Losing Faith in the State, Some Mexican Towns Quietly Break Away

I suppose they could elect to create a coercive apparatus but I used the 50 people on a desert island example because its virtually impossible to establish the kind of power differential that exists between a modern head of state and a citizen in the absence of some sort of moral legitimacy in the eyes of the general population.

So the desert island would always require a much higher critical mass of acquiescence to the authority of the 5 person council than a modern state. A modern head of state in a corrupt authoritarian country doesn't really need to have a ruling coalition that includes much of anyone beyond the coercive apparatus.


I disagree here as well. The moral legitimacy arises from the fact that they were elected in, what I assume, was a mutually agreed upon format for island governance. 5 people can't declare themselves the leaders but if they were elected then they're legitimate.

And the size/scale of the power differential is dependent on the amount of people and resources in the economy. But maybe the smaller group actually creates a larger power differential if they control the populace through violence and the strongest toughest people are on their enforcement team.

They would still have been elected by the majority of the population and they would still wield that majority strength to enforce their edicts.


I think there is a distinction to be made here though. A paid militia is likely easier to wield against the interests of the people than a volunteer one because they they're self interest is now tied to institution paying them. I would suspect a volunteer militia would be more likely to disobey an immoral order since it doesn't cost them the salary they don't have.

Also another distinction is the government creating the laws. With a model like Cheran the emphasis is on local structures which is why they separated the city into four jurisdictions that have their own councils. I would imagine in practice there's a qualitative difference, whether for better or worse, between the governance of a local council and the governance of a national assembly.

I again disagree. A paid militia isn't emotionally attached to the themes for which they are being wielded, whereas a volunteer militia is more likely to be filled with ideologues - who else would volunteer to police their neighbors? To use this climate - do you think a volunteer force in support of Trump would really oppose him on the interests of the people?

The Chernal structure is no different than what most places do. Small local governments that meet together for larger issues. Federal -- > state --> county --> city --> district.

Chernal is a small region so it's overall governing body is small but if they merged with the next town over, the government would have to double in size, even as the local to major structure remains unchanged.

I agree and I'm not arguing that this kind of communal rule is objectively better for all peoples everywhere. I do think that this form of governance might be better suited for certain peoples in certain places. Places like Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East have struggled to create sustainable and legitimate governance with the standard nation-state model with only a few exceptions. What I'm saying is this style of governance may be better suited for those places where the existence of a strong centralized national government has reliably produced a predatory, authoritarian state.


Again, some disagreement. Those places haven't struggled to create sustainable and legitimate governance because of the type of governance. That would imply that left to operate sans interference they have not figured it out but that's not really what's happened. I'll skip past the colonization issue where instead of people creating their own governments, they had nation-states forced upon them and I'll move onto the time conversation. Give the time period involved here, it's far too early to claim that they have struggled with this concept.

Look at France for example. French Revolution in 1782. Napolean comes to power in 1804. Bourbon resotration in 1830. Revolution in 1848. Coup d'etat in 1852. REvolution in 1870.

That's 90 years of failed nation states yet no one says that France isn't suited for governance under nation states. Our history is far too short to judge the success of any post WW2 region at this point.

Sure I agree with that, I'm just saying there's a qualitative difference between the kind of quasi-anarchic governance seen in Cheran and Rojova and the kind of governance seen in a standard nation-state and that in some contexts the latter might be more prone to corruption and authoritarian tendencies than the former.[/QUOTE]

See, I completely disagree with the label quasi anarchic. There's nothing quasi-anarchic about it. It's a very formal government, right down to the enforcement arm and election process. That it's not corrupt after a handful of years isn't enough time to argue it's immune to corruption based on size. Corruption is endemic to people, not government structure.

But I'll ask, what about it makes it quasi-anarchic?
 
