“Social-network ties can—and […] usually do—convey benefits that are the very opposite of violence. They can be conduits for altruistic acts in which individuals pay back a debt of gratitude by paying it forward.” (Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives)
Costa Rica is experiencing a fast-growing rate of homicides that has already trespassed the threshold of 10 per 100,000 inhabitants, which the World Health Organization considers as a severe public health issue.
Among the wide range of options that can be chosen, adopted and implemented to transform the conflict, it is important to first bear in mind the framework of limitations or conditions within which the government authorities, the civil society and private corporations should act. The reason for this is that the cost-benefit analysis should conduct the nation towards an effective and sustainable change. It would not be considered a successful strategy if, for example, the suppression of violence by violent means will only provoke a new sprouting of violence in a decade from now. So, if violence breeds violence, by the same token it will be assumed that peace breeds peace.
The first philosophical condition is that the measures must be peaceful. This means, following a way of doing things that will breed further peace in the future, not further violence. The definition of peace followed to understand this concept is Johan Galtung’s definition: “Peace is the ability to transform conflicts empathically, creatively and nonviolently.” It can be assumed that nonviolence is a synonym of harmony. Then the definition adopts a more constructive sense. It can further be assumed that empathy implies nonviolence (“do unto others what you want done upon you.”) The definition can be shortened to “the ability to transform conflicts empathically and creatively.” Therefore, the proposed solutions must comply with it in order to be a peaceful solution.
Second, an ethical consideration is sustainability. Again, the intent is to eradicate violence, or at least drug-related violence. This is an ambitious goal, and a virtuous one as well. A goal will be sustainable if, by accomplishing it, future authorities can choose to run it again –after duly adapting it – confident that it is the right option in terms of public support and generation of political capital. In that sense, what the government is looking for is a permanent solution to drug-related violence not for the rest of the year or the rest of the decade, but for the rest of the century.
Third, the solution or group of solutions to be adopted is a strategic one: it must be effective. That is, to be the right thing to do and to do it in the right way. In terms of resource management, it should respond to a sound cost-benefit analysis, it should be feasible to implement in a short period of time, and, most importantly, it must be subject to objective parameters, such as statistical measurements, to determine its degree of successful achievement.
Similar to this, the options must observe financial limitations, or the obvious constraints of the national public budget destined to national security. A country like Costa Rica has a long history of sound prioritization of its budget towards health and education. This should represent no difference. The solutions must come precisely from those two sectors, in combination with others that may assist, for example science and technology, environment, tourism, and culture. In sum, the country should not readjust its historical priorities or cultural values to create a special budgetary fund to spend on security. In fact, Costa Rica’s institutional success as a nation is partly due to its reallocation of military spending into health and education since 1948. This strategy should render success again towards the future. To put it in Emile Durkheim’s words: “When cultural values are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when cultural values are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.”
Apart from the philosophical, ethical, strategic, and financial conditions, there are four other considerations that are institutional, humanitarian, axiological, and intellectual. The institutional condition is the Rule of Law. The oldest democracy in Latin America owes its national success to a strict respect for the institutions created by law and by the Constitution. This is the foundation of the Rule of Law. It is understood by this that it is not people who govern the country, but laws instead. One of the first victims of rampant insecurity is precisely the Rule of Law, and this cost may be too high to bear.
The humanitarian limitation is the enforcement of Human Rights. Costa Rica in particular must be extremely careful with enforcing this code of humanitarian law since the Inter- American Court of Human Rights is headquartered in San José, capital city of Costa Rica. The country authorities must be conscious of the temporary stigma that criminals portray. A successful transformation of the conflict into the future should deem those temporarily stigmatized as free members of the community coexisting peacefully among the rest.
The seventh condition is axiological, and refers to transparency. This is not a war. This is more like a disease. What a patient wants, most of the time, is to know clearly what are the diagnosis, prognosis, and proposed prescriptions. To defeat drugs the entire national community should start talking openly about drugs. It is a reality that affects the security for all, not just for the families and individuals involved in the drug business. The entire population must engage in dialogue about the causes and consequences of drug addiction, ways to identify suspicious symptoms, and recommended suggestions for a healthy recovery.
Finally, the eighth limitation is an intellectual one. Again, one of the two characteristics of peace discussed above is that it be creative. Following Einstein’s idea that imagination is more important than intelligence, the options to be taken into consideration must be imaginative into the future; creative, in terms of innovation; and conducive towards a paradigm shift or a leapfrog in the nation’s status quo.
Three possible options are to be considered herein, ranging from the least desirable to the most desirable.
The least desirable option of the three is the status quo, or leaving things as they are. Under this premise, the government is to take no new decisions or implement no new courses of action to try to solve the conflict. In this regard, there are several outcomes that could be expected. For example, the homicide rate could continue its fast-growing trend and move from 11.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, to somewhere closer to the rates in neighboring Honduras (58), El Salvador (52), or Guatemala (48) , making of Central America one of the most dangerous regions in the world. This, of course, is the worst-case scenario. The costs in lives, national security, peace, political stability, economic growth, foreign direct investment, social security, and displaced and migrating populations, could be too high. Under such circumstance, it is doubtful that the most remarkable traits that have made of Costa Rica a success story would continue existing.
