This post begins the final week of our class blog. I hope its been a way for you to be come more informed about the current issues facing Latin America. I hope the combination of current events articles, class material, and classmates viewpoints has pushed each of you to hold better-informed and better-thought out positions on some of the social, political, and economic issues present in Latin America and beyond. I have enjoyed following the blog and hope you have as well.
This week's first article is a fascinating and somewhat tragic discussion of the Guatemala-Mexico border and its role in the journey experienced by Central Americans hoping to get to the US. It's worth a read regardless of whether you plan to engage the discussion question.
In Trek North, First Lure Is Mexico’s Other Line
Discussion question: Central America, Mexico, and the US are united by the illicit flow of drugs, arms, and people across their borders. What steps can the governments of the region take TOGETHER to minimize the economic and human costs associated with these flows?
The second article discusses Latin American politician's love affair with social media.
Latin American Presidents Love Twitter, Maybe Too Much
Discussion question: generally speaking, do you think the presence of elected leaders on social media will help or hurt the quality of democracy? Be specific.
The remaining two articles cover the region's most recent presidential elections. Paraguay, not Venezuela, was the last Latin American country to go to the polls and its new president faces a series of challenges along with low expectations from analysts. This is a country towards which we have dedicated very little attention. For that reason, I wanted to give us one chance to 'get to know' the country at least a little before the semesters end.
Paraguay's elections: Return of the Condors
Boom Times in Paraguay Leave Many Behind
Discussion question: Latin America-watchers view Paraguay's president-elect with a mix of suspicion and disinterest. Despite the country's many challenges, little significant is expected to change under Cartes. But, the Paraguayan constitution allows for a strong presidency, meaning that significant reforms are possible. If you were Cartes and enjoyed these strong executive powers, what issues would receive priority with regards to your time, political capital, and budget?
Enjoy!
1. I find this question a very hard-if not impossible- question for me to answer. As many of these people are leaving their countries in hopes of finding work I feel as though the best option is for the government of the regions to work together to build more economically prosperous countries. Economic niches must be found for the different countries so that jobs are available to the people who need them. If there were more jobs available to the people there would be less fear of being murdered and less need to smuggle illegal drugs/arms- a higher quality of life and maybe people would opt out of the extremely dangerous illegal migration to the US and Mexico?
ReplyDelete2.I find this over-use of twitter could improve the quality of democracy, after all isn’t a democratic government all about transparency? However I do, personally, think that social media is a waste of time and if a president wants to say something then they should make an official statement or speech. It makes me think of the president in a lower regard. The amounts that some of these presidents are tweeting is quite appalling- don’t you have better things to do? LIKE IMPORTANT THINGS REGARDING THE COUNTRY SINCE YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT?
3. Cartes is a business man- so if I were him I would put priority on capital, but then again he is most likely aware that “growth reaching 13 percent this year, making Paraguay the fastest-growing country in the Americas” (Romero,1).
Maybe budget would be a better priority-
“More than 30 percent of the population lives in poverty, according to the central bank, and Paraguay ranks near the bottom among South American countries in reducing poverty over the last decade, according to the United Nations” (Romero, 1).
Prioritizing social services and development of jobs for the poor would be a sector that I would increase spending if I were Cartes. Implementing a mandatory taxes would be a priority as this would provide extra money for the improvement of social welfare programs.
Romero, Simon. "Boom Times in Paraguay Leave Many Behind." New York Times. 24 Apr 2013: 1. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. .
An essential connection in the case of drug trafficking over the Mexico/ United States border is the question of immigration. Although some autonomy is essential for functional governments, a certain dissolving of distinction between nations would be beneficial for all parties involved. Greater unity between nations would support economy, culture and politics through joint effort of promoting basic human rights. This would not only alleviate disparity between nations, but would also (in turn) decrease dependence upon emigration or upon criminal activity like drug trafficking. A broader immigration policy would additionally amend some of the tensions between Mexico and America in particular. These notions are supported by the article "In Trek North" through its consideration of the conditions and incentives of immigration.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the prolific use of twitter by Latin American Presidents, and Presidents in general, has as much potential to hurt as the help the quality of democracy. I think that the current overuse in Latin America is having a negative effect.