I disagree here as well. The moral legitimacy arises from the fact that they were elected in, what I assume, was a mutually agreed upon format for island governance. 5 people can't declare themselves the leaders but if they were elected then they're legitimate.
They're only legitimate as long as the other 45 agree they are. If the first decision the council makes is something the other 45 don't want to acquiesce to they could just overthrow the 5 in a way that the population of a nation-state just couldn't do with their own government as evidenced by the Syrian Civil War.
And the size/scale of the power differential is dependent on the amount of people and resources in the economy.
True but even with the same given population and territory I think if the system emphasized the local structures over the regional/federal ones that would reduce the likelihood of a strong predatory state forming.

What I mean by this is that the local district would remain the principal political arena for people. Most of the laws they adhered to and taxes they paid would be passed by their local commune or district with fewer taxes paid to and legislative power given to the the federal structures.

I suspect that whatever coercive apparatuses created by these individual districts would pale in comparison to the coercive potential of a national standing army control by a strong, centralized government though of course they would come with problems of their own.
But maybe the smaller group actually creates a larger power differential if they control the populace through violence and the strongest toughest people are on their enforcement team.

They would still have been elected by the majority of the population and they would still wield that majority strength to enforce their edicts.
I don't think any number of tough guys matches an air force or a few tank divisions when it comes to establishing a power differential.
I again disagree. A paid militia isn't emotionally attached to the themes for which they are being wielded, whereas a volunteer militia is more likely to be filled with ideologues - who else would volunteer to police their neighbors? To use this climate - do you think a volunteer force in support of Trump would really oppose him on the interests of the people?
Of course a volunteer militia would have its own issues as the multitude of volunteer militias in revolutionary contexts shows. But my point is there is always an oppressive potential when it comes to institutions like a professional standing army and its one that we see realized to gruesome and spectacular effect in many parts of the 3rd world.
The Chernal structure is no different than what most places do. Small local governments that meet together for larger issues. Federal -- > state --> county --> city --> district.

Chernal is a small region so it's overall governing body is small but if they merged with the next town over, the government would have to double in size, even as the local to major structure remains unchanged.
The difference is in the emphasis on which level is the most important. In centralized countries its often national level politics that take center stage with each level under that taking decreasing levels of importance in peoples lives. I don't know everything about Cheran but they seem to care more about their own local politics and their own self governance than engaging with the national or state level politics.

And in the sort of system I'm imagining here you could always have the same hierarchy you delineated there but it would be reversed with the city or district level being the primary political arena and whose laws supersede the federal, state, and county laws.
Again, some disagreement. Those places haven't struggled to create sustainable and legitimate governance because of the type of governance. That would imply that left to operate sans interference they have not figured it out but that's not really what's happened. I'll skip past the colonization issue where instead of people creating their own governments, they had nation-states forced upon them and I'll move onto the time conversation. Give the time period involved here, it's far too early to claim that they have struggled with this concept.

Look at France for example. French Revolution in 1782. Napolean comes to power in 1804. Bourbon resotration in 1830. Revolution in 1848. Coup d'etat in 1852. REvolution in 1870.

That's 90 years of failed nation states yet no one says that France isn't suited for governance under nation states. Our history is far too short to judge the success of any post WW2 region at this point.
Funny enough I've also used the French example to point out the growing pains of democratization.

You have a point but I suspect that even if some of these countries could eventually adapt to the nation-state model that they have so far struggled to, they might be better suited to other forms of governance. And in particular I don't like the French model. There's a reason that Francophone countries are particularly prone to radicalization of their Sunni Muslim youth and it has to do with their political culture.

And I also think it isn't an accident that from Yemen to Syria federalization is called for by a variety of actors.
See, I completely disagree with the label quasi anarchic. There's nothing quasi-anarchic about it. It's a very formal government, right down to the enforcement arm and election process. That it's not corrupt after a handful of years isn't enough time to argue it's immune to corruption based on size. Corruption is endemic to people, not government structure.

But I'll ask, what about it makes it quasi-anarchic?
What I mean by quasi-anarchi has to do with the level of autonomy granted them by the Mexican government. They're allowed to ban political parties despite the provisions protecting free speech for instance.

In an anarchic system power would ultimately lie with the independent communes and whatever local structures of governance they would employ. They could theoretically form a global confederation of communes that encompasses the entire world in a similar fashion to the way states can join international institutions while retaining their sovereignty for the most part. It would be the opposite of the US federal system whereby the laws made by the local structures would supersede the laws of the federal ones.