In this scenario, drug gangs and international drug traffickers that operate in and from Costa Rica would enlarge their operations, recruit more people, take more risks, infiltrate public institutions such as Municipalities, court tribunals, political parties, hospitals, or religious congregations, to secure their business and make it more profitable.
Also, they would consolidate a workforce that would earn diminishing marginal revenues per unit of drug sold. This would push the suppliers of drugs towards increasing their levels of influence in the market, searching constantly for more consumers of their product. At the same time, this would generate greater frictions among different street gangs and drug cartels that make a living out of selling illegal drugs. Under such circumstances, revenge becomes a tool of containment of adversarial gangs from taking market sectors or geographical territories from one another, spiraling into a degree of fatal violence involving innocent people that have nothing to do at all with the criminal activity.
Finally, doing nothing could lead the society or at least several communities in the country to accept illicit drugs as a new reality, as a new way of life so that “if you can’t fight it, join it.” This shifts the role models for young children; alters the life expectancy of the population; deters positive values that aim at higher moral standings or ethical grounds; reduces the quality of life for the entire nation; scares away foreign direct investment and tourism, among the largest items in the services sector, which add up to almost 70% of the country’s gross domestic product ; chases away the supply of some basic public services from certain areas of the country, such as transportation, emergency healthcare, and education; disincentives several jobs that support rural communities and provide resources for the entire country, such as fishing and agriculture; and perhaps even changes the dynamics of free, democratic, and representative elections in the presence of fear or perverse monetary incentives that would worsen the game as it is today.
The next-to-last desirable option is that the government aims for the use of more force to fight violence with violence. Several changes would have to take place for this to happen. The first and most obvious one would be a budget reform to allocate more funds to police recruitment, police training, and purchasing of new equipment, including weapons, bulletproof vests, communication and monitoring technologies, and motor vehicles such as motorcycles, patrol cars and helicopters.
Additionally, the government would need to implement legal reform to pass legislation for more severe sanctions against drug-related crimes, such as illicit association to commit crime, drug-trafficking to end consumers, international drug-trafficking, and violent intimidation.
Perhaps more than that, the reform would have to include an amendment to the judicial procedure to incarcerate offenders. The process would need to ensure the degree of impunity is significantly reduced, and that the ratio of convictions per trial grows in effectiveness. This should also consider making trials more expedite to dedicate fewer resources per conviction. In other words, convicting a criminal would have to respond to a favorable cost-benefit analysis.
Also, the state would have to generate options for jailing a growing number of prisoners. This would be a challenge, as constructing and operating a prison is a costly public exercise and the country at present lacks infrastructure for a higher number of prisoners. In fact, Human Rights concerns have already been raised towards overcrowding conditions within prisons According to FLACSO, Costa Rican prisons in 2002 had a percentage of overpopulation of 110%.
The greatest concern, apart from the obvious budget impact, is the time span that would be required to accomplish a measurable improvement in the degree of national security through this option of increased force. A new legislature is taking over in May, 2010, and the official party does not have simple majority in Congress. This means it will have to negotiate all its bills throughout the term. It additionally means that all other minority parties conforming the opposition have a majority of votes. In other words, a well-organized opposition could have majority performance and impact in the four years to come. The counterargument would be that national security is atop the legislative agenda. Unfortunately, public opinion polls have revealed this as the greatest concern of the population. As of November, 2007, an academic study at the University of Costa Rica revealed that 73% of the population felt defenseless against crime.
The preferred option can be called as “Adoption of Network Information Technologies for the promotion of social harmony and sustainable peace.” This plan consists on the implementation of modern, free, and secure Network Information Technologies (NIT) such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Wikis, and blogs to more effectively exchange relevant information that will be useful in the promotion of social harmony within communities that will generate sustainable peace for all Costa Ricans. In the words of Harvard researchers Christakis and Fowler: “understanding the way we are connected is an essential step in creating a more just society and in implementing public policies affecting everything from public health to the economy.”
There are five methodological principles that will ensure proper implementation of this proposal. The first one is to consider civil society members –individuals and organizations – as volunteers driven by self-interest and the desire of recovering the feeling of security the country enjoyed only over a decade ago. This would mean that the recruitment of active participants would be conducted at all levels of the community, regardless of the person’s involvement in community affairs or their particular leadership role within it. The reason for this is that several different networks will be created, and nearly every person will find a place within one that meets their profile best. The different networks will be discussed below.
The second principle is capacity-building. This means that a group of professionals and experts from different fields will be training people in the networks to learn more about different issues regarding security. For example, doctors can explain the clinical consequences of drug addiction. Lawyers can explain the different types of crime, including, especially, threats and drug-related crimes. Also, the definition of an accessory to crime and the legal obligation to denounce criminal activity, since it is commonly believed sometimes that “don’t ask, don’t tell” behavior is sound policy. Policemen can offer training about ways in which a community can become more secure by assessing risks, and other ways in which organization and technology can render a more secure habitat for them. Local governments can explain policies and procedures to deal with crime, so that the people know how best to help.
