Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Mexican presidential elections and border security
What makes the escalation of the drug war in northern Mexico so disoncerting - and also explains the impotence of the military and the federales to confront major drug cartels in that country - is that the fundamental causes of their sad situation are economic and political, not necessarily related to the success or (more often) failure of the justice system.
On the political side, high-level corruption defines this conflict in the eyes of many Mexicans I know. Under stewardship of the "PRI," which was the ruling party from the time of the revolution until 12 years ago, political favor doled out smuggling opportunities to various criminal organizations who, the theory goes, were allowed to operate in exchange for (relatively) low levels of violence. Once the PRI lost power, though, the infrastructure controlling the beast fell apart - first in Juarez and then Nuevo Laredo and beyond - corruption factionalized by region, and criminal gangs began openly competing for turf. By the time President Calderon sent the military in to take over security in northern Mexico, the government had become merely one of several competitors for political power. Think of it from a citizen's standpoint: If you want to remain safe, should you pay your taxes to the government or the criminal gang running a protection racket in your community? It's a non-trivial question.
On the economic front, NAFTA helped spawn a legitimate middle class in Mexico that didn't exist before, but it also depopulated rural areas, driving thousands of families, including many with relatively little education or skills, out of agriculture and into an urban proletariat where the country's legitimate economic base was ill-prepared to absorb them. Such desperate poverty and lack of opportunity, combined with rational personal security decisions, underlie the cost-benefit analysis of many Mexicans who side with the drug smugglers against the government (or else waffle tentatively in the middle, waiting to identify the likely victor). This story about the massive drought in northern Mexico - for which I almost feel guilty after the bout of rain we've had - makes me think the economic end of the equation may only get worse in the short term.
With military and police enforcement seemingly unable to stem the violence (it's declined in Juarez but expanded elsewhere in Mexico), and the Mexican public understandably opposed to direct US intervention, that pretty much leaves a poltiical solution as the only viable path forward for the troubled state. And that makes this summer's presidential elections in Mexico (replacing Calderon's successor for the next six years) more important for Texas' "border security," arguably, even than the US presidential race. In any event, the three-candidate field is now complete and it's a virtual guarantee any debates on "border security" will be more substantive and interesting than any we're seeing in the (endless?) GOP contest for US president, which should be refreshing in and of itself.
On the political side, high-level corruption defines this conflict in the eyes of many Mexicans I know. Under stewardship of the "PRI," which was the ruling party from the time of the revolution until 12 years ago, political favor doled out smuggling opportunities to various criminal organizations who, the theory goes, were allowed to operate in exchange for (relatively) low levels of violence. Once the PRI lost power, though, the infrastructure controlling the beast fell apart - first in Juarez and then Nuevo Laredo and beyond - corruption factionalized by region, and criminal gangs began openly competing for turf. By the time President Calderon sent the military in to take over security in northern Mexico, the government had become merely one of several competitors for political power. Think of it from a citizen's standpoint: If you want to remain safe, should you pay your taxes to the government or the criminal gang running a protection racket in your community? It's a non-trivial question.
On the economic front, NAFTA helped spawn a legitimate middle class in Mexico that didn't exist before, but it also depopulated rural areas, driving thousands of families, including many with relatively little education or skills, out of agriculture and into an urban proletariat where the country's legitimate economic base was ill-prepared to absorb them. Such desperate poverty and lack of opportunity, combined with rational personal security decisions, underlie the cost-benefit analysis of many Mexicans who side with the drug smugglers against the government (or else waffle tentatively in the middle, waiting to identify the likely victor). This story about the massive drought in northern Mexico - for which I almost feel guilty after the bout of rain we've had - makes me think the economic end of the equation may only get worse in the short term.
With military and police enforcement seemingly unable to stem the violence (it's declined in Juarez but expanded elsewhere in Mexico), and the Mexican public understandably opposed to direct US intervention, that pretty much leaves a poltiical solution as the only viable path forward for the troubled state. And that makes this summer's presidential elections in Mexico (replacing Calderon's successor for the next six years) more important for Texas' "border security," arguably, even than the US presidential race. In any event, the three-candidate field is now complete and it's a virtual guarantee any debates on "border security" will be more substantive and interesting than any we're seeing in the (endless?) GOP contest for US president, which should be refreshing in and of itself.
Labels:
Border Wars,
Electoral politics,
Mexico
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
If all Mexican drug folks, from the mules to the cartel heads, miraculously were morphed into Catholic nuns overnight, how long do you think it would be before the drug shipments resumed? A week? A month? Six months? is there any doubt that they WOULD resume? The drug war is fueled by US drug laws. Prohibition never works. Market forces will not be denied. If you REALLY wanted to damage the criminal forces in the US and Mexico, you would begin by decriminalizing drug possession and use.
You can not stop the supply of drugs, that is a proven FACT. The answer is to go after the demand.
Drugs are a behaviorial problem, the substance is a symptom.
The US is at war with itself, war on terror, war on drugs is simply the government looking to justify it's grand existence.
I'd legalize drugs, save money, (after a few years of thrashing and fit-throwing from the professionals), on the Law Enforcement and prison side, add a little bit of health and substance abuse support and let the rest of them burn through their lives. It will be a LOT less mess and trouble to the overall culture than investing time and treasure in a system that doesn't work.
But we won't do it. We currently have four already-retired government employees running for Sheriff up here in the most criminal population in the world, (Smith County, based on state incarceration rates), and none of them want to be jailers...they all want to ramp up the war on drugs, kick doors and seize property.
Scott-
I must give you alot of credit, you got your finger on the topics.
I live here in Mexico and watch things carefully.
Statistically, you are safer in Mexico than most places in the USA. The general public are wonderful people, with a heart of gold.
I agree the election coming up is important PRI vs PAN. PRD is a small factor. People don't care in the USA, or Texas, but this is critical. Texans, it would smart to pay attention here.
You are spot on Scott(como de costumbre), lets see where these guys (whoops girl, Mota!) go on the border, drugs...
Mota, PAN is somewhat equivalent to the Republican party, keep the money where it is, guns, war.
Calderon is PAN, you see the river of blood en Juarez...
I like Peña Nieto (PRI). PRI equates somewhat to the Democatric party in the USA, some change.
This is the strong feeling here aqui en DF. The guy is electable and might shake things up...
No mas aqui, pero importante para Texas y USA...
12:20 - exactamente...
As I have always told my amigos, "Buy American". That includes their sinsemilla.
/s/ A former customs agent (And no, I never indulged when commissioned)
I would +1 your comment if I could.
I went to El Paso (from Houston) a few times right about 1980. Juarez was a little joint across the river (you could walk). El Paso isn't big--just a little city by a hill--about 480,000 people, 1/4 of which was foreign-born. Juarez
The next time I went to El Paso was 1992, population 600,000, ~same percentage of foreigners. I approached from the east on I-10, at night. I saw the lights of Juarez, thinking, oh, I'm here! I kept driving.
20 miles later, I arrived at El Paso. Juarez had grown a bit, you understand, pop. over 1 million. (Today it's 1.3 million.)
In lieu of legalizing drugs in the US, what effect would occur if it was done in Mexico? Long term is unknown, but the short term effects for both the US and Mexico would be dramatic I think. Tourism would jump through the roof and Jimmy Buffet would be pressured to trump his Margaritaville. ...enough useless blather. Carry on!
Post a Comment