According to Phil Williams, Transnational organized crime can sometimes be understood as an alternative forum to the state for allegiance an affiliation in diaspora communities. Ethnic migrants face marginalization in newer territorial states do not develop loyalty to the new political authorities or law enforcement, and the appeal to corruption is socially aromatic.
In similar regard to Amit, I've been interested in the dimensions of this story because Mexican States and international bodies are dealing with organized crime that has financially stimulated black market systems. It explicitly relates to Williams as he refers to the concept as "flying money", were crime figures have considerable authority and encourage the development of criminal markets.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/drug-lords-state-mexicans-march-peace-22734385
The article above showcases that this is, indeed, a very common outcome of a situation that appeals to private authority than public authority of the masses. Supporters of his crime are also proponents of his crimes because, " he provided jobs, money, and protection." They wish to have him freed, and to an extent, this is a relevant position to take with a valid argument. It may be devoid of moral grounds, but how does one convince them of that? In essence, outside bodies are removing a great stimulus to their local community and the organized crime even characterizes their identity as the Sinaloan people consider themselves to be "hardworking people". To Pro-Guzman supporters this is another means to close that capacity gap that Williams speaks of. Here, we have a celebratory example of this concept where state legitimacy is low and private authority has greater appeal to the community. The celebration is more than a figure of speech being that pro-Guzman demonstrators play musical instruments, high school students chanted, and positivity was devotedly associated with an actor that facilitated organized crime. I raised the question of jurisdiction in Amit's post, yet I realize that it explains half of the battle --How does public authority correct the mentality of victims that have first hand experiences and long standing benefits from drug trafficking legacies?
Thanks for sharing Greg. I have some comments to your question: "How does public authority correct the mentality of victims that have first hand experiences and long standing benefits from drug trafficking legacies?" I doubt that this is something easily to do. It can be seen in so many other countries that are marked by decades of corrupt governments and society. The trust is gone I believe and people have no direction. I observed this during my travels in Cambodia, where after so many years people still don't trust the authorities. In fact, I think the same goes for China. And of course they have good reasons to believe that, since there are many cases in the news here and there until today.
ReplyDelete