that so many families are experiencing due to soaring murder rates. By using resources, such as education, these countries would be able to turn the tables. Prisons are not effective, if anything, they do not discourage people from committing crimes. If the government implemented programs that could actually change the mentality of these “criminals,” then this problem could shrink drastically over time. If the government can’t control it’s people and the people can’t control themselves, it seems as though either crime will continue circularly, or the people will revolt against the government for not keeping them safe. It is up to the people in power to make positive changes using what they have to ensure the safety of it’s citizens.
I think in 20 years Hugo Chavez will be remembered fondly. While we may remember him as anti-western dictator he has done a lot of good for the country. In 1998 there were only 1,628 doctors in Venezuela, by 2007 Chavez grew that number to 19,571. In ten years Chavez was able to half the poverty rate, and unemployment has dropped from 11% to 8%. In an article in foreignaffairs found that income among the poor increased by 445%. When Chavez took office inflation rates were above 100%, this year it is around 8%. Not to mention that last year Venezuela far exceeded any US election turnout rate, with 80% of the people voting.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Chavez was influential for Venezuela in a lot of positive ways economically and especially towards the poor however these are surface policies and look good on the international scale. I maybe a really pessimistic person but I think time will tell the true story of Chavez and what he did while being the head of the government. Obviously it is to soon to tell what kind of legacy Chavez will leave if it is a positive or negative one because it will all depend on what happens next for Venezuela and what comes out of the Chavez administration once the dust settles. I will be really interested to see the legacy of Chavez in a year and what sticks and what doesn't. If the
DeleteHonduras and El Salvador suffer a difficult task of curbing violence in their gang-rich populations. Gang violence has been an increasing issue in these two nations as well as others in Central America. While policemen are being murdered and journalists are living the same fate, this future looks bleak. The gangs have become so large and powerful that the governments of these areas have struggled in trying to stop them and protect their nation’s citizens. Drugs are very prominent in this region and this proves to be reason for the gang’s “success” or rising. There is a large market for the drugs as “Traffickers pay their hired help in drugs rather than cash, creating a local market and the mayhem that goes with it.” (The Economist 1)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the future looks bleak for these nations as the gang’s are essentially taking over. The only way they can improve this situation is with increased defense and a strengthened police force (one that does not see their officers getting murdered by gang members). To do this, El Salvador and Honduras should look abroad for help in the means of defense training and perhaps assistance with defense capital. Other, stronger nations could assist them in the war against gangs.
This could put a black cloud over the government however. No government wants to be seen as pulling out artillery against their citizens and possibly having armed soldiers patrolling the streets to curb violence; this might get them seen as oppressive and intruding. There are plenty of citizens in these nations whom have nothing to do with the gangs, but would be affected by the defense tactics against the gangs. Not many people would enjoy police patrolled streets, constant questioning and overall living in a society with very high security. This is the measure these troubled nations must take at this point unfortunately. There may not be other options.
El Salvador has gotten what I would consider lucky, as they have witnessed a ceasefire between the countries two largest gangs. (The Economist 2) This is something that most likely will not happen again, and even if it does, it is chance as well as something not controlled by the police or government. The success of the ceasefire cannot be contributed to the hard work or great ideas of the government, but only by the gang’s realization of the extreme violence their actions were causing.
“Enough people have died. The prisons are full of youths and our families have suffered.”(The Economist 2) This is a quote from one of the gang leaders in El Salvador showing that both sides have realized how much harm they have caused and have respectfully initiated a truce between the two sides. This agreement tackles the violence issue, but does not decrease the amount of power the gangs hold in the country. That is what the region of Central America needs to overcome.
Sources:
1. "Central America: Out of Control." The Americas 9 Mar. 2013: 1. The Economist. Web. .
2. "El Salvador's Gangs: The Year of Living Less Dangerously." The Americas 9 Mar. 2013: 1. The Economist. Web. .
In my opinion in order for countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and various other Central American countries to reduce crime rates they would all serve best by maximizing the limited resources they have and pumping money into institutions that help reduce crime rates. Central American countries are extremely beautiful countries and all of them have the potential to be great tourist attractions. However only a few can bank on this industry (I.e Costa Rica), most people are driven away from these beautiful sites because of how dangerous they are. If these corrupt governments invested more money into developing the tourist industry it would create more jobs which would satisfy people and give them options outside of joining gangs for money. Profits generated from these tourist sites can be put into better training for the police force or helping the youth stay out of trouble by building more soccer, baseball fields basketball courts into poor areas of the country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jeff in that the creation of jobs would provide an alternative to gang lifestyle which would in turn reduce the crime rates. Although I think that tourism could become a large industry within countries like El Salvador and Honduras it is going to take time for people to feel safe enough to travel to these places. I think that the best way to spend the limited resources that these countries have would be to diversify their agricultural exports by utilizing there tropical environments. This would allow for more jobs to be created and would be more attractive to foreign investors.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe problem in Honduras is law enforcement. Over half of the officers tested were caught for “war taxing” citizens and until the government employs enough reliable policemen the safety and lives of the people will continue to fall into their own hands. As the article pointed out Honduras’ economy grew over 3% last year, if they would find a way to put that economic growth to use by investing it in drug and arms enforcement they will put themselves on the track to greater stability. By looking to other, more peaceful countries which have successfully reduced these crimes and following their examples and aid they will slowly be able to get a handle on their elevated crime rates in Honduras.
The situation in El Salvador is an incredible one. If other countries could follow suit, this is a rapid way to not only slow violence by working with the gangs, but also stimulate the economy by taking previous gang members and giving them jobs in designated peace zones. El Salvador’s direction has already majorly reduced crime and violence in as little as a year. By going strait to the source of the majority of the crimes they found a much more rapid result and though there are still some issues they have made major progress in a very short amount of time.
Though both of these countries have limited economic resources, El Salvador seems to be using them in all the right ways to slow crime and stimulate growth while Honduras needs to refocus where they are investing their time and money. They need to put that money into law enforcement so they will be able to punish people responsible for hundreds of murders each year.
I agree with Kaja that Honduras needs to reduce the corruption within their police force. However, it seems that the benefits an officer gets from being corrupt exceed the benefits that they get from being loyal. The Honduran government needs to find a way to incentivize police officers to remain loyal, maybe by moving them around the country so that they cannot make ties with one gang. However, all of this would need resources and funds to back it. This situation seem like the "chicken and the egg" issue. For Honduras what will come first, economic growth or reduced corruption. Without economic growth it is hard to fund reduced corruption and without reduced corruption it is hard to create economic growth.
DeleteThe articles on Honduras and El Salvador are extremely relevant to the Inter-American Dialogue Report. As the authors of the report argue, the United States needs to address the failings of its drug policy in order to strengthen relations with Latin America and combat the senseless violence that is occurring in countries like Honduras. Both domestic issues and Inter-American relations need to be addressed in order to reduce the brutality caused by drug trafficking and gang violence.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of domestic efforts, El Salvador has become an example of how to reduce gang violence now that the murder rate has significantly decreased due to the recent truce. There are efforts to offer alternatives and prevent gang membership, such as the mayor of Ilopango’s efforts to provide more jobs and opportunities for young people outside of drug trafficking. This is a positive model for other Latin American countries. Further domestic efforts are needed to strengthen the economy and integrate young people into the workforce. However, the limited economic capacity of countries like Honduras and El Salvador remains an obstacle, and the United States needs to recognize its responsibility to reform its drug policy and strengthen relations with Latin America.