Trouble in Juarez, Mexico

[K. A. Pital]

And I had someone once argue that Mexico is more socially and economically developed than Russia or USSR. Gat-damn. It looks like living right next to the US for ages did almost nothing good for them. I'm also sure it will get worse, kinda like Argentina in 2001 or like the never-ending "war" state of Colombia.

[Akkleptos]

And I had someone once argue that Mexico is more socially and economically developed than Russia or USSR. Gat-damn. It looks like living right next to the US for ages did almost nothing good for them. I'm also sure it will get worse, kinda like Argentina in 2001 or like the never-ending "war" state of Colombia.

Ah, yes... *cough*

The paper investigates the institutional legacies of the one-party regime in Mexico and Russia respectively as they make the transition to democracy and market economies. Despite their differing histories, the countries are responding to similar globalization pressures, in roughly similar ways. However the Soviet legacy of strict limits on institutional pluralism and lack of a mechanism for ensuring leadership rotation left Russia ill-prepared for the democratic transition in comparison with Mexico.

Oh, and... er... *cough* -from 2002, but the historical bits still apply-

Mexico and Russia: Mirror images?
Demokratizatsiya , Fall 2002 by Gvosdev, Nikolas K

-Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the executive editor of The National Interest and a senior fellow for strategic studies at The Nixon Center.-

Does Mexico's past experience as a "managed democracy" have any relevance for understanding developments in contemporary Russia? 1 At first glance, there are important dissimilarities between Mexico and Russia. Russia is the core of a collapsed superpower, with a highly developed industrial and scientific infrastructure; Mexico is a developing nation. Russia has great power pretensions and is a major regional actor, whereas Mexico has subsisted largely in the shadow of its neighbor to the north. However, as far back as the 1940s, American journalist W. L. White suggested that Americans could better understand developments in Russia through a comparison with Mexico. 2 More recently, Guillermo O'Donnell, among others, has drawn important and useful comparisons between the countries of Latin America and Eastern Europe in their respective paths toward democracy, and Robert Leiken, in a recent Foreign Affairs article, has cited the importance of the comparison between Mexico and Russia. 3

Russia and Mexico share a number of common elements in their respective political cultures. Mexico's view of itself as an "Ibero-American" fusion of European and Indian components is echoed by the notion of Russia as a "Eurasian" society, bridging the gap between European, Islamic, and Asian civilizations. Both countries have strong authoritarian and socialist-communalist currents, which have played a major role in shaping the political culture. 4

What is most striking, however, is the degree to which Russia under President Vladimir Putin appears to be moving toward the creation of a political regime of managed democracy that resembles what emerged in Mexico after the 1940s under the Partido Revolucionario Institutional, or Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The post-Soviet regime that is taking shape appears to be based on a ruling party able to manage a coalition of propresidential political and business interests united by the desire to prevent the "opposition"--both political and economic--from ever achieving real power. This is combined with presidential "coordination" of key social and cultural institutions in civil society (with selected acts of repression designed to elucidate the limits of pluralism). 5 A description of Mexico under the rule of the PRI could just as easily be applied to Putin's Russia: 6 the PRI is a regime "emphasizing political stability with economic growth," which aspires to "cement existing changes but shield the system from further revolutionary change"; it is characterized by an "unusually strong executive" who initiates legislation and policy; ambiguity exists between "ample individual freedoms and ... restricted organizational freedoms." 7

In fact, there are four principal areas where one can draw useful comparisons between the managed democracy of Mexico under the PRI and what is emerging in Russia under Putin: the creation of a presidential "ruling" party; the managing of the electoral process; the ways in which lines of communication between the regime and key social and economic actors are created and maintained; and the defining of the limits of dissent within the confines of the "politics of stability." If, as many senior Russian officials claim, the period of reform--that is to say, radical changes to the country's political and economic system--is coming to a close, 8 then a system that mixes democratic and pluralist elements with authoritarian tendencies is the most probable outcome. 9 The political regime that the PRI created and maintained in Mexico--likewise mixing democratic and authoritarian features--showed a great deal of resilience, lasting for over seven decades. Its supporters maintain that it ensured political stability and tranquillity (bypassing the cycle of military coups that so afflicted the rest of Latin America), allowed for the development of a flourishing civil society, and promoted economic development. 10 Ultimately, it paved the way for greater democratization, as well as closer economic integration with the United States. Its detractors point to its legacies of repression and corruption, issues that also bedevil present-day Russia. Therefore, a comparison between Mexico and Russia helps to provide insights into the likely direction of the evolution of Russia's political system over the next decade.

The Search for Consensus: The Party of the President

Post-Soviet Russia, in political terms, shares a number of similarities with Mexico after its revolution (1910-17). Although Russia avoided a full-scale civil war, the collapse of the USSR in 1991, like the collapse of the porfiriato (the regime of Porfirio Diaz, who ruled Mexico from 1876 to 1910), unleashed pent-up frustrations and raised expectations about the future. The porfiriato, like its Soviet counterpart, had reneged on an implicit social contract that promised extensive economic modernization and the introduction of prosperity in exchange for a total monopoly on political power; both systems were also increasingly characterized, toward the end of their respective lives, by stagnation and "stability of cadres," which could not satisfy the ambitions of younger elites for a share of political and economic power. Both collapsed in a wave of democratic idealism that promised the creation of prosperous liberal democracies.

