Sorry for the getting the articles and questions up a bit later this week. I have been too busy 'celebrating' our third Monday in a row (in April) with a significant snowfall.
This week's first article looks at the polarization following Venezuela's recent presidential election. We have discussed this issue on the blog previously. But, I was less than fully satisfied with the responses. And, considering that we are currently studying Venezuela in class it seems a good time to revisit the issue.
Venezuelans are polarized in post-election crisis
Discussion question: what steps could Nicolas Maduro and Henrique Capriles take that would combat the countries political/social/economic polarization without going against their self-interest as rival political leaders?
The second article also revisits a story discussed earlier on the blog. But, that was during spring break and the story has evolved since then.
Mexico's Vigilante Law Enforcers
Discussion question: what should be the Peña Nieto administration's response to the growth of vigilante justice in Guerrero state and elsewhere?
For our last question we move back to Brazil. Brazil is obviously an up-an-coming country that is facing a diverse array of challenges. Last week we discussed drug use and immigration on the blog. Today, the articles cover infastructural woes and the sentencing of 23 prison guards for a massacre 21 years ago.
Brazil police sentenced over Carandiru jail massacre
Brazil congestion delays export of record soybean crop
Discussion question: every government has limited political capital. Keeping in mind diverse aspects of the Brazilian political economy, would Dilma Rousseff be wiser to spend her political capital on improving the country's record on human rights and corruption or on modernizing the country's infrastructure?
Enjoy!!
I think it would be very difficult to say if it would be wiser to spend the money on one versus the other. Both of those aspects of Brazil need to be greatly approved, however, if I had to choose, I would probably say Rousseff should focus on improving the country's record on human rights and corruption because that most likely has a larger affect on Brazil as a whole, in terms of its reputation, safety of its citizens, etc. On the other hand, I could also argue that she should improve the infrastructure because that is also affecting Brazil's reputation and it would be really good for Brazil and their role in the international economy because they would be able to produce more goods in a more effective and efficient way. We are already aware that Brazil has infrastructure problems, as we learned in class earlier about Brazil's exploding manholes. While Brazil may have weak infrastructure, I think that for the safety of its citizens and to maintain an effective democracy, it would probably be best to focus on the abuse and corruption first.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the issue of vigilante groups in Mexico, I think it would be in the best interest of the state to shut down these groups. As we discussed in the beginning of the semester, one of the conditions of statehood is a monopoly on the use of force, and these types of groups threaten the state's monopoly on use of force. I think shutting down these groups would also be in the best interest of the citizens. Although several people in the article expressed support for these groups because they are coming to their aid when the police is not, in the long-term I don't think these types of groups are good for the growth of democracy in Mexico in that they encourage people to go around the law and take matters in their own hands. As the article states, this leaves room for citizens to abuse this power and carry out more violence in the name of "justice." Although corruption is obviously a problem in Mexico, ultimately it is up to the state to detain and prosecute criminals. And although some of these groups may have good intentions, I think their existence will only lead to more violence and chaos.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about how these types of groups threaten the states monopoly on the use of force, but the only reason that citizens are resorting to vigilante justice is because of the corruption within the mexican justice system and police. Peña Nieto's administration should focus on tackling the issue of corruption so that mexican citizens wouldn't feel the need to become vigilantes. Another thought would be for the mexican government to employ these vigilantes in hopes of lowering corruption in the police force. I agree with you that the existence of vigilantes will only lead to more violence and chaos, but the only way to control them is by eliminating the corrupt police officers that have caused their citizens to take justice into their own hands.
DeleteSevere political polarization, animosity, and violence have plagued Venezuela since the announcement of Nicolás Maduro’s election to the presidency last week. The split between political preferences is painfully clear, but the fact that Venezuela needs to find a way to resolve this hostile situation is hardly disputed. The country will not be able to move forward without some sense of harmony. The problem with this, however, is that supports of both Maduro and Capriles are emphatically committed to their leader and refuse to yield to the opposing side. Its improbable that supports of either side will give in anytime soon, especially given their strong enduring feelings either in support of or against Hugo Chávez and his socialist agenda. The legacy that Chávez left has only fueled people’s political beliefs, leading to more dedication on both sides of the political spectrum. The post-election crisis will only subside, therefore, if both Maduro and Capriles come to a figurative cease-fire with one another and call on their supporters to do the same. Having said that, the chance of the two leaders reaching an agreement seems unlikely. Maduro blames the recent violence on the opposition because of fanatical protesting. Capriles accuses the government of causing the violence in an attempt to distract from the real issues. Capriles also fervently called on his supporters to take to the streets in protest after the announcement of Maduro’s election victory. It is difficult for the people of Venezuela to overcome any political differences amongst themselves when the leaders they support feel just as much antipathy toward each other.
ReplyDeleteShortly after Maduro’s election victory, Capriles recognized the new government as illegitimate and called for a recount of the votes. Since Venezuela’s election law does not specify if a recount is required or not, Maduro does not have to concede to Capriles’ request for one. But, perhaps a recount of the votes would suppress some of the violence occurring throughout the country. It would possibly appease some Capriles supporters, as the outcome of the recount would serve as reassurance that the results were indeed fair. Much of the anger toward Maduro and his victory stems from the fact that he ignored Capriles’ request after winning by only a razor-thin margin—if the votes are recounted, it would be a sign of acknowledgment of the opposing side. Political polarization would certainly not disappear, but the recount could conceivably placate the violence.