ReplyDeleteThe article as well as Lauren mentioned that twitter can be used as a forum for government transparency as well as increasing the link between the people and the President. I believe that in the context of transparency, twitter is increasing the amount and type of information that the public has access too. With that said, I believe that the Presidentialist and populist style governments who typically are the one tweeting are perpetuating a low quality of democracy. Populism often times leads to clientalism (as in Argentina) and other issues that weaken the democratic institutions of the state.
Responding to the article regarding politicians' Twitter accounts, I would have to say that a Twitter account can work both ways by either harming or helping you. I think in the case of Fernandez in Argentina she may be hurting herself by tweeting too often. If a politician would like to use Twitter effectively they would make their posts more exclusive by posting rarely. I'd estimate once a month to be very productive. A politician could just give a brief report of his or her opinions on the issues of the past month or perhaps make a statement about what their goals are for the coming month. With this being a once a month post it is almost like the politician has their own short and self-authored magazine article. I think followers would like this much more than daily posts about whatever the poster is thinking about that day. The followers will be excited and maybe even anxiously awaiting the monthly post by the politician they follow. Politicians need to be careful with social media as it can create large amounts of criticism and disapproval. They best way to avoid that would be limiting their posts to a maximum of one per month
ReplyDeleteI agree with this argument that the use of social media is good, but only to a certain extent. On one hand, I agree that it does add a human element to politics. One of the best things about social media is that anyone who has access to the internet can voice their thoughts and opinions on social media, so someone who follows a certain leader on Twitter may feel more connected to them. However, many citizens in Latin American countries do not have access to the internet and therefore do not have this same opportunity. I also think making daily posts about trivial things isn't professional and may cause people to take that person less seriously. A leader is expected to be worrying about more important issues related to running the country than on entertaining followers on Twitter.
DeleteI may be old fashioned, but I completely disagree with use of social media in a powerful political position. I believe that it is risky, unprofessional, and, for lack of a better word, stupid. Sure, a president can reach out to their followers in a more personal way with the use of social media such as Twitter, but I believe that holding a powerful position in the political realm constitutes a certain degree of guidelines. Using social media allows all thoughts that are submitted online by that leader to be documented permanently on the internet. This can be especially regrettable if a leader were "tweet" something in the heat of an argument that could potentially come back to haunt them in the future. Us college students use Twitter and we still have to be careful about what we tweet about so as not to turn off future employers. Imagine the damage that could be done at a president's level. Using social media as a leader has its ups and downs, but, frankly, I believe its just too risky to make the use of social media a regular habit.
DeleteRecently in Paraguay, the opposition Liberal party took power after six years of Colorado party rule. Historically for Latin American countries, it seems that huge changes tend to occur after an alteration in leadership. Since the constitution allows for a powerful president, Cartes needs to step up to the plate and make some changes in the country. The second article refers to the nation as functioning similar to a small scale African country, with up to half its citizens unemployed or underemployed. The level of inequality is not conducive to a fulfilling life for the people or a healthy economy. Two of the first problems that the new president should address are the infrastructural faults and lack of social programs. In order to support a productive and efficient economy domestically, the simple infrastructure such as roads, ports, and power lines must be safe and easy to use. Cartes promises to attempt re-entry into Mercosur, but these weaknesses in the country's infrastructure will affect these goals. Roads, river ports, power, etc all promote efficiency in production and trade. Social programs and policies to mend the unemployment problem must be introduced to reduce inequality and poverty among the people and to improve day to day living conditions. Social spending on welfare could involve a similar plan to that of Brazil, yet on a smaller scale. Monthly allowances to the people living in extreme poverty should be given so parents can feed and vaccinate their children and send them to school. These are important for long term goals of defeating poverty and increasing human capital for the industry. Private investment, as Cartes suggests, will also increase employment in the short term. Action must be taken to help the people find better jobs, as it will aid the country as a whole with regards to production and trade. Lastly, the stability of the government has been called into question by many. As a strong executive power, the president has the ability to solidify the democracy and surround himself with politicians that can actually bring change to the country. Cartes has spoken of reducing corruption and clientelism, both of which make people uncertain of the government's priorities. There will always be opposition within, but stability and productivity must occur in a government for the country to function to its full potential. Cartes needs to prioritize these issues and actually work on changing them for the better, instead of sweeping them under the rug like so many presidents in the past.
