Mexico is not a country at peace. While this has been the case for many years, the situation continues to deteriorate. According to the Global Peace Index (Institute for Economics and Peace [IEP], 2017), Mexico has not only gone down several notches on the scale, but peace levels have declined consistently in the years leading up to the writing of this book. Peace, however, is not merely the absence of violence (Alger, 1987; Galtung, 1985). In other words, we tend to define it by what it is not and consider it merely the condition of being free of war and violent conflict . We do not always appreciate, for example, the active components of peaceâthe ones that create and help maintain peaceful conditions. According to the IEP (2016), peace has a negative angle or aspect, as well as a positive one. Negative peaceâthat which must not exist, in order for a society to be considered at peaceâis the absence of violence as well as the absence of fear of violence. Positive peace, on the other hand, is âthe presence of attitudes, institutions and structures that create and maintain peaceful societiesâ (IEP, 2016, p. 4). Research conducted by the IEP has revealed eight key areas or indicators that are present in the worldâs most peaceful societies. Referred to as the eight pillars of peace , or the DNA of peace, they are: â(a) A well-functioning government; (b) Equitable distribution of resources; (c) Free flow of information; (d) Good relations with neighbors; (e) High levels of human capital; (f) Acceptance of the rights of others; (g) Low levels of corruption, and (h) A sound business environmentâ (IEP, 2016, p. 52).
Research indicates that the most peaceful societies perform well in most of these areas, while less peaceful ones display weaknesses in the majority of them (IEP, 2016). Similar arguments have been put forward by such authors as Alger (1987, 1990), Ekanola (2012), and Galtung (1985), who explains that several conditions, both objective and subjective, must be met for a society to be deemed peaceful. Objective conditions include physical safety, material prosperity, and social harmony, while subjective ones are issues like the emotional well-being of the members of the society in question.
Among other things, this means that the more fear experienced by a group, the further it is from achieving peace. In addition, the repercussions of this type of situation do not stop at violence and its psychological effects but have a tangible impact on other spheres, such as a countryâs prospects of democratic development and governance.
Starting off with these ideas and aided by research conducted in Mexico by the Mexico Research Center for Peace (Centro de InvestigaciĂłn para la Paz MĂ©xico, AC.; CIPMEX), this book attempts to connect these two central aspects of peace: fear of violence and its potential repercussions on the countryâs social and democratic development .
Part of the research and information contained herein has already been published separately, but this is the first time it has been brought together with a view to offering readers a more complete picture, one that goes from components of the peace theory to terrorism and the fear associated with criminal violence , while also encompassing personal experiences, everyday conversations , and the role of the media confronted with the violent circumstances that currently prevail in Mexico . It concludes with public policy recommendations and suggestions aimed at various sectors of society.
Chapter 2 begins with a brief discussion of the literature on terrorism and problematizes different definitions of this type of violence. The intention is to determine the extent to which conditions of fear can impact lack of peace (peacelessness) in a given society, with direct consequences for democracy , inclusion , and governance. To this end, discussion will focus on: (a) the connection between stress , fear , democracy, and inclusion ; (b) the connection between these conditions and obstacles to respect for human rights ; (c) the circles that encourage fear and lack of democracy and development to breed and feed off one another, and (d) the direct impact conflict , and specifically victimization , has on democratic development and citizen participation.
Chapter 3 asks to what extent the situation in Mexico âwhere criminal violence has been escalating since 2006âcan be compared to that of societies that come under frequent terrorist attacks. The crux of the debate is whether or not certain events that have occurred in the country can be classed as terrorist or quasi-terrorist acts or whether they are merely terrorist tactics being employed by criminal organizations. The evolution of violence associated with such organizations in Mexico and the use of strategies that aim not only to commit but also to publicize this type of violence will be addressed here. Peripheral to this debate are the psychosocial repercussions of organized crime suffered by the population, which are precisely what tie this chapter in with the fourth.
Chapter 4 was co-written with Dr. JosĂ© CalderĂłn-Abbo, psychiatrist and addictionologist, clinical faculty at Louisiana State University (LSU), who specializes in stress and trauma and is based on a study conducted by the research team he spearheaded in 2011â2012 and that the author of the book belonged to. The study investigated symptoms suggestive of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among the Mexican population due to violence associated with organized crime , which, unfortunately, turned out to be substantial. Rather than academic journal publication, the aim of the study was to raise the issue of the âotherâ victims of violenceâits psychological casualties in the wider populationâand have it included on the national agenda. This chapter discusses the findings and some of the recommendations the team made at the time to attempt to mitigate the psychosocial effects that were detected.
Drawing on some of these findings and based on a conceptual framework rooted in social constructivism , the author has joined CIPMEX in carrying out a series of qualitative studies that attempt to further understand the social construction of perceptions and feelings associated with criminal violence and the chances of peace for the future. That qualitative investigation had four phases. Phase 1 was conducted in 2013; Phases 2 and 3 were conducted in 2014. The last phase was conducted in 2016. Our research questions included the following: How did the people who took part in these studies socially construct their perceptions of the violent circumstances that prevail in Mexico? What part did their own experiences play in this social construct? How do everyday conversations around the family dinner table, at work, and at school influence their perceptions? To what extent do the books they read and the communications and social media they are exposed to contribute to this social construct? What conclusions have they reached about what the country is undergoing, and how did they reach them? What do they think are the chances of solving these problems and building peace for the future, and what do they believe needs to happen to achieve this?
Chapter 5 discusses the findings of the three first phases of that investigation, which was based on in-depth interviews with subjects from Mexico City and 15 states nationwide, including several regions with the highest levels of violence at the time this book was being written. Above all, the chapter strives to highlight the importance of this discussion in drawing up more effective guidelines for the design and implementation of public policy geared toward building peace and, in turn, furthering the...