Essentially, the most practical way in which Maduro and Capriles can combat theses mounting tensions within the country is to adopt another manner in which to express their political differences. The two leaders will always be political rivals, but this rallying of supporters will subsequently lead to more chaos, and in recent cases, more fatalities. Chávez may have benefitted from using his opposition as a tool to gather more support, but a continuation of polarization by government officials will only make the situation worse. Social, economic, and political issues will have to be resolved in the coming six years with the fair winner as the president. Capriles can continue to challenge the government, but not through violent protest. Issues cannot be tended to through animosity amongst the population, but must be dealt with in a manner that will not result in violent outcomes. Capriles and Maduro need to come to somewhat of a truce, so it will transfer to the rest of the population. Political values can still be upheld, just without the blatant hatred toward opposing groups.
I agree with Lizzy the that until Maduro and Capriles are able to stop the accusations and hostility between one another, there will be very little improvement in the situation in Venezuela. Each of these men have a huge following and they are setting examples for their supporters, when they accuse one another of illegitimacy or claim that they will not recognize their opponents as governors, etc. all it is doing is sparking more anger and separating the people of venezuela even more. They do not have to agree politically, but they must be able to find a way to oppose one another without cheap digs. I agree that a recount, though it is not something that Maduro wants, is a very important step in beginning to bridge the gap that has grown between Maduro's and the oppositions followers. They must stop with the childish accusations and find a constructive way to differ in their views but at the same time strengthen the unity the Venezuelan people. Im sure they can both agree that they want a peaceful Venezuela and the way they are treating the outcome of the election is only pushing the country farther and farther away from that.
DeleteMandy made a few comments in the context of the vigilantes in Mexico that I agree with completely. A monopoly on force and violence is absolutely a central feature of the state and the aspect of long-run vs. short-run benefits is key. The article itself seems to take the same position, that there is no institutional or legal power giving these individuals the authority to do what they are doing, and because of this, their actions are illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteHaving established that these vigilantes might not have a legitimate mandate to do what they are doing, I believe that the benefits for many people in Mexico will outweigh the possible negative aspects. In the context of what Pena Nieto should do, he should act almost diplomatically towards these vigilantes. These individuals are cleaning up the country from the bottom-up and this is key for Mexico. It is true that some vigilantes might be projecting their own self-interests but it seems to me that the majority have good intentions. It is important for the president to give this issue an almost diplomatic environment is because that would allow these individuals to keep doing what they are doing, while are the same time deepening the relation between the executive and the people's needs/desires.
I agree with Tyler that the vigilantes seem to be doing some good in these Mexican towns. Maybe diplomatic relations between these groups and the Mexican government will benefit the people of the towns where the vigilantes are working. It is scary to think of these vigilante groups having so much power though. By looking at other cases where vigilante groups have popped up, it seems as if accrediting them with the legitimacy they're looking for might just legitimize groups on par with terrorists. I think the real problem that the Mexican government should be looking at is that of police corruption and inefficacy. By improving their police forces, through better training or recruiting more officers, etc., then the vigilantes wouldn't have a place in Mexican society.
DeleteJust touching on the article “Mexico's Vigilante Law Enforcers” I believe that there are pros and cons to this growth of vigilante justice. The Nieto administration should approach this carefully because these communities are acting purely to protect themselves from the insecurity of Mexico. Therefore, his administration should continue to use executive power to tackle those issues and allow these “vigilantes” to continue to try and fight against organized crime. Why stop people who are just trying to help when they already can't stop the criminals? The pro is that these actions come with good intentions to fix insecurity and may overall have positive results.The con would be that in reality: we cannot predict what will happen. Regardless, if this is what the people want then Nieto should put some trust/faith in the good people of Mexico and it just may be returned.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issues and challenges happening in Brazil: I don't think there is much use in going back and convicting for actions that happened in the past. But I do think it's wise to fix current issues, which, according to the BBC Brazil article is greatly affecting exports in Brazil. If this problem of congestion is not addressed, then the future of Brazils economy is likely at stake. This is why Dilma should spend her political capital on modernizing the country's infrastructure. Yet at the same time make it very clear that any corruption will not be tolerated. These are both very important issues in Brazil which need continuous efforts for improvement. Since Brazil has become an agricultural superpower, a fix for congestion and need for a transportation system has resulted from it. Apparently, there's a debate between building railways or rivers to solve this issue. Since Brazil is losing $4bn every year on logistical costs, an alternative is needed as soon as possible. According to the True Cost Blog, “trains have similar underlying efficiencies, passenger trains in the US are much less efficient in practice because of poor utilization” and “shipping over water (by barge) costs one-third of shipping by rail." This implies that "water based shipping is also roughly triple the efficiency in energy terms, since energy is one of the key cost drivers in transportation.” Learning from example and results of other countries is important and this seems like a logical approach.