Obviously that's not the case here which is why I said quasi-anarchic.
 
The people of Cheran haven't had a single slaying or serious crime in six years.
By Marie Monteleone and Eric Martin
August 11, 2017
More than 180,000 people have been killed in Mexico since then-President Felipe Calderon sent the army to fight organized crime groups in his native state of Michoacan in 2006. But one small town in that state says it hasn't had a homicide since 2011 because its residents — led by women — took up arms to kick out groups who had expanded from drug trafficking into illegal logging.

While overall in Michoacán, federal authorities say 614 people have been killed this year, a 16 percent increase from 2016, the people of Cherán say they've become immune to serious crime. They expelled the politicians and local police, and community members now patrol the area wearing uniforms emblazoned with the slogan “For Justice, Security and the Restoration of Our Territory.” Photographer César Rodríguez traveled to the town of 20,000 to photograph the community.

1400x-1.jpg

Members of the local police force, known as the Ronda Comunitaria, guard a checkpoint in the town of Cherán, Michoacán State, Mexico. The Ronda Comunitaria is made up of local residents, both men and women, from the community.


1400x-1.jpg

This year, Mexico homicides climbed to 12,155 through June, according the nation's interior ministry, up 31 percent from the same period in 2016. The 2,234 killings in June were the most since any month since at least 2001. The town of Cherán is located in the Mexican state of Michoacán, known as one of the most dangerous states in Mexico.


1400x-1.jpg

After Cherán’s uprising in 2011, the town built the "San Francisco" Tree Nursery employing men and women of the community.


1400x-1.jpg

The nursery was completed in 2013 and the community estimates that it has produced more than 1 million trees.


1400x-1.jpg

Trees from the nursery are used for reforestation projects or sold to nearby towns.


1400x-1.jpg

The Mexican government recognizes Cherán as an autonomous, self-governing community under the Usos y costumbres legal provision granted to some indigenous communities throughout Latin America.


1400x-1.jpg

For the past six years, the townspeople claim they have dodged the statistics that plague the rest of Mexico. Pedro Chavez Sanchez, a member of Cherán's elder council, spoke to photojournalist César Rodríguez, on how Cherán succeeds in spite of the violence growing in the rest of Mexico. “Things can not change unless you change things within, and that is how we did it. We worked as a community to create the change that we wanted. We listened to our elders, we trusted in our customs. If we have a problem, it is our problem, we solve it as a whole. We have no political parties, and we have no organized crime."


1400x-1.jpg

The Forest Keepers, the community’s defense team against illegal loggers, patrols the land daily.


1400x-1.jpg

If illegal loggers are caught today, their tools and machines are confiscated.


1400x-1.jpg

Depending on the extent of damage to the land, illegal loggers are fined and could face jail time.


1400x-1.jpg

There are no permits to cut healthy pine or oak trees. The only trees that can be cut are those that are dead or have been damaged by severe weather and have prior approval by the community council.


1400x-1.jpg

A Forest Keeper checks a permit from men thought to be illegal loggers. The permit was determined invalid, and their tools were confiscated.


1400x-1.jpg

“Since the very beginning we have wanted three things: security, justice, and the restoration of our land. Security was made possible thanks to our community patrol. The reconstitution of our land has been made possible because of the tree nursery. Justice, however, that is not that easy. The people of Cherán have lost loved ones, have family members that remain missing, they have pain, so justice is the hardest to reach, but we are progressing.” —Pedro Chavez Sanchez


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/phot...cked-out-organized-crime-in-this-mexican-town
 
this wouldn't work in a place like zacatecas where the resource is silver and the population is 1.5 million in some cities.
 
Losing Faith in the State, Some Mexican Towns Quietly Break Away
By MAX FISHER, AMANDA TAUB and DALIA MARTÍNEZ | JAN. 7, 2018

merlin_131641868_bc1ff56d-d4b2-42cc-9143-1038e27f3758-superJumbo.jpg

José Santos at a checkpoint near the entrance to Tancítaro. Fed up with both the cartels and the government, the people of Tancítaro pushed out both.