ReplyDeleteIn Trek North, First Lure Is Mexico’s Other Line:
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the United States needs to step up on the violence within the War on Drugs and additionally aid these Central American countries. Firstly, as mentioned in my debate, the violence from the War on Drugs is being brought into the United States. Farmers in Texas are carrying around rifles just to protect themselves, their family, and their farms from Cartels. People who live in Texas near the border of Mexico are frightened for our lives. We need to take back our own country from these cartels. The U.S. needs to deploy the army and take out these cartels.
Additionally, we need to aid and create FDI into these poor regions of Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador in order to restore hope into the people and development into their economies. I think by creating a grass roots approach through aiding schools/universities, this would give people an alternative to these lifestyles. Additionally, create factories and new facilities to work at would also create a positive approach and alternative for people in these violent areas. At first, U.S. military would have to protect people who are involved in these grass root approaches created by U.S. FDI in order to guarantee their safety. It would also be beneficial for U.S. troops to fight and eradicate these cartels in these towns.
I also think the legalization of drugs in the United States would help. Pharmaceutical companies could start producing these illicit drugs so the cartels are not getting their funding. Without a market, these cartels will not have sufficient incomes to create their armies and fund their operations. This would also create illicit drugs for users that are safer because they are not filled with poisonous fillers, such as rat poison.
Overall, something needs to be done to cut down the violence from the War on Drugs not only in Central American countries, but in the United States as well because it is being leaked into our borders, and nothing is being done about it.
By no means should the US become involved in a military engagement with the cartels. Cartels are the horrible by-product of a much larger problem. The free flow of arms south, coupled with the massive demand for drugs in the US is a recipe for this exact environment. So, instead of attacking the by-product we need to attack the issue that's really at the core of this. US drug prohibition and their inability to manage demand effectively, in order to discourage black market drug trade by decreasing profit margins, have severely ravaged Central American communities as well as entire Mexican cities. Trying to take these cartels out in a joint military initiative would involve a grave loss of civilian life and produce a police state environment. The military are trained to defend the country, not police the people.
DeleteUS aid can only do so much without domestic policy reform. The US needs to relieve pressures on the Mexican and Central American governments. Immigration reform and gun control laws, as well as the legalization of marijuana could go a long way in decreasing violence throughout the region. In addition, US aid needs to address more than just education. Right now, we have a huge amount of unskilled and uneducated young people throughout the region who know only violence. We have to see reforms like those of El Salvador, where the governments can offer skills training and/or low skilled jobs for youth. It may feel like negotiating with terrorists, but it's better than the horrible loss of life that we are witnessing now. US aid and political support for these reforms is imperative. This along with US domestic reform could dramatically reduce the human costs for those who are merely trying to flee their war ravaged homeland, only to be denied refugee status when they finally arrive in the States because the US can't officially recognize a war it is the primary cause of.
While I do agree that cartels are affecting farmers in Texas and something needs to be done to address the problem. I don't necessarily think that blaming cartels and making them the problem is a good idea. As mentioned before cartels are a by-product of a much larger problem. If the US were to take matters into their own hands it would only perpetuate the problem, creating addition turmoil. By helping Mexico and educating the people and providing them will tools and skills to avoid becoming the norm of violent drug war ways.
DeleteThe only reason this bothers me at all is because I know that many of the individuals who want to come to the US from Mexico do so because they need to support their families. The US is seen as the go-to place to make money and either earn enough to take back home or attempt to live in the US illegally.
Though immigration into Mexico's freer border is causing further strain on U.S. immigration issues, I think the most effective way to reduce this problem is not to tighten Mexico's southern border and annex out the rest of central America and locking people into a violent and dangerous community but instead the U.S., Mexican, and other central American governments must come together and attack the issue of violence within these countries. If violence is reduced, immigration will follow suit. It is true that many of these people are coming to Mexico because they are in "need of humanitarian assistance". Until our governments can come together and find a way to attack the violence, people will always try to find a way around borders. Funneling money towards the police in an attempt to stop violence seems not to be working as well as we may have hoped, maybe it is time to fund more humanitarian groups and expand on those instead of forceful military and police initiatives.