"Fuel Efficiency: Modes of Transportation Ranked By MPG." Web log post. True Cost Analyzing Our Economy Government Policy and Society through the Lens of Costbenefit. N.p., 27 May 2010. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.
I think both are problems that need to be addressed as soon as possible. I think the corruption problem is more important and is a bigger detriment to Brazil as a whole. However, I think it might be more realistic to address the country's infrastructure problem first. I think this for a couple reasons. Firstly, I think there are more concrete measures that can be taken or that could be created by committees and leaders in Brazil to help fix and create certain infrastructures to make the jobs of truck drivers like Ronaldo Miguel and others who deal with delivering and supplying crops easier. They can put money into these type of endeavors, which will hopefully and should yield significant financial gain, which is important to the country's immediate success.
ReplyDeleteThen hopefully, after this problem is accomplished, measures can be taken to deal with this terrible problem of corruption. However, at this point, in Brazil and in many other countries across South America, corruption is such a large scale, deep seeded, and complicated problem, that I feel as if throwing money at the problem is not really realistic. I think getting rid of corruption is a much larger, more complicated issue that will take a lot more time to eliminate unfortunately. I do not really think there are any concrete direct steps that can be taken that will come close to guaranteeing the stop of corruption. I think there are more solid and obvious steps that can be taken that should help infrastructure, so I feel as if they should start with this problem first.
I believe the situation in Ayutla is extremely courageous. Since the police are corrupt in their town and being bribed by drug lords and other criminals, the citizens of the town are taking matters into their own hands. If I was in their situation, I would believe this is also the right thing to do. The only problem I do have with what the Community Police of Ayutla is that they are not turning in their convicted criminals to the police. Even though the police in the local towns and counties are corrupt, they could inform federal authorities or even state authorities to ensure proper justice. Additionally, I do believe the potential of community police units slowly turning into gangs and cartels themselves, which happened in Colombia when citizens stepped up. This would only create more problems and worsen the situation of violence in Mexico; however, in a situation where there are no other options since the corruption of the state and the extreme violence are not being dealt with, what other options do these people have?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the article about Mexican vigilante groups operating in Guerrero state and throughout Mexico, I found this article to be inspiring as well as a good reflection of how high rates of corruption can affect a society. This article was inspiring due to the fact that it is good to see people take law enforcement into their own hands, because much of the regular Mexican police force is tied with the cartels or general drug trafficking. I also feel that widespread vigilante groups can create a whole other set of problems, because they aren't officially recognized by the government. They have the ability to abuse their power as well, and as the article stated there are definitely cases where vigilante groups have been accused of doing so. I feel that the broader issue of rampant corruption throughout Mexico needs to be combated before we will see any significant change in this type of law enforcement. I predict that vigilante groups will become more widespread in the future before we see any significant change in the structure of law enforcement in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of Matthew has said here. The big problem of corruption must be the focus of the Peña Nieto administration before they can even play with the issue of the vigilante forces. These vigilante forces are a direct response to the corruption and disapproval of the actual police force. Obviously a government should be worried about citizens running around with guns and arresting people without any sort of jurisdiction, but they cannot ignore how and why these groups came about. It has to be pretty embarrassing for a nation to have a police force that is run by drug cartels therefore that should be something they are frantically trying to fix. The only way to curb the vigilante forces is by cleaning up the actual police force and returning order to the state. That way the citizens in the state won't feel the need to create their own police force anymore.
DeletePolitical polarization in Venezuela in the wake of Chavez’s death is self-evident. However, the Washington Post article brought to light many fascinating aspects of the complex issue of polarization in the nation. One particularly interesting examples brought up by the article was the perspective that “Chavez said, ‘No more. We are all the same,’ and that’s how the polarization began.” It is fascinating to consider that a government promoting a drastic decrease in inequality could cause such immense division between people. This catch-22 of the divisiveness of equality demonstrates the ineffectiveness of political universalism and socialism. It suggests that redistribution causes greater tensions among individuals, and favors the competitiveness of free market structure. This questions the liberal policy that it is the government’s duty to minimize poverty and inequality. Additionally, the article demonstrates the immense impact of politics in every aspect of life and therefore defends the importance of the issue of establishing and maintaining an effective government system.
ReplyDeleteThe article, "Mexico's Vigilante Law Enforcers," is discomforting for many reasons. With a presence in over 13 Mexican states, the article makes the vigilante groups out to have a strong influence over crime and misdoings. It is very difficult to read about the power of these vigilante groups without comparing them to the Mexican police force. With much more money and resources, why does it seem that these government forces sare less efficient in confronting crime than the vigilante groups? One obvious reason would be corruption. The vigilantes are presented as fighting for a cause rather than a paycheck, making them less likely to be influenced by bribes. A less obvious reason, though, is the nature of these vigilante groups. They are separate from the government, thus they are not confined by human rights laws. Thus, they are able to use many of the cartel's crude tactics for their own justice. While their efforts are inspiring to the Mexican citizens most affected by the drug wars, it is very disconcerting that these groups answer to no one. As their numbers increase, so too does the span of their regional presence. And while they seem to be fighting for justice now, the methods they use and the morals they live by make them an unpredictable hazard in the future. It could be a significant fear for the Mexican government that, as the number of vigilantes increase, so too will the focus of their influence. While they are seemingly keeping to street crimes for now, could an increase in numbers and power lead them to attempt justice upon the Mexican government and the corruption of its politics?