TANCÍTARO, Mexico — The road to this agricultural town winds through the slums and cartel-controlled territory of Michoacán, ground zero for Mexico’s drug war, before arriving at a sight so strange it can seem like a mirage.

Fifteen-foot stone turrets are staffed by men whose green uniforms belong to no official force. Beyond them, a statue of an avocado bears the inscription “avocado capital of the world.” And beyond the statue is Tancítaro, an island of safety and stability amid the most violent period in Mexico’s history.

Local orchard owners, who export over $1 million in avocados per day, mostly to the United States, underwrite what has effectively become an independent city-state. Self-policing and self-governing, it is a sanctuary from drug cartels as well as from the Mexican state.

But beneath the calm is a town under tightfisted control, enforced by militias accountable only to their paymasters. Drug addiction and suicide are soaring, locals say, as the social contract strains.

Tancítaro represents a quiet but telling trend in Mexico, where a handful of towns and cities are effectively seceding, partly or in whole. These are acts of desperation, revealing the degree to which Mexico’s police and politicians are seen as part of the threat.

Visit three such enclaves — Tancítaro; Monterrey, a rich commercial city; and Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl, just outside the capital — and you will find a pattern. Each is a haven of relative safety amid violence, suggesting that their diagnosis of the problem was correct. But their gains are fragile and have come at significant cost.

They are exceptions that prove the rule: Mexico’s crisis manifests as violence, but it is rooted in the corruption and weakness of the state.

sub-inthavens-master675.jpg

Guarding the town’s avocado orchards.

Tancítaro: ‘A Million or Two on Weapons’

It began with an uprising. Townspeople formed militias to eject both the cartel, which effectively controlled much of Michoacán, and the local police, who were seen as complicit. Orchard owners, whose families and businesses faced growing extortion threats, bankrolled the revolt.

This left Tancítaro without police or a government, whose officials had fled. Power accumulated to the militias that controlled the streets and to their backers, an organization of wealthy avocado growers known as the Junta de Sanidad Vegetal, or Plant Health Council. Citizens sometimes call it the Junta.

Nearly four years in, long after other militia-run towns in Michoacán collapsed into violence, the streets remain safe and tidy. But in sweeping away the institutions that enabled crime to flourish, Tancítaro created a system that in many ways resembles cartel control.

Their rule began with a purge. Young men suspected of involvement in the cartel were expelled. Low-level runners or informants, mostly boys, were allowed to stay, though the cartel murdered most in retaliation, a militia commander said.

Though violence eventually cooled, the wartime power structure has remained. The militias now act as the police, as well as guards for the town perimeter and the avocado orchards.

Cinthia Garcia Nieves, a young community organizer, moved into town shortly after the fighting subsided. Idealistic but clear-minded, she wanted to help Tancítaro develop real institutions.

But lines of authority had “blurred,” she said in a cafe near the town center.

Ms. Nieves set up citizens’ councils as a way for local families to get involved. But militia rule has accustomed many to the idea that power belongs to whomever has the guns.

She has high hopes for community justice forums, designed to punish crimes and resolve disputes. But, in practice, justice is often determined — and punishments administered — by whichever militia commander chooses to involve himself.

“We took them out in the street and gave them a beating,” Jorge Zamora, a militia member, said of some men accused of dealing drugs. Their lives were spared because two of them were his relatives, he said. Instead, “we expelled them from the town.”

merlin_131641862_d1f17031-d0e3-40df-b2ca-d5716e0e357b-master675.jpg

Emilio Aguirre Rios at his farm outside Tancítaro

Though his militia is tasked with guarding orchards, not policing, its proximity to the junta’s interests gives it special power. “For those people, it’s not a burden at all to spend a million or two on weapons,” Mr. Zamora said.

Officially, Tancítaro is run by a mayor so popular that he was nominated by the unanimous consent of every major political party and won in a landslide. Unofficially, the mayor reports to the farm owners, who predetermined his election by ensuring he was the only viable candidate, according to Falko Ernst and Romain Le Cour Grandmaison, security researchers who study Tancítaro.

