Not too long ago, I posted a brief observation about the drug cartels of Columbia, and their similarities to today’s Mexico. Obviously I have no in-depth knowledge of the complexities involved; I simply observed that many of the stories coming out of Mexico today regarding the government’s struggle against the drug cartels appeared eerily similar to Columbia’s struggle against Pablo Escobar, as chronicled in the book Killing Pablo.
I thought I’d pass along this link to an article in Seed that addresses the situation in Mexico (and certain Latin American countries), from a standpoint that suggests the comparisons aren’t too far off. Interestingly, the author indicates that much of the problem stems from many of these governments’ failures to utilize effective law enforcement techniques and governing principles to not only defeat these organized crime syndicates (that’s what they really are), but to prevent their ascension in the first place. Specifics aren’t offered in any great detail (the article is fairly short), but one basic premise appears to be that the achievement of other goals a government might have (addressing poverty, environmental concerns, etc.) are significantly undermined when a pervasive sense of justice and stability are not widely perceived by the populace. In other words, a perception of widespread corruption, let alone a government unable to enforce its laws, prevents significant progress any other area. This may not be revolutionary thinking, but it certainly is timely.
Personally, I’m interested in seeing how this view compares with the subject matter in the book A Farewell to Alms, which I understand proposes that the rise of prosperity in the world is very recent, and largely due to England’s ability to provide a stable government, with a stable sense of administered justice that allowed for the economic benefits of the Industrial Revolution to thrive. Since I haven’t read the book yet, I admit I may be off a bit in terms of the premise. However, if I am correct, then this book might provide the details lacking in the article - largely, the “How,” as in, “How does a government (such as Mexico) establish, or re-establish, a sense of stability and rationality in addressing justice in general, and the syndicates in particular?” Should make for some interesting reading…
Not too long ago, I posted a brief observation about the drug cartels of Columbia, and their similarities to today’s Mexico. Obviously I have no in-depth knowledge of the complexities involved; I simply observed that many of the stories coming out of Mexico today regarding the government’s struggle against the drug cartels appeared eerily similar to Columbia’s struggle against Pablo Escobar, as chronicled in the book Killing Pablo.
I thought I’d pass along this link to an article in Seed that addresses the situation in Mexico (and certain Latin American countries), from a standpoint that suggests the comparisons aren’t too far off. Interestingly, the author indicates that much of the problem stems from many of these governments’ failures to utilize effective law enforcement techniques and governing principles to not only defeat these organized crime syndicates (that’s what they really are), but to prevent their ascension in the first place. Specifics aren’t offered in any great detail (the article is fairly short), but one basic premise appears to be that the achievement of other goals a government might have (addressing poverty, environmental concerns, etc.) are significantly undermined when a pervasive sense of justice and stability are not widely perceived by the populace. In other words, a perception of widespread corruption, let alone a government unable to enforce its laws, prevents significant progress any other area. This may not be revolutionary thinking, but it certainly is timely.
Personally, I’m interested in seeing how this view compares with the subject matter in the book A Farewell to Alms, which I understand proposes that the rise of prosperity in the world is very recent, and largely due to England’s ability to provide a stable government, with a stable sense of administered justice that allowed for the economic benefits of the Industrial Revolution to thrive. Since I haven’t read the book yet, I admit I may be off a bit in terms of the premise. However, if I am correct, then this book might provide the details lacking in the article - largely, the “How,” as in, “How does a government (such as Mexico) establish, or re-establish, a sense of stability and rationality in addressing justice in general, and the syndicates in particular?” Should make for some interesting reading…