ReplyDeleteI believe the use of social media, as any other media, should be exercised with responsibility, even more when the publisher is an elected government official. Considering a president of any democratic country that is on a position of power, who has been elected for his/her extraordinary capabilities, I think he/she should function as a role model of principles and values or at least try. There are rules in communications, which vary in professional and personal environments. When a leader communicates on an disrespectful manner to its constituents, he/she is not getting any closer to them but putting them down. Consequently the relation changes; some people might consider it amusing, others reject it, and this is another way to create two opposing bands. Cristina Kirchner is a good example of misused of this tool; her personal life is for her to keep. If social media helps or not the democracy I presume it depends on how is used. Twitter for one is a media to which people needs to subscribe so only subscribed followers have access to it. For Capriles in Venezuela, Twitter and Facebook are part of the few channels he has to communicate with his followers; for Maduro he has unrestricted access to all TV and radio stations. Every time the only non-government TV channel in Venezuela interviews Capriles, Maduro gets immediately on the air, forcing all TV channels to transmit his speech. In this case social media does serve as a democratic tool because it allows communication that it would not happen other way. In addition, when this media is used to instigate animosity or revenge in followers, it certainly is not a tool to support democracy but hate, which at the end deeply hurts everyone or hurts democracy.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Paraguay and Cartes, I cannot help but wonder what were the reasons for Cartes to run for Paraguay presidency. He is a very successful businessman with an unproven questionable past, which brings additional questions regarding his motivations. Assuming he is a Paraguayan willing to do or start doing what Paraguay needs to improve the quality of living of all its citizens, as well as manage the current economic growth, Cartes should start by: 1- Invest in education; 2- Incentivize current business to create productive jobs and become social responsible; 3- Maintain some of Lugo’s social programs but guaranteeing long-term sustainability; 4- Surround himself by the most capable, well-prepared, experienced, savvy and honest (if possible) Paraguayans to fill cabinet members. I believe one of the toughest jobs Cartes has to deal with is autonomy from the Colorado party and its partisans. After all, in the last 55 years Paraguay has been under the control of the Colorado party with only a breach during Lugo’s presidency.
2) Social media appears to be harmless, however it's harmless when people who tweet are nobodies. In the United States ESPN goes into panic mode when some receiver talks bad about his quarterback. Or if some celebrity says something socially incorrect the whole nation goes into a frenzy. All people make mistakes, often when they're upset and not thinking, presidential candidates are having twitter battles in countries that have already violently rioted this year, it just seems imprudent. It seems like there is the potential for even massacre. Rwanda for example didn't even have these tools when it's conflict began, and it started from a radio broadcast. Twitter can reach every person in the country and is more permanent then a radio broadcast, what's to prevent a charismatic leader from taking advantage of the masses. Twitter is also short, with limited characters you can only give a simple message, and people expect it, and may then believe false facts and statements. Social media platforms are just part of the political game in the modern world, they're ways to get constituents excited and want to vote. As the article reiterates with the example of President Obama few politicians actually write their own posts. Twitter and other social platforms allow for facts to be misconstrued, easy polarization of the people, and scandals to occur more often.
ReplyDelete3) Cartes needs to decrease poverty, and rebuild infrastructure. I would implement a form of Bolsa la Familia if I were him. As well as reenter Mercosar and decrease corruption and improve his image. If I were him to achieve both I would burn a corrupt politician in his party, sort of as a sacrificial lamb. The strategy seems cold and is, but he needs to make a public statement signifying that he's different. But my first goal as Cartes would be to slightly raise taxes, but more importantly write out the loopholes that many, especially the elite that can afford accountants, are able to avoid. I would strengthen my tax collection institution as my first thing in office. With these new funds Cartes would be able to rebuild infrastructure, and implement social welfare programs that are effective.
