Fear, respect and disregard. Those are different positions that people and governments hold reciprocally. No matter how well represented the people is, governments will always consider themselves as a separated entity from the sum of all citizens. The distinction can be minimal at best or continental in some critical cases. The question that draws our attention today is how strong are governments across countries? And, what is the attitude that the people and government hold against each other?
In China the government fears its population. Society respects the state but by no means is afraid of it. Society plays around. The government has established every possible mechanism to be able to screen and scrutinize its population. Even then, at the end of the day the people in China, will do whatever they want to do according to their capabilities and empowerment. This may have consequences, but everyone knows that direct confrontation is an unadvisable way to proceed. The government, on the other hand, will activate its massive media apparatus if it feels an issue must be clarified, anxiety addressed, or a question answered. Media is used to express reactions but very seldom to pave the way to policies and future strategies.
In the US the population appears to fear the government and the government to respect society. I Cannot think of a better example than the old-classic argument on why to have a gun (or a machine gun) in the house, “its to defend my family in case the government fails”. It is difficult to hear better conspiracy theories that the ones manufactured in the United States. CIA, UFOs, the Amero currency. They are watching us!
The government may respect the rule of law, but it does not fear society, it does not act like that. It plays and manipulates citizens. Interestingly, media appears to have the opposite role than in China, it is used preventively. It normally campaigns in a low to high intensity for a medium or long-term strategy.
Now, regarding Mexico. The population mistrusts the government. It is not necessarily scared, but very skeptic of it. The government, I would argue, also mistrusts society and decides to carry on governing and making decision without it, why bother? I believe the biggest problem is that there is no fear or respect involved in the relationship. Mass media is intimately entwined with the political and economical elites. But media is also used to advocate for some social issues. Of course, that is only if these will shake up a targeted political entity or individual. Media is very willing to satisfy many diverse groups. It works like the town’s whore. With a granted survival and for a good profit, what can I do for you?
Political systems reflect these relationships in a very interesting manner:
In China, with a fearful government, the drive that keeps the government from failing or giving up or becoming completely paranoid is that they have the legitimate control of violence. They have the social control apparatus and as long as they don’t mess up badly, they can govern for a very long period of time. They have privileges of course. In fact, being part of the government is the most efficient way to get around and under the government’s control.
In the US, people have elections. Particularly, folks belong to constituencies; they have their representatives in congress. They know their local politicians and will not let them act irresponsibly. Moreover, those will do quite a lot to remain in the good graces of their constituency. If not, folks will exercise their most precious right, vote them out and bring somebody else that can protect them from the government. This is what keeps the citizens from stroking by the idea of an all-powerful, big-brothered state.
In Mexico, well, who has what?
This is when it gets turbid. The state has some control over violence but many parts of the civil society (lawful or lawless) have that too. Who watches over who? No one does. Media watches over both, and media, it has been argued, is behind the profit and securing its survival.
The population does not get that much social provision from the government so there is no reason to fear loosing something. Getting more, on the other hand, is never demanded. Health, education, security, infrastructure, those are not only provided by the state, the private sector also offers alternatives which sometimes will be of a better quality. Not even taxes are a monopoly of the state, in some parts of the country, one would do better handing the taxes to the local boss than to the government, after all, the local boss has a more direct influence over safety.
Now, what could be a better option for Mexico? What is more likely to happen?
a) Fear the government and respect the people.
or
b) Respect the government and fear the people.
It is not surprising that both options need a strong state. Mexicans ought to buy a strong state.
In China the government fears its population. Society respects the state but by no means is afraid of it. Society plays around. The government has established every possible mechanism to be able to screen and scrutinize its population. Even then, at the end of the day the people in China, will do whatever they want to do according to their capabilities and empowerment. This may have consequences, but everyone knows that direct confrontation is an unadvisable way to proceed. The government, on the other hand, will activate its massive media apparatus if it feels an issue must be clarified, anxiety addressed, or a question answered. Media is used to express reactions but very seldom to pave the way to policies and future strategies.
In the US the population appears to fear the government and the government to respect society. I Cannot think of a better example than the old-classic argument on why to have a gun (or a machine gun) in the house, “its to defend my family in case the government fails”. It is difficult to hear better conspiracy theories that the ones manufactured in the United States. CIA, UFOs, the Amero currency. They are watching us!
The government may respect the rule of law, but it does not fear society, it does not act like that. It plays and manipulates citizens. Interestingly, media appears to have the opposite role than in China, it is used preventively. It normally campaigns in a low to high intensity for a medium or long-term strategy.
Now, regarding Mexico. The population mistrusts the government. It is not necessarily scared, but very skeptic of it. The government, I would argue, also mistrusts society and decides to carry on governing and making decision without it, why bother? I believe the biggest problem is that there is no fear or respect involved in the relationship. Mass media is intimately entwined with the political and economical elites. But media is also used to advocate for some social issues. Of course, that is only if these will shake up a targeted political entity or individual. Media is very willing to satisfy many diverse groups. It works like the town’s whore. With a granted survival and for a good profit, what can I do for you?
Political systems reflect these relationships in a very interesting manner:
In China, with a fearful government, the drive that keeps the government from failing or giving up or becoming completely paranoid is that they have the legitimate control of violence. They have the social control apparatus and as long as they don’t mess up badly, they can govern for a very long period of time. They have privileges of course. In fact, being part of the government is the most efficient way to get around and under the government’s control.
In the US, people have elections. Particularly, folks belong to constituencies; they have their representatives in congress. They know their local politicians and will not let them act irresponsibly. Moreover, those will do quite a lot to remain in the good graces of their constituency. If not, folks will exercise their most precious right, vote them out and bring somebody else that can protect them from the government. This is what keeps the citizens from stroking by the idea of an all-powerful, big-brothered state.
In Mexico, well, who has what?
This is when it gets turbid. The state has some control over violence but many parts of the civil society (lawful or lawless) have that too. Who watches over who? No one does. Media watches over both, and media, it has been argued, is behind the profit and securing its survival.
The population does not get that much social provision from the government so there is no reason to fear loosing something. Getting more, on the other hand, is never demanded. Health, education, security, infrastructure, those are not only provided by the state, the private sector also offers alternatives which sometimes will be of a better quality. Not even taxes are a monopoly of the state, in some parts of the country, one would do better handing the taxes to the local boss than to the government, after all, the local boss has a more direct influence over safety.
Now, what could be a better option for Mexico? What is more likely to happen?
a) Fear the government and respect the people.
or
b) Respect the government and fear the people.
It is not surprising that both options need a strong state. Mexicans ought to buy a strong state.
Luis.
ReplyDeleteInteresting reflections on the balances between governments and societies around the basic feelings of fear and respect for the cases of the US, China and Mexico. Still it was a little bit abstract for me.
I tend to disagree with your assesment for the case of China but I agree with you on the need for Mexicans to reconsider the balance between government, media and society for our country. Are you advocating a stronger state for Mexico? If that's the case, I side with you. But, how do you think we can build a stronger state?