The citizens’ councils, designed as visions of democratic utopianism, hold little power. Social services have faltered.

Though the new order is popular, it offers few avenues for appeal or dissent. Families whose sons or brothers are expelled — a practice that continues — have little recourse.

The central government has declined to reimpose control, the researchers believe, for fear of drawing attention to the town’s lesson that secession brings safety.

Ms. Nieves remains a believer in Tancítaro’s model, but worries about its future.

“We have to work together,” she said, or risk a future of “oppressive authority.”

int-mexico98-superJumbo.jpg

Taking portraits for a quinceañera, or coming-of-age, celebration in Monterrey. The city’s business elite quietly took over public institutions.


Monterrey: ‘They Destroyed the Whole Thing’

If Tancítaro seceded with a gun, then the city of Monterrey, home to many top Mexican corporations, did it with a Rolodex and a handshake.

Rather than ejecting institutions, Monterrey’s business elite quietly took them over — all with the blessing of their friends and golf partners in public office.

But their once-remarkable progress is now collapsing. Crime is returning.

“I’m telling you, I have a long career in these matters, and the project I am more proud of than anything is this one in Monterrey,” said Jorge Tello, a security consultant and former head of the national intelligence agency.

“It’s very easy to lose it,” he warned, adding that it may already be too late.

Monterrey’s experiment began over a lunch. Mr. Tello was dining with the governor, who received a call from José Antonio Fernández, the head of Femsa, one of Mexico’s largest companies.

Femsa’s private security guards, while ferrying employees’ children to school, had been attacked by cartel gunmen, he said. Two had died repelling what was most likely a kidnapping attempt.

The governor put the call on speaker. It was the first of many conversations, joined by other corporate heads who faced similar threats.

A club of corporate executives who call themselves the Group of 10 offered to help fund and reform the state’s kidnapping police. The governor agreed.

They hired a consultant, who advised top-to-bottom changes and replaced nearly half the officers. They hired lawyers to rewrite kidnapping laws and began to coordinate between the police and the families of victims.

When the governor later announced an ambitious plan for a new police force, intended to restore order, he again invited business leaders in. C.E.O.s would now oversee one of the most central functions of government. They hired more consultants to put into effect the best and latest thinking in policing, community outreach, anything that could stop the violence tearing through their city. They bankrolled special housing and high salaries for officers.

Their payroll and human resources departments serviced the force. Their marketing divisions ran a nationwide recruitment campaign. When government officials asked to approve the ads before they ran, corporate leaders said no. Perhaps most crucially, they circumvented the bureaucracy and corruption that had bogged down other police reform efforts.

Crime dropped citywide. Community leaders in poorer areas reported safer streets and renewed public trust in the police.

Monterrey’s experience offered still more evidence that in Mexico, violence is only a symptom; the real disease is in government. The corporate takeover worked as a sort of quarantine. But, with the disease untreated, the quarantine inevitably broke.

A new governor, who took office in late 2015, let reforms lapse and appointed friends to key positions. Now, crime and reports of police brutality are resurging, particularly in working-class suburbs. Business leaders, whose wealthy neighborhoods remain safe, have either failed or declined to push the new governor.

“Things got better, people felt comfortable, and then they destroyed the whole thing,” Mr. Tello said.

Mexico’s weak institutions, he added, make any local fix subject to the whims of political leaders. Countries like the United States, he said, “have this structure that we don’t have. That’s what’s so dangerous.”

Adrián de la Garza, who is mayor of Monterrey’s municipal core, said the city could do only so much to insulate itself. “This isn’t an island,” he said.

Any Mexican city, he said, is policed by multiple forces. Some report to the mayor, some to the governor and some to the federal government. And any one of those political actors can derail progress through corruption, cronyism or simple neglect.

Even Mexico’s most powerful business leaders could cut them out only briefly.