As expressed by a couple of other classmates, I certainly do not think putting more emphasis on social media would be productive at all. Social media, especially in a corrupt country like Paraguay, could actually work against citizens as well as the countries progress. I think by just getting information from social media, certain citizens would be brainwashed and could actually be used as a tool by Cartes to continue corruption and deceit in the country. Social media in a way encourages a kind of mob mentality and limits individuality and creativity, which I think will be key if the country wants to get turned around and eliminate this corruption and elitism.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the article states that Cartes "infrastructure pledges constitute a wishlist, not a plausible plan," I believe this is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. Similarly, Cartes needs to address poverty and land redistribution.
I am not in favor of increased social media in politics by any means, however I disagree with your assessment. Social media tools, such as twitter, are an extension of the user, in this case the politicians. Twitter, as well as other social media sites like Reddit, offers a very efficient way for politicians to communicate with their audience, whether they be supporters or antagonists. I agree with the article as to the danger of this mode of communication for the politicians and their parties. I don't however, see this as a bad thing. One of the largest problems with Latin American politics is the transparency of the politicians. The people never really get to know them outside of their structured and image-concerned lives. In using social media tools, politicians are now opening themselves up to the public for criticism and praise, and decreasing the stigma of transparency in politics.
DeleteAs someone with a Twitter I think it's a really bad idea that the President is using it so frequently. You can make impulsive statements on it and say things in the heat of the moment. Someone like a President should not be so obsessively on Twitter because the public does not need to know what the exact thoughts of the president are every waking moment. Politicians should address the public when their thoughts and decisions are carefully calculated. An example of this is how Obama has gone on late night talk shows and said some foolish things on television. Overall politicians need to stay out of things such as Twitter because it can often lead to them saying something rather dumb.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post will be about the article on Mexico’s southern border titled, “In Trek North First Lure is Mexico’s Other Line”. This article is about immigration and violence issues facing the US, Mexico, and Central America, focusing on the increased flow of migrants over the Guatemala-Mexico border due to increased violence in countries like Nicaragua and Honduras. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed by the region as a whole because it affects every country. There are many people dying everyday on their journey to reach the US as they flee from violence and torture in their own countries. Politicians and governments need to work together to alleviate this issue both by immigration reform and by improving conditions in Central American countries and Mexico.
ReplyDeleteAs was discussed in class, implementing policies of a “crack down” mentality do little to solve issues in the long run and can even exacerbate them. In Mexico the war on drugs caused an increase of violence and when the US intervened in Columbia to deal with the drug issue the problem only moved to neighboring countries. Therefore, in dealing with the issue of violence in Central America to alleviate the number of people immigrating to the US, I believe the best action for policy makers in the region would be supporting education and creating more job opportunities. Supporting an expansion of education would allow more children to understand the dangers of drugs, gangs, and the cycle of violence that is a result. There would need to be both more investment in education and more incentive for poor families to send their children to school, much like in Brazil with the Bolsa Familia plan. Creating more job opportunities would give people another option rather than joining a gang and this would also cause people to not immigrate up to the US through Mexico. Policy makers could invest in infrastructure and create manual labor jobs through those means while also improving their country.
Even if these policies were implemented, it could take a while for them to take full effect and there could still be people who want to make the dangerous journey north to the US. To deal with this issue, I think that the US, Mexico and Central America should invest in a safe way for people who wish to immigrate to get to the US, such as a road or monitored pathway connecting them to railways. Along this way there should be check points where everyone coming through is searched for drugs and arms, so as to avoid creating a drug road. This would help with the issue of human loss and suffering. Along with this would need to be a policy of open immigration throughout the region for those who are not carrying drugs, arms, or involved with the drug gangs. This would cause those who were involved with the drug gangs or other illegal behavior to take less well known routes and they would be sought after alongside immigrants hoping for a better life.