Thirdly is communication. The main idea behind NIT is to raise awareness about problems, reveal diagnosis of the situation clearly through statistics and trends, offer mappings of different areas and different risks, and offer tools to better equip communities to help the government help themselves. This communication aims at sharing information that adds value to the community in the form of a connected network where the sum of its parts is greater than the separate parts individually. This is the true value of networks with a synergistic outcome. “Just as brains can do things that no single neuron can do, so can social networks do things that no single person can do.”
The fourth methodological principle is connectivity. People that belong to different networks must be connected to them either by word of mouth or a periodical meeting with other members. Ideally, the cost-effectiveness of virtual connectivity through NIT will allow participants to have a greater reach in a shorter time with a lesser effort. Therefore, the possibility of people to use their land and mobile phones, personal or public computers, radio and television devices, and other means of technological communication, will enhance their participation and make them more interconnected with one another, and their networks with the coordinating entity (see below). The main purpose of this is to allow people to develop trust and rely on their corresponding network. Trust is essential for this nation-building type of endeavor. “The main principle of establishing Societal Trust is contribution. It is demonstrating the intent to give back, to be a responsible global citizen, and it is becoming both a social and an economic necessity in our knowledge worker age.”
Finally, the fifth element is proper and swift coordination by government authorities. Although this project is doable without government support, it would have farther reach and depth if the government offered its support in terms of: human and financial resources; public authority spread locally throughout the country; and the support of the Rule of Law. By the end of this project, then, a side-result would be ever-greater trust in government authorities and support for public action towards a severe public conflict.
Several networks may be created. Here, eight suggestions are proposed:
1. Mothers: a high percentage of the population, mothers are driven by their desire to see their children succeed and to stay away of harm’s way. A tight coordination among mothers in a community could bring a lot of authority back to the household to be able to more closely monitor their children’s behaviors and offer qualified assistance for better decision-making towards a more sustainable future;
2. Doctors: Costa Rica is a country renowned by its healthcare coverage that reaches every corner of the country. Almost everybody is born in the care of a doctor or a trained assistant. This gives doctors recognized authority among the population to refer to different ailments and public health concerns. The participation that a group of coordinated doctors could have in terms of training other networks and raising awareness about behaviors that represent a risk to health or a threat to life could be critical in achieving a better quality of life for the community;
3. Teachers: As with health, the public education service has national coverage. There is an army of trained teachers that work towards the improvement of children’s capabilities to develop as individuals, therefore developing their communities as well. Teachers are good communication vehicles not only with students but also with their parents. Teachers gather valuable information that could be made available in a sensitive manner to solve security-related issues;
4. Municipalities: local governments reach far out into the communities they represent. People usually know the name of someone that works at the Municipality. The power that these leaders could exert upon their communities in terms of network-building towards greater security is undoubted;
5. Moral leaders: a predominantly Christian country, most Costa Ricans attend to the church of their favorite denomination, where a religious or community leader dictates moral principles periodically. These leaders, with proper training, can also become important messengers of peace and facilitators of security among their congregations;
6. Media: the role of media in free democracies is critical in the formation of opinion and perceptions by the public. “[I]t is well known that media overlaps other functional areas of democracy and governance. For example, support for media may yield results in governance activities, particularly those related to decentralization, anti-corruption, and citizen participation in the policy process.” Their role as capacity builders and change agents is fundamental in this process;
7. Street gangs: although not as feared as their Central American counterparts, drug-related gangs in Costa Rica have risen in size, criminal organization, and violence. They also have the option to help in the promotion of social harmony in the community. They are an important sector of the “market of peace” aimed for with this proposal. Bringing them on board would be a sound success, as well as an important asset for this network’s capacity-building;
8. Musicians: Violent people need outlets to their attitudes and behaviors. This will not be achieved within a prison cell and will not be overcome in a short term. Providing violent people the tools to express themselves artistically could become a therapeutic way of treating their dysfunction. Also, it could become a way of generating income if the market supports their talent. Several music schools and expert musicians in the country, coordinated through a network to promote harmony, can foster this.
In order to achieve more social harmony within the nation, we need to start talking less and less about violence and more and more about peace. This is the beginning of the leapfrog or paradigm shift that needs to take place. As Sir Edmund Burke once said: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
References:
1. Center for Democracy and Governance, U.S. AID. The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach. June, 1999. In http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnace630.pdf. Last reviewed March 26, 2010.
2. Covey, Stephen M.R. The Speed of Trust. Free Press, 2006.
3. Christakis, Nicholas A., and Fowler, James H. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Amazon Kindle Electronic version, released Feb. 4, 2010.
4. CIA, World Factbook. In https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html. Last reviewed March 26, 2010.
5. La Nación newspaper. “Honduras is the most violent country in the region.” March 23, 2010. In http://www.nacion.com/2010-03-24/Mundo/OtrasNoticias/Mundo2311919.aspx. Last reviewed March 26, 2010.
6. Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO). In http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=flacso&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=_oOsS6qpOoqTkAXf15CSDQ. Last reviewed March 26, 2010.