ReplyDeleteIt's honestly not surprising that Venezuela is so divided right now, especially when you consider how divided our country typically is after an election. This election was so close and both sides represented such different ideas that it's only natural for a lot of tension to develop. Hopefully this doesn't tear the country apart and it will blow over in a few months but seeing as how unstable Venezuela is the newly elected leadership needs to do something now.
ReplyDeleteNicolas Maduro and Henrique Capriles seem to be taking it upon themselves to try and deepen the already growing divide between supporters of Maduro and Capriles, respectively. With comments like “This slice of the opposition that acts like they didn’t have anything to do with it is the one behind the violence (resulting from political dissidence between the two sides)” (Washington Post) coming from Maduro, along with Capriles refusal to concede. These politicians need to realize that the only thing they are doing is hurting their country. They can both take steps to combat this growing polarization, but they need to realize that they may need to sacrifice something for the betterment of Venezuela.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these leaders need to realize that they are doing nothing to help their country, which they both seem to love above all else. I would advise Capriles to immediately concede ending this charade that is only hurting the country. The only thing that this holdout is doing is deepening the divide between the two parties. Ti gives Capriles no legitimacy; it only makes him look like a sore loser. However, in response to concession, Maduro should appoint Capriles to a position of power in the government. Maduro needs to realize that half of the country, the half that voted for Capriles, is unhappy with his ideals. Therefore, to try and bridge this gap, he should appoint Capriles to his cabinet or even go as far as Vice President. There is a saying that goes something like “A good compromise leaves both sides unhappy.” If both of these leaders are in fact trying to benefit the country of Venezuela, they need to reach a compromise. As soon as that happens, the country can begin the healing process.
The countries political, social, and economic polarization is, in my opinion, resulting from a top-down approach. Because each leader is, respectively, not acting moderately, neither then are their supporters. As Capriles said, “Here there is no majority, there are two halves of a country, and when we look at the numbers, we’re talking about two practically equal sides-numerically, two sides of the same size.” Both politicians need to realize this fact; there are two equal equals who are trusting them to lead their country. It is there duty as politicians to speak the voices of its constituents. In this regard, Maduro and Capriles need to come to a compromise that would enable both groups’ voice to be heard.
The growing polarization in Venezuela has many in Latin America worried about the security and violence that has taken root. Prior to the election of Hugo Chavez in 1999, Venezuela’s population was differences between the rich and the poor populations were very salient issues. The polarization that we see today is the same polarization that we saw then but the difference was that the presidency of Hugo Chavez made them surface onto the political stage. So…
ReplyDeleteYou say “its growing polarization in Venezuela!” I say “its growing democracy in Venezuela!”
Ok, well I think democracy might be a stretch seeing how the late Hugo Chavez’s presidency was ramped with crime and corruption, and Freedom House ranks Venezuela only above Cuba in level of democracy. (Freedom House International) What I mean by “growing democracy” is that due to Chavez’s administrations successful campaigns against poverty and inequality, more people have become involved in politics in Venezuela. The economic polarization has been decreased but the true issues are social and political polarization.
If Venezuela is to address the growing violence (film: Why is Venezuela so Violent?), Nicolas Maduro (Chavistas) and Henrique Capriles (Opposition) must reconcile the goals of the Bolivarian Revolution and those who want a more liberal political economic system. The political polarization exists as it exist in many democracies, but what we see in Venezuela is reaching a breaking point.
I agree that “Hugo Chavez has planted the seed of Bolivarianism into Latin America” and that the New Left will become a growing tide on American imperialism. (film: Extreme World: Venezuela) I think that whether or not Hugo Chavez’s legacy continues in Venezuela, there are other leaders in Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, and Nicaragua that could take up the post of sentinel to the New Left movement.
Whether or not it would change the outcome of the election, if I were President Maduro I would re-hold elections or propose a referendum to legitimize his presidency. Meanwhile, the administration should continue to fight inequality and end violence by deploying the army to secure major cities. If these steps are taken I think that Venezuela has a chance to stabilize.
The increase in vigilante justice throughout Mexico is clear evidence that the war on drugs is failing. The Peña Nieto administration's response to this growth of vigilante justice in Guerrero state and elsewhere should be to re-evaluate Mexico's' strategy toward organised crime and drug trafficking.
ReplyDeleteFrom class we have learned that an aggressive strategy of increased law enforcement and fracturing of organized crime groups does not lead to a decrease in supply or demand. Since Mexico's policy change in 2006 1000's of people have been killed as a result, its no wonder that we see these vigilante groups forming.
Since much of the worlds drugs are either manufactured or smuggled through Mexico the Organized crime groups there have gained much power and respect. They can pay the police force more than the state and this leads to a lack of justice. These vigilante justice groups are addressing this gap. As these groups gain strength they are likely to over step there boundaries and could potentially create problems for the state as more and more people loose respect for the justice system and authorities.