I don't really think as a President, you should have a Twitter, it just doesn't seem like a good idea. On the one hand, you could view it as a way of "connecting" with the people, but on the other hand, it may harm them in the end, based on the sort of things they post. It is nice to see that they are trying to connect with the people through the use of social media because social media is huge right now, but that it just something that politicians should avoid. I think right now it may be helping with the democracy because it is showing that they are willing to get out there and connect with their people through social media and being transparent, as others have mentioned, but in the long run it will most likely hurt the democracy. For example, if they accidentally made a status leaking important information that could get them in trouble or threaten their government.
ReplyDeleteOn the matter of the boarder crossing, I would like to see how many of these immigrants from central america stay in Mexico instead of heading for the US. I understand that work might be more scarce, but especially in southern mexico there are some pretty safe states. If the US is the destination for most then US immigration laws need to be rethought. The first step in addressing this problem is making to process easier to get into the US and gain citizenship. A lot of these immigrants would like to become citizens and pay their fair share, but the process is so restrictive and slow. For those immigrants whose goal is to reach the US, then perhaps the US could work with Mexico to establish a US presence at the Mexico-central america boarder. This would make it more easy to get these people checked in and have a safer path through Mexico.
ReplyDelete1. Sure, we often hear of the steady flow of drugs such as cocaine and heroin travelling northward from Central America. However, the exportation of arms south of the border from the U.S is often overlooked. The 2,000-mile border that separates the U.S and Mexico is just as porous for the free flow of guns as it is drugs, resulting in Mexico’s homicide rate reaching levels near to that of which Columbia endured in the 1980’s with the heavy occupation of drug cartels. With Mexican law prohibiting ownership of any weapon other than a registered .22 for self defense, and absolutely no arms industry of its own (Parker) one must wonder if the “violence, crime and economic stagnation of their homes” that so many Central Americans are fleeing is in fact, a vicious cycle perpetuated by the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIn the NY Time’s article “In Trek North, First Lure Is Mexico’s Other Line” the title almost summarizes the entire topic. Latin Americans from various countries are lured into a risky way of thinking that immigration north is feasible with the only challenge being crossing the final border between Mexico and the U.S. Because of the accessibility, and relative ease fleeing Latin Americans experience, the U.S has seen a major spike in migrants getting into the U.S through Mexico. The U.S has called on Mexico to improve Mexico’s border security with its Central American neighbors. Mexico has promised to do so, but is conflicted because they see “migrants as Latin American brethren who need humanitarian assistance”.
As I previously stated, I believe that the vicious cycle of free flowing drugs, and arms is perpetuated by the United States. With high demands for illegal drugs in the U.S, supply from Central America will continue to be met. With the heavy production of arms in the U.S and shady trade agreements, Central America will be in no short supply of arms. When the flow of drugs and arms are dangerously paired, violence is sure to ensue and innocent citizens of Latin American countries with unstable governments who cannot protect them have no choice but to flee. I believe in order to address these issues and minimize economic and human costs, U.S and Latin American leaders must call a “truce” on all arms and gun trade and immediately halt the flows in both directions before they even begin to tackle migration issues.
"Abqjournal News: MEXICO on the Edge, The Drug Cartel Threat." Abqjournal News:
MEXICO on the Edge, The Drug Cartel Threat. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2013.
60 plus twitter post by a political figure in a nine hour period is ridiculous. Politicians should be poised and thoughtful in addressing the public. When twitter posts are fired off left and right the weight of the words is lost. Twitter should be used but not like that. Its just unprofessional and people cannot take you seriously when you are talking bout eating your sandwich.
ReplyDelete"Boom Times in Paraguy.." and the Economist article on Paraguay make it difficult to decide whether or not to be optimistic. On the one hand it seems clear that given the scope of the poverty problem in Paraguay dealing with that should be a top priority, and at the same time it seems that there is no indication that newly elected president Horacio Cartes will take meaningful action to reduce poverty and inequality. I'm certainly not going to draw any conclusions about Mr. Cartes' guilt or innocence concerning the past allegations of criminal activity in the Economist article but their existence makes it more difficult to be hopeful that Paraguayan relations will improve much in the short term.
ReplyDeleteI think it could go either way. Mr. Cartes could use his executive power to generate a comprehensive tax policy that could begin funding the infrastructure spending and social programs necessary for reducing poverty and maintaining economic growth. Or Mr. Cartes could go down the "clientelist" path and tailor policies to benefit himself and his party. I certainly hope he has chosen the former.