“It’s a big problem,” Mr. de la Garza said. Managing it, he said, is “just political life in Mexico.”

int-mexico95-superJumbo.jpg

Police officers in Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl. The chief has been free to experiment because the government is not part of the entrenched party system.​


Neza: ‘How Long Can We Hold This?’

“You don’t expect to see a bright light in a place like Neza,” said John Bailey, a Georgetown University professor who studies Mexican policing.

Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl, a million-resident sprawl outside Mexico City, was once known for poverty, gang violence and police corruption so widespread that officers sometimes mugged citizens.

Today, though still rough, it is far safer. Its police officers are considered “a really promising model,” Mr. Bailey said, in a part of the country where most are seen as threats.

Unlike Tancítaro or Monterrey, Neza has no militia or business elite to seize or win power. Its government appears, on the surface, normal.

But the police chief who has overseen this change, a grandfatherly former academic named Jorge Amador, is not normal. For years he has treated Neza as his personal laboratory, trying a wild mix of hard-nosed reforms, harebrained schemes and fanciful experiments.

Many failed. Some drew arch amusement from the foreign press. (A literature program provided officers with a new book each month — mostly classics, all mandatory — and rewarded officers who wrote their own.) But some worked.

Mr. Amador was free to experiment — and his successes stuck — because Neza’s government is not normal, either. It has seceded from a part of the state that Joy Langston, a political scientist, called Mexico’s key point of failure: its party system.

Neza inverted Monterrey’s model: Rather than establishing an independent police force and co-opting the political system, Neza established an independent political system and co-opted the police.

Mexico’s establishment parties are more than parties. They are the state. Loyalists, not civil servants, run institutions. Officials have little freedom to stretch and little incentive to investigate corruption that might implicate fellow party members. Most are shuffled between offices every few years, cutting any successes short.

Neza, run by a third party, the left-wing P.R.D., exists outside of this system. Its leaders are free to gut local institutions and cut out the state authorities.

Mr. Amador is doing both. He fired one in eight police officers and changed every commanding officer. He shuffled assignments to disrupt patronage networks. Those who remain are under constant scrutiny. Every car is equipped with a GPS unit, tracked by dozens of internal affairs officers.

The state police are treated like foreign invaders. Neza’s leaders believe state officials are quietly undermining their efforts in a bid to retake power.

int-mexico94-master675.jpg

Police officers monitoring cameras that are trained on the streets of Neza


Neza’s bureaucratic secession allowed Mr. Amador to remake the force in his image. Corruption and crime would always pay more than he could, Mr. Amador knew. So he would offer something more valuable than money: a proud civic identity.

Essay contests, sports leagues and scholarships come with heavy messaging, cultivating a culture that can feel cultlike. Awards are handed out frequently — often publicly, always with a bit of cash — and for the smallest achievements.

“We have to convince the police officer that they can be a different kind of police officer, but also the citizen that they have a different kind of officer,” Mr. Amador said.

Yazmin Quroz, a longtime resident, said working with police officers, whom she now knows by name, had brought a sense of community. “We are united, which hadn’t happened before,” she said. “We’re finally all talking to each other.”

But Neza’s gains could evaporate, Mr. Amador said, if crime in neighboring areas continued to rise or if the mayor’s office changed party. His experiment has held drug gangs and the Mexican state at bay, but he could solve neither. He compared Neza to the Byzantine Empire, squeezed between larger empires for centuries before succumbing to history.

“The question is,” he said, “how long we can hold this?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/world/americas/mexico-state-corruption.html
 
That's whats so infuriating about the Mexican violence issue, its not like the government cant fix the issue, its simply that they dont give a flying fuck about it.
 
That's whats so infuriating about the Mexican violence issue, its not like the government cant fix the issue, its simply that they dont give a flying fuck about it.

ah, I think it's more that the Mexican government has been co-opted by the purveyors of the violence. Each corrupt politician turns a blind eye to the violence of his patrons. And there are so many patrons with so many politicians under their individual belt that the system is essentially never working together.

Or at least that's my understanding of how the patronage system is working.
 
ah, I think it's more that the Mexican government has been co-opted by the purveyors of the violence. Each corrupt politician turns a blind eye to the violence of his patrons. And there are so many patrons with so many politicians under their individual belt that the system is essentially never working together.