7. Poltronieri, Jorge. Research Project on Public Opinion Structures. University of Costa Rica, 2007.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Memorando de la violencia
Su excelencia, señora Laura Chinchilla, presidente electa de la República de Costa Rica:
Con gran preocupación escribo estas líneas, con respecto al vicioso espiral de violencia que ha asaltado a nuestra nación a expensas de la paz que caracteriza nuestra idiosincrasia. Confío en que usted, señora Presidente, cuente con el más preciso diagnóstico de situación, habiendo sido Ministra de Seguridad Pública durante la Administración 1994-1998 y habiendo sido tanto Vice-presidente de la República y Ministra de Justicia y Gracia durante la actual administración 2006-2010 que precede la suya.
Es, entonces, con el debido respeto, que me dirijo a usted para ofrecerle algunas consideraciones que podrían ayudar a transformar el problema de inseguridad en más eficazmente, dada la urgencia y el limitado tiempo disponible para evitar que esta espiral crezca a un ritmo más acelerado, y la imperiosa necesidad de revertir el proceso hacia una coexistencia más pacífica entre los ciudadanos.
Después de revisar cuidadosamente su Plan de Gobierno 2010-2014, más concretamente su primer capítulo sobre Seguridad Pública [Chinchilla, p.p. 7-10] como el primer tema de su agenda, llamo su atención al proyecto que ha sido llevado a cabo durante la presente Administración, llamado “Plan nacional de prevención de violencia y promoción de la paz social 2007-2010: Un país sin miedo” [Ministerio de Justicia (MJ)], el cual usted coordinó como Ministra de Justicia.
Su Plan de Gobierno concluye que algunas de las acciones de “Un país sin miedo” han sido “efectivas para atender numerosos factores asociados con crímenes violentos.” [MJ, p. 10] Sin embargo, su anterior colega Vice-presidente y actual investigador en el reconocido Instituto Brookings en Washington, D.C., Dr. Kevin Casas, ha publicado una trilogía de artículos que revelan justamente lo contrario respecto a la eficacia de las políticas asumidas en términos de seguridad en años recientes. Él dice que “el aumento de la tasa de homicidios en el país en el 2008 […] el más básico en materia de seguridad ciudadana – pasó de 8.2 homicidios dolosos por 100.000 habitantes en 2007 a 11.2 un año después, un aumento del 37 por ciento.” [Casas, parte I] Él explica que, más allá del umbral de 10 homicidios por 100.000 habitantes es considerado por la Organización Mundial de la Salud como un serio problema de salud pública.
Como usted sabe, el Dr. Casas es un referente calificado para hablar sobre seguridad, pues él ha sido el coordinador del Reporte Nacional sobre Desarrollo Humano para el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) “Derrotando el miedo: inseguridad ciudadana y desarrollo humano en Costa Rica” en el año 2005, el cual contribuyó con datos estadísticos en la elaboración del proyecto “Un país sin miedo” bajo su Ministerio.
Sus dos principales recomendaciones para una estrategia sostenible en términos de seguridad ciudadana son: número uno, “resistir los estridentes llamados a resolver el problema por medio de políticas de ‘mano dura’ y el retorcido populismo represivo, que casi siempre falla en bajar los niveles de criminalidad, pero nunca falla en vulnerar las garantías del Estado de Derecho.” [Casas] Él hace referencia a tales estrategias de violencia estatal implementadas en países vecinos como El Salvador y Honduras – dos países con tasas de homicidios de las más altas del mundo – sin ningún resultado positivo hasta el momento.
Número dos, invertir en información como el requisito más importante para combatir el crimen como estrategia a corto plazo. Se dice que la información es conocimiento, y el conocimiento es poder. La manera más efectiva de asignar recursos policiales a la lucha contra el crimen es saber con precisión adónde, cuándo y cómo se lleva a cabo un hecho criminal.
La revista internacional Time concuerda con el Dr. Casas, y de hecho ilustra el argumento con el mismo ejemplo dado por él en su artículo: la reducción de la criminalidad en la ciudad de Nueva York bajo la administración de Rudy Giuliani. Se refieren a CompStat, una “base de datos en tiempo real sobre estadísticas criminales y otra inteligencia útil para identificar áreas problemáticas y la correspondiente asignación de recursos.” [Time]
Esto no es nuevo para su Plan de Gobierno, donde usted propone la creación de un “Sistema Integrado de Estadísticas Policiales que unifique estadísticas e información […] permitiendo de esta manera un monitoreo permanente del comportamiento de la criminalidad y una mejor planificación de la acción policial”, y la instalación de un “Sistema de Vigilancia Electrónica mediante videocámaras en diversos espacios públicos especialmente concurridos y con circuito cerrado de televisión.”