Boom Times in Paraguay Leave Many Behind
ReplyDeleteReading articles such as this one worries me, the reason I say this is, because I feel that for a country that is doing so well economically it should be giving back and re-investing in its people. When I say this I don’t think that the answer is handouts to the poor and re distribution of wealth, like being done in Venezuela. Venezuela is great demonstration of why this type of policy does not work, the increased crime shows why these policies should not be copied. However, with that being said, I think that a country that is economically doing well and that can afford it, should be reinvesting that money in its people. By education the poor and allowing them to become active members in society Paraguay would expand their work force which could in turn stimulate the economy further and take it to the next level. For Paraguay to leave the poor behind and allow them to fall into the cracks is not only irresponsible it is a bad economic move. Just as if a country doesn’t allow women to become educated, it’s the same type of idea they are losing out on possible resources. With 2013 looking good for Paraguay, said Thelma Amaral, politicians should start acting on these types of issues.
Thanks for a great semester
Steven
Twitter and politics is an interesting concept especially for the leaders of some of the largest populist governments in Latin America, but to what extent is it a blessing and a curse?
ReplyDeleteOf course, no one wants to hear about the foods that presidents are eating or their ever second thoughts but to be able to read the words of your leaders has a strong potential impact for democracy in the region. I think that twitter has the possibility to alleviate some of the transparency issues that we see in current Latin American politics. More so, populist leaders have the ability to communicate with the masses of supporter like never before. This begs the question of whether twitter is a key tool for the perseverance of strong clientalist states.
On the other hand Twitter also has great potential to dirty the water of politics as was seen in the most recent Venezuelan election as candidates shot unflattering tweets at each other. Social medias have a power to change public opinion unlike other types of media because they are so personal. Think about former Senator Wiener who admited to tweeting inappropriate pictures to the public. Although this might not have the same context as tweeting about the diplomatic meeting your attending and how boring it is it does highlight the potential problems of social medias.
Overall I think that social medias have the power to strengthen democracy in the region by increasing transparency and access to politicians like never before. But they must be very thoughtful as to what is said in those 140 words because after all they're running a country.
While I agree that connecting with voters and the general population with Twitter and other forms of social media can be beneficial as far as governmental transparency, I think the negatives outweigh the positives. For one, giving people a constant update about what is going on in the life of a political leader must be a major security threat. It also seems extremely unprofessional. These people are supposed to be held to a higher standard than anyone else in their country, and everything they say will be put under tremendous scrutiny. I can't see where that is worth something as informal as a tweet. If the head of a country has something important to say that they want their entire country to hear, let them hold a press conference.
DeleteIn response to the article of electoral leaders admiring the use of social media, in my opinion is fascinating. Like many have said it is an opportunity to freely express oneself and also communicate intimate thoughts with the people. As in all social media one should be mindful of what is said to the mass audience, however many people reveal all that is really on their mind. In a sense this is an opportunity to know who our leaders are, and also how human they can be. If handled responsibly leaders involved in social media pushes for liberty in free thinking and freedom of expression of oneself that is why it should be embraced.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the article concerning Latin American leaders having an affinity for social media, I find it supper interesting. I think it is awesome that Latin American citizens have a much more personal view into the lives and actions of their leaders than many other people in the world. The fact that many of these leaders don't have their political aids or advisors editing their Twitter posts is awesome, and sheds a whole new light on the mindset of these leaders. I also found it interesting that certain Latin American leaders tend to enjoy and use Twitter and other social media forms much more than others and that being very politically open or non-reserved is a Latin American political traditon. It is going to be interesting to see how this issue unfolds in the future and to see which leaders have better control over these social media outlets.
ReplyDeleteModernizing/militarizing borders won't stop the flow of people. It might slow it down, but in a globalizing world it seems shortsighted to start building walls.
ReplyDeleteIf our solution to preventing injuries on these trips is by stopping them, we have done very little to lessen the suffering of the people taking them. The countries where they live are full of grave injustices.
Their needs to be development in these countries. That is a vague solution, but without improvements in quality of life, people will look to leave for a better life.