The next step for the Pena Nieto administration in my eyes is to end the war on drugs and have a serious sitdown with both Brazil and the United States. Pena needs to convince these countries to change their policies regarding drugs. The black market provides lucrative incentives for market entry and this appeal can be addressed through the legalization of some drugs and decriminalization of others. If the market for these products can be reduced or eradicated many of the problems we see will fade away.
If these cartels loose this monopoly power than it is likely that they will not have the funds to corrupt local officials. Then the local police become better off providing justice rather that looking the other way at injustice.
Nicolas Maduro is the one who has the power and control over absolutely all government branches and institutions. Therefore, if there were any interest to truly do something about Venezuela's polarization it would have start from Maduro, himself.
ReplyDeleteLet us presume that Chavez wakes from the dead, perhaps as a bird once again, and orders Maduro to undo what Chavez did, divide Venezuelans, he would need to start by:
1.Minimizing the hatred rhetoric against anyone that disagrees with the government. Use a respectful speech for all, chavistas and non-chavistas.
2.Convene meetings which include people with plurality of thoughts and backgrounds
3.Acknowledge the importance of all society sectors: labor forces, businesses, church, civil society,
4.Reinstate separation of power among government branches (executive, judicial, legislative and electoral)
5.Disarm the government paramilitary forces.
6.Free Venezuela from Cuban intervention
7.Start investing in education, health, and services infrastructure.
8.Reinstate freedom of speech, media pluralism, and public meetings.
9.Stop exchange controls so everyone can have access to foreign currency and reactivate the economy.
10.Restore the values of work, education, honesty, meritocracy, and respect for others believe.
On the other hand, Henrique Capriles, who has always called for the country’s unity, would need to support all these positive measures, making sure, as the leader of the opposition, that transparency is guaranteed, legality is strictly followed and human rights are respected. Nevertheless, a great deal of negotiations would need to take place that most likely include some kind of amnesty.
In any case, if the good will were there many changes could be possible for the well being of Venezuelans.
I find it very interesting that as a socialist party, Maduro and his fellow politicians even have a hard time recognizing their opponents as others. The most important move that the government needs to make for the country, regardless of who is in power, is by unifying the nation. I am may not be the most knowledgable person when it comes to political battles, but I can definitely recognize that those in power are definitely not doing anything to encourage unification. In so many ways would a unifying identity encourage unification in other areas just outside of who is president. Maduro as the new president has the ability to move forward in a more professional manner and publicly recognize his opponent as a reasonable other. To me, when I read articles about the battles between the two, I feel like they both come off as being childish. As role models for their country and how they want the citizens to move away from violence, either one needs to step up, as a bigger man and reconcile publicly. I mean aren't they are all working toward similar goals for their country, just going about it in different manner? Let the battles solely be political professional ones with initiatives in laws being passed and encouraging their citizens to act in similar manners.
ReplyDeleteThe article about vigilante justice is definitely a touchy subject for Nieto. On the one hand, it does appear to be doing a lot of good in a particularly crime ravaged area of the country. Holding some things constant, this is similar to volunteer associations set up in the US - fire fighters community watch etc. but the main (obvious) difference is that the vigilantes are armed. As long as the vigilante groups stay committed to their general goal of reducing the level of violence due to drug trafficking, Nieto ought to work with them, as they pose no real harm to the government, and can be seen as doing the government a service. Problems would exist if the vigilante groups cease to act as a community service and instead act as just another gang, that is, actively undermining the stability and anti-gang anti-violence measures that the government has put or will put in place.
ReplyDeleteIn respone to the BBC News Article on Vigilante Justice in Mexico, I think the answer for Peña Nieto and his administration is quite simple. There needs to be not only an increased presence of police activity throughout these areas but the police officers must also be properly trained and willing to perform their duties. I'm not sure if that means a complete reconstruction of the Mexican Police Force or the implementation of training programs which seek to eliminate corruption in its entirety but there should be absolutely no way that citizens should have to reach this point where they are forced into protecting themselves because the police can't or won't do their jobs. I don't even necessarily blame them for taking matters into their own hands because there comes a point where enough is enough and the feeling of helplessness becomes too much to handle and if Nieto and his administration don't do something soon, they could see themselves facing a whole new level of violence. This can be seen in the example that the article gave where self-defense groups in Columbia became increasingly violent during the civil war. The pattern of increasingly violent acts can already be seen in Mexico too as they first began detaining people until the police would arrest them to more recently where these self-defense groups were threatening to kill criminal's family members in order to get what they wanted. It's a shame to think that vigilante justice in this magnitude was needed to open the eyes of the Mexican government but the only hope now is that Nieto and his administration will take the right steps in order to bring control back to these vulnerable areas.