Argentina, well, that's a whole different bucket. A renowned Argentine writer once said "Being an Argentine is not a condition to be understood, but one to be suffered" (quoting from memory).

Colombia is actually doing quite well, making the streets of their cities safe again, regardless of how many guerrilla bands are still being troublesome in rural areas. In Mexico, we once cried out or fears of going the way Colombia did. Now... we just shut up.

[K. A. Pital]

Demand for drugs is part of the problem. We're talking about chemically addictive and extremely potent substances.

Oh, and not to belittle the evils of alcohol, but I would imagine that per-user statistically, addiction and chemical destructiveness of alcohol is less probable than that of hard drugs. Alcohol is used by many millions of people, almost all adults, and kills 80,000. Hard drugs lead to sooner death of a higher percentage of their total users, I think.

Of course, if someone has statistics, they're welcome. I imagine potent substances such as heroin are more addictive, and thus more lethal for their users, than alcohol, statistically.

[K. A. Pital]

Today Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's opium poppies

Yes, but not before the USA crashed the place and turned it into a "democratic" narco-baron state. A better example would be bringing up Pakistan replacing the Golden Triangle.

[Eris]

Today Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's opium poppies

Yes, but not before the USA crashed the place and turned it into a "democratic" narco-baron state. A better example would be bringing up Pakistan replacing the Golden Triangle.

True, Pakistan would have been better, but you see my point anyhow. Even if you successfully kill a drug trade at its source, some other impoverished nation will start producing to meet demand.

[Mayabird]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't marijuana (and hard drug) use decline when it was legalized in the Netherlands? I'm having trouble finding information online because there's too much propaganda crap in the way of actual facts.

[fgalkin]

Ryan's idiocy flushed

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Zixinus]

Aside legalization of certain drugs, what other methods are there for dealing with the cartel?

[FSTargetDrone]

Aside legalization of certain drugs, what other methods are there for dealing with the cartel?

Convincing all the users to stop and killing the demand? That's not practical.

Legalization isn't an ideal answer, but it's the best answer. The status quo is horrible bloody and destructive, aside from the tremendous waste of lives/prison time (esepcially for non-violent offenders).

[Mayabird]

I have wondered if part of the demand could be destroyed by things like decent cheap mental health treatment and eliminating mental health stigmas. A large proportion of alcoholics (sorry, don't have the estimates on me right now) are people with depression or other such issues who self-medicate with booze (like my grandfather on my dad's side). In those cases drug abuse would be a symptom of other problems, and trying to treat the symptoms won't cure the actual problem. Also it's a lot more complex process that doesn't translate well to knee-jerking.

[RedImperator]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't marijuana (and hard drug) use decline when it was legalized in the Netherlands? I'm having trouble finding information online because there's too much propaganda crap in the way of actual facts.

I don't know if it declined; I do know, from the most recent UN report on the subject, that the Netherlands's rate of marijuana consumption is in the middle of the pack for Western Europe, and well below that of the United States (the United States has a higher usage rate than Jamaica, of all fucking places; Americans smoke more pot than almost anybody else on Earth).

[Siege]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't marijuana (and hard drug) use decline when it was legalized in the Netherlands? I'm having trouble finding information online because there's too much propaganda crap in the way of actual facts.

Technically possession of marijuana isn't legal in The Netherlands. There is however an official set of guidelines in place telling prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted. This policy of institutionalized non-enforcement has a whole lot of rather bizarre results: for example I can cultivate five cannabis plants, or waltz into a coffeeshop and buy five grams of marijuana, without even the slightest risk of prosecution. At the same time however bulk growing of marijuana is illegal and coffeeshops are therefore not legally able to buy marijuana in bulk - and yet even though everybody knows that practically every shop selling marijuana is breaking the law, they are never prosecuted for that.

I'm told the principal reason we're sticking with this rather odd form of legal-in-all-but-name is because there's a number of treaties telling us we can't outright decriminalize the stuff, to say nothing of the not-insignificant amount of international pressure by countries with differing opinions on what people should and should not be smoking in their free time.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether drug use declined after the implementation of current policies, but I do know that soft drug usage in The Netherlands is supposedly lower than in surrounding countries where use and possession etc. is quite illegal.

[K. A. Pital]

Marijuana isn't as chemically destructive and addictive as more potent narcotic substances though. I hope people take that into account when discussing legalization, because harder drugs have greater and deadlier effects on health, as well as stronger addiction. If that's incorrect, please correct me.

[Ryan Thunder]

Anyway, I'm not sure whether drug use declined after the implementation of current policies, but I do know that soft drug usage in The Netherlands is supposedly lower than in surrounding countries where use and possession etc. is quite illegal.