Aún así, esto no proveería solución para los crímenes relacionados con el narcotráfico, que son tan oscuros aunque aparentan suceder a plena luz del día. De nuevo, el Dr. Casas ofrece un diagnóstico sobre este tipo de crimen que merece atención: “El impacto del narcotráfico en la epidemia de violencia que afecta a toda la región, no puede ser minimizado. La mitad de los homicidios dolosos registrados en México en 2008 está directamente ligado al narcotráfico. En Puerto Rico fue el 79 por ciento. Muy pocos países llevan la contabilidad detallada de esas muertes, pero es indiscutible que un ejercicio similar en Costa Rica arrojaría un resultado alarmante.” [Casas, parte III]
Time sugiere que, aparte de estadísticas, otra forma en que la ciudad de Nueva York redujo notablemente sus niveles de criminalidad fue con procesos expeditos de encarcelación. El artículo cita a Mark Kleiman, experto en justicia criminal de UCLA, explicando que “las nuevas estrategias para atacar reincidentes – incluyendo reformas para hacer de la prisión condicional una sanción efectiva más que una farsa ineficaz – podría recortar la criminalidad y reducir las poblaciones carcelarias simultáneamente.” [Time]
Por una cuestión de urgencia, en principio esta no parecería ser una medida práctica para nuestro país dado que su sistema carcelario se encuentra en su capacidad máxima de población. En cuanto a la reforma legal, la implementación podría ser relativamente rápida, pero el cuerpo encargado de aprobar nuevas leyes es bastante impredecible.
La violencia engendra violencia. Cada día despertamos en un país más violento. Nuestro tranquilo estilo de vida ha sido secuestrado de repente por el miedo en el instante que uno abandona el hogar, y muchas personas ya ni siquiera se sienten seguras en casa. De hecho, como lo ilustra el Dr. Casas, los hombres son más vulnerables que las mujeres de ser víctimas del crimen en áreas públicas, pero en el hogar sucede lo contrario. “Para las mujeres,” dice él, “el problema de seguridad más serio no ocurre en los espacios públicos, entre desconocidos, sino en el hogar, entre conocidos.” [Casas, parte II]
El miedo paraliza. Un país sin miedo es lo que solíamos ser. Muchas vidas se han perdido, muchas familias han sido desmembradas, y muchos crímenes han dejado marcas indelebles en hombres, mujeres y niños en todo el país. Nuestra población ha aprendido a temer, y revertir este proceso tomará tiempo, que es precisamente lo que ya no tenemos. La gente está no sólo atemorizada sino también cansada de esperar una solución que parece atrasarse más de la cuenta.
El miedo no es una emoción vacía. Tampoco es sólo una “sensación de temor” [Chinchilla, p. 7], como se refiere el primer párrafo del primer capítulo de su Plan de Gobierno, y no es sólo “un incremento alarmante en la percepción de inseguridad,” [MJ, p. 3] como usted escribió en la introducción de “Un país sin miedo.” El Ministerio de Justicia bajo su liderazgo publicó un documento paralelo con una presentación en diapositivas sobre “Un país sin miedo” en el cual algunas estadísticas demuestran este punto.
Las tasas de criminalidad se han disparado en las últimas dos décadas. Por ejemplo, de 1990 a 2005 las denuncias sobre robos aumentaron 693% [MJ, diapositiva 6], sobre violaciones a la Ley de Psicotrópicos creció 406% [Ibidem.], y los homicidios dolosos crecieron 46% [Ibidem.] (de hecho, 133% si se considera la cifra de 11.2 en 2008 del Dr. Casas). Por otra parte, la percepción sobre el nivel de inseguridad en el país creció de 59.8% en 1999 a 78.5% en 2004. [Ibid, diapositiva 8.] Si bien las fechas de un cuadro a otro no coincidan, aún permite una consideración general sobre el crecimiento desproporcionado del crimen que de la percepción del crimen de la opinión pública.
El Ministerio de Planificación revela estadísticas sobre el incremento de casos criminales en los Tribunales de Justicia. De 1990 a 2008 los casos criminales se multiplicaron de 22.854 a 188,074, [Ministerio de Planificación] más del 800% de aumento. Así que la percepción de la gente está basada en hechos pero los está tratando de manera sosegada, porque las estadísticas son aún más alarmantes.
Bien recordamos la reacción pública de desaprobación a la Ministra de Seguridad Pública actual en su afirmación inaugural sobre inseguridad y su percepción. Ella dijo que “lo que está percibiendo el costarricense es una escalada de violencia pues cada vez los delitos son más violentos (…), lo que sí es cierto es que la percepción de inseguridad es más alta que la inseguridad misma.” [La Nación]
En un esfuerzo por diagnosticar el alcance de la situación, es importante considerar tres dimensiones que proveen un marco analítico para ser más eficaces en la identificación del problema. La primera dimensión se refiere a las partes involucradas en este conflicto. Existen múltiples actores y roles que desempeñan o podrían desempeñar en el diagnóstico y transformación de la situación. Hay víctimas del crimen, victimarios o criminales, asociaciones organizadas de la sociedad civil como algunas mencionadas en el Plan de Gobierno, por ejemplo “Escuelas Seguras” y “Comités de Seguridad Ciudadana” [Chinchilla, p. 10]; corporaciones privadas que cuentan con fondos asignados a responsabilidad social; gobiernos locales; instituciones públicas en general, y también en particular aquellas relacionadas con seguridad, justicia y salud; tomadores de decisiones políticas, especialmente en los poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo; entre otros.