ReplyDeleteVigilante groups have sprung up in Guerrero and in twelve other Mexican states where communities, threatened by violent drug cartels, have failed to see any help coming from Mexico’s law enforcement (BBC). Corrupt law enforcers and the growing drug trade has led communities to unite in armed vigilante groups in order to take matters into their own hands, arresting drug-related criminals as well as corrupt police officials.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the groups claim to be operating on self-defense, they do not have the authority to make arrests, acting in the place of law enforcement agencies. They are merely “untrained, armed civilians… [with] no legal authority, and they should not be carrying their guns in the street” (BBC). In essence, these vigilante groups are practicing the same organized crime that they wish to condemn. After all, each time they step out, armed and ready to prosecute alleged criminals without a fair trial, they are breaking the law. The vigilante groups are by no means justified as they actually perpetuate crime and they undermine police authority.
The vigilante groups do more to harm the security system than to correct it, diminishing police accountability and authority and attempting to justify law breaking. As mentioned in another article from The Guardian, the groups are not only arresting known criminals, but also allegedly corrupt police (TheGuardian). Continuing to allow these groups to get away with setting up their own roadblocks and unwarranted searches will lead to an even weaker security in Mexico. Allowing citizens to illegally fight crime themselves both sends the message that certain crime is permitted and that Mexico’s police are too weak to handle the situation on their own.
Furthermore, these groups paradoxically violate the human rights and ideals that they wish to uphold by treating criminals as rightless beings, opening fire on innocent civilians who merely refuse to stop at the illegitimate roadblocks and “even cooperating with criminals in some cases” (TheGuardian).
Merely agreeing on the the government’s inability to enforce safety and continuing to allow the vigilante groups to have authority will only cause Mexico to have more security problems in the future. Rather, although it is easier said than done, Nieto should focus on strengthening Mexican security, prosecuting these vigilante groups for breaking the law instead of sending the message that sometimes it is acceptable.
Perhaps legalization of drugs could help the situation by making the drug business less profitable, thus, decreasing the incentive to engage in violent crime driven by competition in the drug trade. With less violence and a stronger police force, citizens like those in Guerrero will also have less incentive to respond with more organized crime, violence and arms.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/28/mexican-vigilantes-take-over-town
I think that if the police who are meant to serve and protect the people of the area are neglecting their duties to the point where they are every bit as criminal as those they are supposed to be protecting people against, "untrained civilians" have every right to take the security of their home into their own hands. While it is very far from an ideal response to the situation, something has to be done and at least these vigilantes are taking some initiative.
DeleteVigilante groups in Mexico is just one more problem Mexico does not need at the moment. It is understandable and that people are scared of the violence and want to do something about it. However these groups are taking power in certain regions. By implementing punishment and not simply apprehending criminals these groups have gone to far. By taking on governmental roles these groups derive legitimacy from the Mexican government, which is already battling over the issue with the current drug cartels. Greater accountability and transparency needs to occur within the Mexican government. As with much of Latin America corruption is often rampent, creating dissent and apathy towards the current government. This is a difficult situation to resolve however the current case in Colombia as a prime example. The founding members of FARC were part of several self-defense groups often part of the PCC (Colombian Communist Party) which fought to protect human rights of the poor during the civil war known as La Violencia.FARC was formed due to state sponsored terrorism against the rural poor in the southern region of Colombia where supposed bandits and communist resided. The governments heavy hand and unwillingness to permit other political parties to participate only increased FARC's movement. The people of these violent regions where vigilantes have begun gain power have lost faith and trust in their government. The national government must restore order in the region but without repressing it's citizens. It's a good thing that the prior president of the teachers union was arrested and should continue to pursue other corrupt high ranking officials, no one should be above the law. Trust needs to be restored and the most important way for that to happen is for the government to hold itself accountable.
ReplyDeleteThe highly polarized political climate of Venezuela remains as a legacy of the Chavez era. Both Maduro and Capriles have made ridiculous claims throughout the election, accusing each other of being agents of Cuba or the United States. Whenever I read Maduro's comments about fighting fascism and freeing the country I can never tell if it is a quote by him or someone attacking him because accusations of fascism from the Chavista government with its state-run media are so delightfully ironic.
ReplyDeleteIf politicians in Venezuela were able to use more moderate rhetoric rather than the divisive language they have relied upon they could potentially appeal to a larger voting base. Voter turnout in the 2013 election was 80% (http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=236), so there is a significant portion of the population that may be persuaded to vote, which is more important for Maduro and other Chavistas due to their relatively low victory margins, about 2% in this election, compared to Chavez' landslides.
The state of Guerrero is still under the control of vigilante groups as a result of the ineffective law enforcement and organized crime. The Mexican government must take steps to restore order to the region. This should not be done by military force, as using military in a violent state which already has every reason to distrust the ineffective government is a recipe for disaster. One of the major problems is that police do not respond to crime, due to corruption, etc. The effectiveness of police could be improved by reducing corruption through increased police wages (to reduce effectiveness of bribes) and by working on reforms to the system of law enforcement to improve accountability, perhaps through the use of external investigative agencies. The Nieto administration has a stated goal to reduce corruption, although the problem is clearly so bad and the citizenry has rightfully lost faith in their government's effectiveness, I am interested to see how this situation develops, as any increase in tension between the government and vigilante groups could escalate the severity of the situation.