Am I an idiot if I find that infuriatingly nonsensical?

[salm]

Anyway, I'm not sure whether drug use declined after the implementation of current policies, but I do know that soft drug usage in The Netherlands is supposedly lower than in surrounding countries where use and possession etc. is quite illegal.

Am I an idiot if I find that infuriatingly nonsensical?

Yes. There are other factors which are more important than legality which have an influence on how widespread a drug is. This whole thread has been trying to explain that for days now.
That´s why the war on drugs doesn´t work.

[Zixinus]

Other that marijuana, what other drugs should be considered to be legalized?

[Gigaliel]

I was under the impression that the lion's share of the profits was coming from cocaine. I can't see that being easy to legalize if marijuana causes such a fuss.

[Ryan Thunder]

Anyway, I'm not sure whether drug use declined after the implementation of current policies, but I do know that soft drug usage in The Netherlands is supposedly lower than in surrounding countries where use and possession etc. is quite illegal.

Am I an idiot if I find that infuriatingly nonsensical?

Yes. There are other factors which are more important than legality which have an influence on how widespread a drug is. This whole thread has been trying to explain that for days now.
That´s why the war on drugs doesn´t work.

I acknowledge that its true, but how stupid do people have to be, that they're more likely to do something if you tell them not to do it!?

[Samuel]

I acknowledge that its true, but how stupid do people have to be, that they're more likely to do something if you tell them not to do it!?

Take the apple... what harm could it do?

It is called the forbidden fruit effect- making something illegal makes it more alluring. After all, if other people don't want you to have it, there has to be a reason. Why trust that they are working in your best interest?

[Ryan Thunder]

I acknowledge that its true, but how stupid do people have to be, that they're more likely to do something if you tell them not to do it!?

Take the apple... what harm could it do?

It is called the forbidden fruit effect- making something illegal makes it more alluring. After all, if other people don't want you to have it, there has to be a reason.

See, here's where the line of thought ends for me. "It's illegal, there must be a good reason why." Perhaps I'm just not as paranoid as the rest of the world. Or more trusting. Whatever.

[salm]

See, here's where the line of thought ends for me. "It's illegal, there must be a good reason why." Perhaps I'm just not as paranoid as the rest of the world. Or more trusting. Whatever.

"I waz only folloving orders."

Questioning authority is a neccessity for responsible citizens especially in democratic countries.

[Ryan Thunder]

See, here's where the line of thought ends for me. "It's illegal, there must be a good reason why." Perhaps I'm just not as paranoid as the rest of the world. Or more trusting. Whatever.

"I waz only folloving orders."

Questioning authority is a neccessity for responsible citizens especially in democratic countries.

To a certain extent, yes. But not to the point where making something illegal results in more people doing it than before. That's a recipe for total inneffectiveness.

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, I'm not sure whether drug use declined after the implementation of current policies, but I do know that soft drug usage in The Netherlands is supposedly lower than in surrounding countries where use and possession etc. is quite illegal.

Am I an idiot if I find that infuriatingly nonsensical?

You are an idiot if you think that your expectations should trump reality, you stupid asshole. I'm getting tired of your "my beliefs override reality" bullshit. It's no different from a religious fanatic.

[Samuel]

I acknowledge that its true, but how stupid do people have to be, that they're more likely to do something if you tell them not to do it!?

Take the apple... what harm could it do?

It is called the forbidden fruit effect- making something illegal makes it more alluring. After all, if other people don't want you to have it, there has to be a reason.

See, here's where the line of thought ends for me. "It's illegal, there must be a good reason why." Perhaps I'm just not as paranoid as the rest of the world. Or more trusting. Whatever.

This is the US we are talking about. Birth control was illegal until the 70s and sodomy was illegal until the 90s (technically certain states had them illegal). That and alot of the population is paranoid and thinks the government is out to get them or is responsible for extremely complicated conspiracies (Area 51, JFK, 9/11, etc). Which is bizarre given the extreme jingoism we have but that is the US for you.

[Kanastrous]

See, here's where the line of thought ends for me. "It's illegal, there must be a good reason why." Perhaps I'm just not as paranoid as the rest of the world. Or more trusting. Whatever.

"I waz only folloving orders."

Questioning authority is a neccessity for responsible citizens especially in democratic countries.

To a certain extent, yes. But not to the point where making something illegal results in more people doing it than before. That's a recipe for total inneffectiveness.

What I find funny about this is that it suggests to me that you have never considered whether or not the prohibition itself was a good idea or sound public policy in the first place. Do you view the body of US anti-narcotics law since the 1920s as something that's just in hand as being intelligent and rational? Your posts seem to place great importance upon the enforcement of laws without much consideration given to the laws' effectiveness in achieving its intended goal.

You seem to agree that making the narcotics illegal has resulted in more people abusing them. And yet you insist that the solution is more aggressive enforcement of the totally counter-productive law.