Por último, la población en general que es un actor complejo pues incluye víctimas, victimarios y participantes en todas las instituciones antes mencionadas. Según manda nuestra Constitución Política, “la soberanía reside exclusivamente en la nación,” [artículo 2] y “el gobierno […] lo ejerce el pueblo…” [artículo 9] Las diapositivas de “Un país sin miedo” establecen la separación de roles para lidiar con este conflicto. Dice “La responsabilidad es sobre todo pública, pero la ayuda de la sociedad civil es bienvenida.” [diapositiva 2] Quizás un análisis más profundo de las causas y propuestas de transformación nos conduciría a creer que la participación de la sociedad civil es requerida y, en algunos casos, incluso obligatoria. Obtener claridad en la identificación de las partes involucradas ofrecerá más eficiencia en la coordinación esfuerzos dependiendo de la participación social y política que cada persona tenga.
La segunda dimensión tiene que ver con el tiempo en el que se desenvuelve el conflicto. Para diagnosticar la situación con precisión es importante conducir un análisis histórico crítico sobre las causas y orígenes del presente conflicto, uno que no existía tan solo dos décadas atrás. En “Un país sin miedo” hay una cita introductoria en la primera diapositiva que dice “Seremos duros contra la delincuencia pero más duros aún con las causas que la provocan.” [diapositiva 1] La especificidad en la raíz de estas causas permitirá lidiar más efectivamente con el problema donde sea posible. Este estudio cronológico también deberá ser conducido hacia el futuro, no sólo en el sentido de “garanti[zar] la continuidad de las estrategias y acciones a emprender”, [Chinchilla, p. 7] sino también en alcanzar la sostenibilidad en términos de armonía, empatía y creatividad con relación al conflicto de manera individual como personas y colectiva como nación por las décadas venideras.
La tercera dimensión se refiere al conflicto propiamente dicho. Un conflicto es generalmente compuesto por actitudes, comportamientos y contradicciones. Las actitudes incluyen elementos como el miedo. Los comportamientos se refieren a elementos como evitar factores de riesgo. Las contradicciones son incompatibilidades en la forma en que algunas personas pretenden vivir sus vidas y, al hacerlo, interfieren con la forma en que otros quieren vivir la suya. Saber exactamente cuál es el conflicto y poner esta información a disponibilidad del público para aumentar la concientización permitirá una acción colectiva más comprensiva y en la dirección correcta.
Es hora de que pensemos creativamente hacia un nuevo paradigma realizando saltos conceptuales imaginando un mejor futuro. “No podemos resolver problemas usando la misma forma de pensar que usamos cuando los creamos.” [Einstein]
Referencias
1. Chinchilla, Laura. Plan de Gobierno como candidata presidencial par alas elecciones nacionales del 7 de febrero de 2010. http://www.laurachinchilla.com/html/secciones/vida/index.php, en “Pensamiento/Plan de Gobierno.” Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
2. Einstein, Albert. http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
3. La Nación, periódico, “Janina Del Vecchio dice que inseguridad no es tan alarmante”, 16 de abril, 2008. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2008/abril/16/sucesos1499749.html. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
4. La Nación, periódico, “Para no caer en el abismo, Parte I” Kevin Casas, 23 de agosto, 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
5. La Nación, periódico, “Para no caer en el abismo, Parte II”, Kevin Casas, 30 de agosto, 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
6. La Nación, periódico, “Para no caer en el abismo, Parte III” Kevin Casas, 04 de setiembre, 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/septiembre/04/opinion2079273.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
7. Ministerio de Justicia, “Plan Nacional para la prevención de la violencia y la promoción de la paz social 2007-2010: Un país sin miedo”. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_601.pdf. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
8. Ministerio de Justicia, “Plan Nacional para la prevención de la violencia y la promoción de la paz social 2007-2010: Un país sin miedo”, presentación de diapositivas. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_430.pdf. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
9. Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica de la República de Costa Rica. http://www.mideplan.go.cr/sides/social/08-05.htm. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
10. República de Costa Rica, Constitución Política. http://www.cesdepu.com/nbdp/copol2.htm. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
11. Time revista periódica, “Por qué desapareció el crimen,” David Von Drehle, 22 de febrero, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
Con gran preocupación escribo estas líneas, con respecto al vicioso espiral de violencia que ha asaltado a nuestra nación a expensas de la paz que caracteriza nuestra idiosincrasia. Confío en que usted, señora Presidente, cuente con el más preciso diagnóstico de situación, habiendo sido Ministra de Seguridad Pública durante la Administración 1994-1998 y habiendo sido tanto Vice-presidente de la República y Ministra de Justicia y Gracia durante la actual administración 2006-2010 que precede la suya.
Es, entonces, con el debido respeto, que me dirijo a usted para ofrecerle algunas consideraciones que podrían ayudar a transformar el problema de inseguridad en más eficazmente, dada la urgencia y el limitado tiempo disponible para evitar que esta espiral crezca a un ritmo más acelerado, y la imperiosa necesidad de revertir el proceso hacia una coexistencia más pacífica entre los ciudadanos.
Después de revisar cuidadosamente su Plan de Gobierno 2010-2014, más concretamente su primer capítulo sobre Seguridad Pública [Chinchilla, p.p. 7-10] como el primer tema de su agenda, llamo su atención al proyecto que ha sido llevado a cabo durante la presente Administración, llamado “Plan nacional de prevención de violencia y promoción de la paz social 2007-2010: Un país sin miedo” [Ministerio de Justicia (MJ)], el cual usted coordinó como Ministra de Justicia.