I agree that by raising the police force wages would help to decrease violence by improving the police forces incentives to properly carry out their purpose. In the "Extreme Worlds" the police man said that many of the cops live in the slums and are targeted because of their position. If police had more money they wouldn't have to live in these parts, possibly decreasing crimes against cops and also there would be less incentive for them to become corrupt via bribes, etc.
Delete
ReplyDeleteFor me its very interesting and a bit frustrating reading about the polarization that is taking place in Venezuela. I say interesting, because after 14 years of trying something a certain way and seeing the failure that has come from it, both in the violence and in the economy and infrastructure, it blows me away that the country is still split 50/50. I would think that more people would be ready for a dramatic change, and I would expect the opposing side to win by a landslide. I say frustrating, because I feel it is unacceptable for a country that is so rich with oil to have such huge problems with violence and other social matters. Listening to the example given in class, about the millions of pounds of food that went to waste in a port, is enough of a demonstration of how this type of governing has failed, showing that it is time for a change. With the proper advancements in infrastructure and in the economy, that food could have been given to the lower income families throughout Venezuela, father then rotting in port, which does no one any good.
The large amount of vigilante groups working throughout Mexico reflects the absence of rule of law in the country. Mexico’s corrupt and ineffective judicial system makes it nearly impossible to legally convict anyone of anything. In addition to the poor judicial system many people do not trust the police and feel as though they are contributing to the crime rather than stopping it. I think that Nieto’s administration should take into consideration the fact that these vigilante groups have brought justice and security to many parts of Mexico, something that Nieto has failed to do. Given the absence of rule of law in Mexico perhaps the only effective way to currently fight organized crime in the country is to utilize tactics that many would consider immoral or wrong. I dont believe that supporting or funding these groups would be of much use as they lack accountability and don’t really answer to anyone but themselves. I think that Nieto’s administration should focus their time and resources on fighting corruption within the police force and reforming the judicial system rather than worrying about what these vigilante groups are doing. I think that these groups are a product of their environment in that they seek to accomplish what the Mexican police force and judicial system have failed to do, which is bring justice. Thus, once Nieto’s administration is able to establish rule of law in Mexico these vigilante groups will most likely disappear.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Andrew on this one. The vigilante groups are a reaction to the lack of a good justice system within Mexico. If Nieto can focus on reforming the police force, whether that means better hiring programs, more education, background checks, or some sort of checks within the force, then the people might feel as though they are being served properly and won't have to take matters into their own hands which is exactly what is happening. I don't agree with going around the law, but at the same time there is a point where you have to consider the safety of yourelf and the people you care about around you. In certain situations, when you feel that safety is being tampered with, some people will do anything to protect themselves.
DeleteI agree that the vigilante groups have come from the lack of a good justice system in Mexico and that Nieto must focus on reforming the police and justice system. However, I believe that he should also look to these volunteer vigilante groups as useful, rather than ignoring them and waiting for them to fade away. If the Mexican government could find a way to hold the vigilantes accountable without using corrupt police or judges, then this may just be the wake up call and first step toward a better system in Mexico. I also think that it is important to note that these vigilante groups are not hiding in the shadows and going behind the justice system. They are confronting the system and government head on and in the open meaning that they truly want justice more than power. Overall, these vigilantes seem to be the beginning of the improvement of the Mexican justice system as long as Nieto recognizes this and can act on it.
DeleteIn response to the Brazilian dilemma of spending political capital on human rights and corruption or modernizing the countries infrastructure. In my opinion after reading the article on the transportation of grain to the santos port I think that it would be wise to improve this infrastructure before moving forward with other issues. If improving the infrastructure will greatly increase the efficiency of a certain sector of the economy than that is something that should be taken advantage of. The increased efficiency would increase the amount of profits that the country generates and make work easier for their workers. With the added revenue they could use this money to help fix other issues in the country, because everyone knows that money is the key to fixing just about everything.
ReplyDeleteVenezuela no longer has their uniting force. With the passing of Chavez, the solidarity that one felt watching a passion-filled Chavez rant about equality and promise to elevate and unite all of Latin America is gone. The class division is apparent now more than ever. The business community no longer feels compelled to support a revolution led by anyone other than Chavez. The lower classes are now feeling abandoned and threatened. It will be as if all of the hard work, the Chavez vision, was for nothing. All of his hard work will be undone.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the country is finally realizing that maybe they conceded too much to a man they trusted who has left it to men they fear. The populist consolidation of the executive that Chavez enjoyed, who I truly believe was quite benevolent in his use of that power, now bears the potential for large scale abuse. It is for this reason that Capriles and Maduro need to work together to strengthen the democratic institutions of the government and return some of the power to the other branches of government. They need to reform outreach in localities and encourage local political participation. All of the shouting and all of the fighting has passed the threshold of "kiss and make up". Neither side is going to back down until they are able to actually sit down and negotiate some serious reforms.
However, I think this is highly unlikely due to Maduro's determination to continue the Bolivarian revolution of Chavez and realize his vision. Maduro also understands that he will never be able to achieve that without the executive powers Chavez enjoyed. In reality, much of the responsibility falls to the opposition. They have to continue to demand more representation in the government. But they have to do it in a different way. Fighting on the floor of the National Assembly is childish. Somebody has to step up and stop crying about it.