I agree that the problem of illegal immigration will not stop due to militarized force. Immigrants like those in the article are already risking life and limb (literally) in order to cross and more dangerous circumstances will not stop them.
ReplyDeleteIf the US feels the obligation to help the suffering in so many other situations, naming them humanitarian crises and invading, whether peacefully or not, on the basis of morality, then why would it want to make the passage to the US even harder?
The US should be providing aid to these immigrants, not just during their passage, but in their home countries.
Of course, the US has been pouring money into countries like El Salvador, however, these funds should be better directed at solving the social problems. Rather than putting money towards security and military, the US should be putting it towards eduction and economic development that will eventually provide more opportunity and lessen the incentive to make the deadly journey into the US
In the meantime, immigration laws should be adjusted to make legal immigration easier. At least, there should be a plan that allows immigrants a limited amount of time in the US in order to send money to their families before returning to their hopefully-improved homelands.
In light of Paraguay's recent presidential election, Cortes will need to primarily address the issues of poverty and unemployment rate while he is in office in order to make progress and gain further support. Currently, with a history of accusations against Cortes concerning currency fraud and cigarette smuggling, as well as a history of prior leaders with dictatorships and minimal progress, Paraguay's citizens do not have high expectations for the new president. If Cortes expects to remain in office, he will have to focus on creating jobs and making plans for the improvement of infrastructure. Though the nation's economic growth is at 13%, making it one of the fastest growing economy in Latin America, it's not saying much. As long as Cortes can utilize his array of power and enforce a plan to help the people, he will counter the country's doubts.
ReplyDeleteIn light of Paraguay's recent presidential election, Cortes will need to primarily address the issues of poverty and unemployment rate while he is in office in order to make progress and gain further support. Currently, with a history of accusations against Cortes concerning currency fraud and cigarette smuggling, as well as a history of prior leaders with dictatorships and minimal progress, Paraguay's citizens do not have high expectations for the new president. If Cortes expects to remain in office, he will have to focus on creating jobs and making plans for the improvement of infrastructure. Though the nation's economic growth is at 13%, making it one of the fastest growing economy in Latin America, it's not saying much. As long as Cortes can utilize his array of power and enforce a plan to help the people, he will counter the country's doubts.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to be president of Paraguay, I would make infrastructure the biggest priority, and take advantage of the large amounts of hydroelectric power available to them. As it said in the first article, the televised elections were "marred by blackouts" and so putting money into a nation-wide reform of utilities/ power lines, I am thinking of something along the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority that the US established in the 1930s, as many of these smaller towns are underdeveloped and it would represent a big upgrade. Given Paraguay's standing as one of the poorest latin american countries, I think it's also important to establish a conditional cash transfer policy as well, as it has been observed to work well for the countries who have used it. With the second article, I think it is given that there will continue to be a large gap in income distribution, and the key there is to reduce inequality first (i.e. lower the bottom acceptable standards) and shoot for that as opposed to widespread reform.
ReplyDeleteThe article regarding Paraguay's recent economic success presents an interesting conflict. First, a country, like Paraguay, that decides to limit taxation can obviously be rewarded with economic growth, but only at the cost of social improvements. Yet, with 32 percent of the population in poverty, I believe that a little more taxation allocated toward social issues might actually provide the country with even a larger economic return. In the long run, social issues are often connected to economic issues, taxation allocated toward schools and healthcare is likely to produce a bigger and more productive workforce.
ReplyDeletein response to the twitter question, I think that the use of social media by elected officials would help the quality of democracy of that given country. In my opinion it is important for any elected official to be as transparent as he can be towards his constituency. Social outlets such as facebook and twitter allow for a great platform for these officials to voice what they are thinking and express what they want towards the public. Most important this allows for officials to speak to the public on an everyday basis as oppose to once in a while when they make speeches on television. Their use of social media may be excessive such as the case with De kirchner but at least people know more about her personality and get a little more intimate. This helps democracy, because the public actually gets to know their elected official a lot better and these officials will want to watch more closely what they do and say if they want to get elected for the following term.
ReplyDelete