Su Plan de Gobierno concluye que algunas de las acciones de “Un país sin miedo” han sido “efectivas para atender numerosos factores asociados con crímenes violentos.” [MJ, p. 10] Sin embargo, su anterior colega Vice-presidente y actual investigador en el reconocido Instituto Brookings en Washington, D.C., Dr. Kevin Casas, ha publicado una trilogía de artículos que revelan justamente lo contrario respecto a la eficacia de las políticas asumidas en términos de seguridad en años recientes. Él dice que “el aumento de la tasa de homicidios en el país en el 2008 […] el más básico en materia de seguridad ciudadana – pasó de 8.2 homicidios dolosos por 100.000 habitantes en 2007 a 11.2 un año después, un aumento del 37 por ciento.” [Casas, parte I] Él explica que, más allá del umbral de 10 homicidios por 100.000 habitantes es considerado por la Organización Mundial de la Salud como un serio problema de salud pública.
Como usted sabe, el Dr. Casas es un referente calificado para hablar sobre seguridad, pues él ha sido el coordinador del Reporte Nacional sobre Desarrollo Humano para el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) “Derrotando el miedo: inseguridad ciudadana y desarrollo humano en Costa Rica” en el año 2005, el cual contribuyó con datos estadísticos en la elaboración del proyecto “Un país sin miedo” bajo su Ministerio.
Sus dos principales recomendaciones para una estrategia sostenible en términos de seguridad ciudadana son: número uno, “resistir los estridentes llamados a resolver el problema por medio de políticas de ‘mano dura’ y el retorcido populismo represivo, que casi siempre falla en bajar los niveles de criminalidad, pero nunca falla en vulnerar las garantías del Estado de Derecho.” [Casas] Él hace referencia a tales estrategias de violencia estatal implementadas en países vecinos como El Salvador y Honduras – dos países con tasas de homicidios de las más altas del mundo – sin ningún resultado positivo hasta el momento.
Número dos, invertir en información como el requisito más importante para combatir el crimen como estrategia a corto plazo. Se dice que la información es conocimiento, y el conocimiento es poder. La manera más efectiva de asignar recursos policiales a la lucha contra el crimen es saber con precisión adónde, cuándo y cómo se lleva a cabo un hecho criminal.
La revista internacional Time concuerda con el Dr. Casas, y de hecho ilustra el argumento con el mismo ejemplo dado por él en su artículo: la reducción de la criminalidad en la ciudad de Nueva York bajo la administración de Rudy Giuliani. Se refieren a CompStat, una “base de datos en tiempo real sobre estadísticas criminales y otra inteligencia útil para identificar áreas problemáticas y la correspondiente asignación de recursos.” [Time]
Esto no es nuevo para su Plan de Gobierno, donde usted propone la creación de un “Sistema Integrado de Estadísticas Policiales que unifique estadísticas e información […] permitiendo de esta manera un monitoreo permanente del comportamiento de la criminalidad y una mejor planificación de la acción policial”, y la instalación de un “Sistema de Vigilancia Electrónica mediante videocámaras en diversos espacios públicos especialmente concurridos y con circuito cerrado de televisión.”
Aún así, esto no proveería solución para los crímenes relacionados con el narcotráfico, que son tan oscuros aunque aparentan suceder a plena luz del día. De nuevo, el Dr. Casas ofrece un diagnóstico sobre este tipo de crimen que merece atención: “El impacto del narcotráfico en la epidemia de violencia que afecta a toda la región, no puede ser minimizado. La mitad de los homicidios dolosos registrados en México en 2008 está directamente ligado al narcotráfico. En Puerto Rico fue el 79 por ciento. Muy pocos países llevan la contabilidad detallada de esas muertes, pero es indiscutible que un ejercicio similar en Costa Rica arrojaría un resultado alarmante.” [Casas, parte III]
Time sugiere que, aparte de estadísticas, otra forma en que la ciudad de Nueva York redujo notablemente sus niveles de criminalidad fue con procesos expeditos de encarcelación. El artículo cita a Mark Kleiman, experto en justicia criminal de UCLA, explicando que “las nuevas estrategias para atacar reincidentes – incluyendo reformas para hacer de la prisión condicional una sanción efectiva más que una farsa ineficaz – podría recortar la criminalidad y reducir las poblaciones carcelarias simultáneamente.” [Time]
Por una cuestión de urgencia, en principio esta no parecería ser una medida práctica para nuestro país dado que su sistema carcelario se encuentra en su capacidad máxima de población. En cuanto a la reforma legal, la implementación podría ser relativamente rápida, pero el cuerpo encargado de aprobar nuevas leyes es bastante impredecible.