Then it falls to Maduro and his better conscience. Ideally he'll realize that he isn't the idol Chavez was. He will realize that perhaps it wasn't the movement as a whole the entire population was behind, perhaps it was only the captivating persona.Or maybe they saw the revolution die with Chavez. Either way, Maduro will have to cede some ground politically to avoid what could potentially be a very violent and very intense civil or military action.
I have a friend who is is from Juarez and every year he goes to see his family. It really is a terrible place to be. Every time he is there he spends most of his time sitting on the roof with a gun in his hands. Just this last summer he was stopped at a road bock, dragged out of his car and had an AK-47 put against the back of his head. By the grace of God they decided that it was not worth it to kill him in the middle of the road and he managed to escape. I think that if the police/military forces cannot prevent these events from being a common occurrence then I absolutely support these local vigilante groups. They have gained the trust of the locals and have done their job. I think the state should consider making these guys part of a legitimate police force, but a separate local one, that does not get absorbed into the corrupt and untrusted force.
ReplyDeleteI believe a proper response to Mexico's vigilante movement would be to give them some proper training. They clearly have good intentions, but as was mentioned in the video clip, there is the chance of these groups becoming just another violent group bringing insecurity to the towns. Clearly the police are not serving their purpose, or else these vigilante groups never would have formed, so I think the Mexican government's best bet would be to provide a short training course for these people so that they can continue what they are doing, but with a little more order. I also think they should encourage the groups to avoid violence at all costs and bring serious criminals to the police so that they can be dealt with properly. It must be difficult though, not trusting the police, as they have been known to be corrupt and involved with criminal activity. Establishing a more trustworthy police force might discourage vigilante justice. But that is an expensive, long-term project. Right now I think the best thing Mexico's government can do is keep the vigilante groups on their side and hope they continue to dispense justice whenever possible in a fair, violence free fashion.
ReplyDeleteFor Dilma Rousseff the smart choice is to focus on tackling infrastructure shortcomings while working on human rights as opportunities present themselves. I make this recommendation for a couple of reasons, the first being the concrete nature of infrastructure projects, pardon the pun. By this I mean that it is quite a bit simpler to build a bridge over a railroad track than to bring about an end to police brutality. Certainly building the bridge is not intrinsically more important but it is a clearly achievable task with much more controllable variables. Focusing on human rights abuses would risk being torn apart by the various factions within that struggle: Police and other security forces, the wealthy, the poor, and everybody else. That would likely be a quick political suicide. At the same time Ms. Rousseff can help the Brazil overcome its human rights failures by providing positive dialogue, pathways, and if necessary pressure to ensure that abuses are dealt with in a timely manner so others don't have to wait 21 years for justice.
ReplyDeleteAs innocent victims become the result of violent drug crimes and lack of protection from a corrupt government does nothing it is inevitable that a vigilante group will develop. The accumulation of power that can develop in these groups is a scary though to consider, however, would not be the same for the risk of children being kidnapped and nothing happening. No telling what these groups have encountered for them to get to this point, but what i can sense is that the frustration of nothing happening is more problematic. It would seem to me that these groups are more qualified to engage in acts of justice then the police itself because at least they act in the benefit of protecting the people. If locals respond to these groups because the government does nothing then it is the government that fails the people not the vigilante groups.
ReplyDeleteNieto has to either accept the existence of these vigilante groups or do something to make the police less impotent. It is not ideal to have law enforcement in the hands of civilians with very little formal training , but you can't ask these people to just accept the tremendous burden that violence and crime has on their lives. Nieto and the vigilantes have the same goal, less violence. If Nieto cannot empower the police, he needs to let the vigilantes pursue peace.
ReplyDeleteThe Brazilian president should not only pick one issue to address, even though political capital is limited. Instead, she should decide the order. If she focuses on improving infrastructure for trade, she would be able to increase the money supply, and more quickly. which could then go to combating the corruption level. However, she also has to take into account the problems with choosing corruption last. The citizens of Brazil and foreign nations will not take it lightly if the president chooses to improve infrastructure first over improving the judicial system however, it might be the best way to accomplish both feats over her term.
ReplyDeleteIf this was to be her final decision, Brazil's president would need to be absolutely certain that the limited political capital was going straight to the infrastructure improvements rather than through the other branches of leadership throughout the country, as these branches incorporate the corruption. If the money were to travel down into sectors and districts, the more likely corrupt officials will deter the money from its original purpose. If this were to occur, Brazil's president would face serious issues and would accomplish very little, wasting the limited political capital they have.
Brazil's current congestion problems regarding the country's ports are obviously somewhat of an inconvenience for a nation with aspirations to be an economic powerhouse.Nevertheless, I don't ultimately see how this would be a detriment to the economy in the long. I believe this a quick fix for the government of Brazil, but this does provide other developing nations a learning opportunity about keeping infrastructure one step ahead of the economy. That being said, I think this would be a problem that many other underdeveloped nations would love to have, as it would at least mean their economy is progressing at a strong pace.
ReplyDelete