Or at least that's my understanding of how the patronage system is working.

If they were working for the purveyors of violence there wouldnt really be a need for violence in the first place since there wouldnt be much cartel fragmentation.
 
If they were working for the purveyors of violence there wouldnt really be a need for violence in the first place since there wouldnt be much cartel fragmentation.

Different purveyors of violence with different politicians in their pockets. Not to mention as new players enter the drug game, they need to buy their own set of politicians - either by outbidding the other cartels or killing the previous patrons and filling the patronage void.

More importantly, what is your understanding of the interplay between the cartels and the politicians that they are paying?
 
Different purveyors of violence with different politicians in their pockets. Not to mention as new players enter the drug game, they need to buy their own set of politicians - either by outbidding the other cartels or killing the previous patrons and filling the patronage void.

More importantly, what is your understanding of the interplay between the cartels and the politicians that they are paying?

There are only new players because of the failed Kingpin strategy in the first place.
 
There are only new players because of the failed Kingpin strategy in the first place.

No argument here. I'm just saying that it's not indifference to violence by the Mexican government, it's that so many members of the political class are indebted to the creators of the violence. And this is part and parcel of the patronage system behind Mexican government.

Now, I don't live there so if I misunderstand the patronage system, tell me.
 
No argument here. I'm just saying that it's not indifference to violence by the Mexican government, it's that so many members of the political class are indebted to the creators of the violence. And this is part and parcel of the patronage system behind Mexican government.

Now, I don't live there so if I misunderstand the patronage system, tell me.

They are not really indebted, at least not at the State or Federal level.

Politicians betraying druglords is not a rare thing.
 
They are not really indebted, at least not at the State or Federal level.

Politicians betraying druglords is not a rare thing.

To betray them, they first had to be in bed with them.

So they start off indebted to them and then as they climb the political ranks to the State and Federal level, they stop being in the pockets of the very people who were funding their rise up the ranks?
 
To betray them, they first had to be in bed with them.

So they start off indebted to them and then as they climb the political ranks to the State and Federal level, they stop being in the pockets of the very people who were funding their rise up the ranks?

Certainly not, those who are groomed as politicians by druglords are well in bed with them, the issue is that most politicians arent.

They just get some money thrown at them once they are in office in order to look the other way.

The main driver of violence is fragmentation led by the kingpin strategy, and corrupt or inefficient local law enforcement.
 
Certainly not, those who are groomed as politicians by druglords are well in bed with them, the issue is that most politicians arent.

They just get some money thrown at them once they are in office in order to look the other way.

The main driver of violence is fragmentation led by the kingpin strategy, and corrupt or inefficient local law enforcement.

But how can you describe that as "indifference"? If the politicians are being paid to look the other way then they're not indifferent to the violence, they are profiting from it. In that the existence of the violence necessitates some of kind of government action, the politicians can either act to stop the violence and collect their regular pay as politicians or they can look the other way and collect their regular pay plus the money thrown at them.

And sure your law enforcement is corrupt but if your political leaders weren't on the narco dole, they might be more aggressive about reforming them.

Anyway, I just think "indifference" is the wrong way to describe what's going on.
 
But how can you describe that as "indifference"? If the politicians are being paid to look the other way then they're not indifferent to the violence, they are profiting from it. In that the existence of the violence necessitates some of kind of government action, the politicians can either act to stop the violence and collect their regular pay as politicians or they can look the other way and collect their regular pay plus the money thrown at them.

And sure your law enforcement is corrupt but if your political leaders weren't on the narco dole, they might be more aggressive about reforming them.

Anyway, I just think "indifference" is the wrong way to describe what's going on.

Well, its not like i tried to convey the notion of indifference, merely that they dont give a crap about all the damage resulting from the kickbacks they receive and its nowhere near close to the money from embelezzment and insider trading.

These people are ATM a bunch of sociopaths and i hope come election day people are smart enough not to vote for them.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,726
Messages
55,512,575
Members
174,803
Latest member
Derik
Back
Top