Wednesday, November 14, 2007

What if the tool is no good?

1 hour writing, 1.5 hours reading, 1.5 hours meeting, 1 hour emailing, page count = 172

Continued working today on the Paraguay section of the Colombia in comparative perspective chapter. I focused on the "critical antecedents," the conditions that influenced the design of security forces. There are some interesting parallels, in that both countries were geographically and politically isolated during much of the 19th century, and that they've had relatively stable two-party systems, but ultimately, Paraguay's geography led to greater centralization, because the population was concentrated in a relatively small area, while Colombia's led to greater fragmentation because of the dispersion created by multiple mountain range's, and Paraguay's party system emerged a good 30 years after Colombia's, and most importantly, after the army had already emerged as a relevant social actor.

In terms of reading, I focused on other comparative police cases, looking at Guatemala and Mexico. Guatemala is interesting because at a certain point in the 19th century, the elite simply lost interest in them: they were so ineffective that they weren't even any use as a political instrument. This is an option I had not thought of; I assumed that elites would automatically want to use police as instruments for political ends, but in some cases, it may not even be worth it. In Mexico, the chapter I read was on corruption in the Mexico City police, which is just breathtaking. That's by far the most complex case, because not only is the country so much bigger, but there are upwards of 2,000 police forces. Like the U.S., policing is decentralized, so that each municipality has its own police force, and any federal forces are layered on top of those. In Colombia, by contrast, for over 100 years there's been this nominally national force that relates in complex ways to state and local police.

It was a very comparative day, as I had a great conversation with a Berkeley professor who studies American politics about parallels between the 19th-century development of the U.S. and Colombia. Both countries have early, strong party systems and the recurrence of the frontier, and in both, the level of de facto decentralization is high. We had a great discussion about the role of religion in politics, the evolution of frontier justice, and the relationships between the army and the police. Definitely inspiring. I also emailed with Ana María, and set up meetings with my committee members for my trip in December, and with other professors to whom I've been referred for next week.

1 comment:

I Cappi said...

Dearest Son:

I arrived in Miami and received your posting. What I wrote and didn’t post last night [mea culpa, mea culpa] was a congratulatory note on the progress made and the realization, as I read your postings and the comments from your friends that I really don’t know very much about the deep analysis that you are carrying out. My comments come from my personal experiences and memories and of course my “common sense”.

Anyway, when you speak of geography I believe that it plays an important part on any revolution or armed movement [for example, Cuba that has an incredible diverse geography for such a small island] . As for the police and the elite, in Colombia, when it was not an effective one, the elite created their own private police. I believe that is the way the paramilitares were born.

Love you very much, Daddy