La violencia engendra violencia. Cada día despertamos en un país más violento. Nuestro tranquilo estilo de vida ha sido secuestrado de repente por el miedo en el instante que uno abandona el hogar, y muchas personas ya ni siquiera se sienten seguras en casa. De hecho, como lo ilustra el Dr. Casas, los hombres son más vulnerables que las mujeres de ser víctimas del crimen en áreas públicas, pero en el hogar sucede lo contrario. “Para las mujeres,” dice él, “el problema de seguridad más serio no ocurre en los espacios públicos, entre desconocidos, sino en el hogar, entre conocidos.” [Casas, parte II]
El miedo paraliza. Un país sin miedo es lo que solíamos ser. Muchas vidas se han perdido, muchas familias han sido desmembradas, y muchos crímenes han dejado marcas indelebles en hombres, mujeres y niños en todo el país. Nuestra población ha aprendido a temer, y revertir este proceso tomará tiempo, que es precisamente lo que ya no tenemos. La gente está no sólo atemorizada sino también cansada de esperar una solución que parece atrasarse más de la cuenta.
El miedo no es una emoción vacía. Tampoco es sólo una “sensación de temor” [Chinchilla, p. 7], como se refiere el primer párrafo del primer capítulo de su Plan de Gobierno, y no es sólo “un incremento alarmante en la percepción de inseguridad,” [MJ, p. 3] como usted escribió en la introducción de “Un país sin miedo.” El Ministerio de Justicia bajo su liderazgo publicó un documento paralelo con una presentación en diapositivas sobre “Un país sin miedo” en el cual algunas estadísticas demuestran este punto.
Las tasas de criminalidad se han disparado en las últimas dos décadas. Por ejemplo, de 1990 a 2005 las denuncias sobre robos aumentaron 693% [MJ, diapositiva 6], sobre violaciones a la Ley de Psicotrópicos creció 406% [Ibidem.], y los homicidios dolosos crecieron 46% [Ibidem.] (de hecho, 133% si se considera la cifra de 11.2 en 2008 del Dr. Casas). Por otra parte, la percepción sobre el nivel de inseguridad en el país creció de 59.8% en 1999 a 78.5% en 2004. [Ibid, diapositiva 8.] Si bien las fechas de un cuadro a otro no coincidan, aún permite una consideración general sobre el crecimiento desproporcionado del crimen que de la percepción del crimen de la opinión pública.
El Ministerio de Planificación revela estadísticas sobre el incremento de casos criminales en los Tribunales de Justicia. De 1990 a 2008 los casos criminales se multiplicaron de 22.854 a 188,074, [Ministerio de Planificación] más del 800% de aumento. Así que la percepción de la gente está basada en hechos pero los está tratando de manera sosegada, porque las estadísticas son aún más alarmantes.
Bien recordamos la reacción pública de desaprobación a la Ministra de Seguridad Pública actual en su afirmación inaugural sobre inseguridad y su percepción. Ella dijo que “lo que está percibiendo el costarricense es una escalada de violencia pues cada vez los delitos son más violentos (…), lo que sí es cierto es que la percepción de inseguridad es más alta que la inseguridad misma.” [La Nación]
En un esfuerzo por diagnosticar el alcance de la situación, es importante considerar tres dimensiones que proveen un marco analítico para ser más eficaces en la identificación del problema. La primera dimensión se refiere a las partes involucradas en este conflicto. Existen múltiples actores y roles que desempeñan o podrían desempeñar en el diagnóstico y transformación de la situación. Hay víctimas del crimen, victimarios o criminales, asociaciones organizadas de la sociedad civil como algunas mencionadas en el Plan de Gobierno, por ejemplo “Escuelas Seguras” y “Comités de Seguridad Ciudadana” [Chinchilla, p. 10]; corporaciones privadas que cuentan con fondos asignados a responsabilidad social; gobiernos locales; instituciones públicas en general, y también en particular aquellas relacionadas con seguridad, justicia y salud; tomadores de decisiones políticas, especialmente en los poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo; entre otros.
Por último, la población en general que es un actor complejo pues incluye víctimas, victimarios y participantes en todas las instituciones antes mencionadas. Según manda nuestra Constitución Política, “la soberanía reside exclusivamente en la nación,” [artículo 2] y “el gobierno […] lo ejerce el pueblo…” [artículo 9] Las diapositivas de “Un país sin miedo” establecen la separación de roles para lidiar con este conflicto. Dice “La responsabilidad es sobre todo pública, pero la ayuda de la sociedad civil es bienvenida.” [diapositiva 2] Quizás un análisis más profundo de las causas y propuestas de transformación nos conduciría a creer que la participación de la sociedad civil es requerida y, en algunos casos, incluso obligatoria. Obtener claridad en la identificación de las partes involucradas ofrecerá más eficiencia en la coordinación esfuerzos dependiendo de la participación social y política que cada persona tenga.
La segunda dimensión tiene que ver con el tiempo en el que se desenvuelve el conflicto. Para diagnosticar la situación con precisión es importante conducir un análisis histórico crítico sobre las causas y orígenes del presente conflicto, uno que no existía tan solo dos décadas atrás. En “Un país sin miedo” hay una cita introductoria en la primera diapositiva que dice “Seremos duros contra la delincuencia pero más duros aún con las causas que la provocan.” [diapositiva 1] La especificidad en la raíz de estas causas permitirá lidiar más efectivamente con el problema donde sea posible. Este estudio cronológico también deberá ser conducido hacia el futuro, no sólo en el sentido de “garanti[zar] la continuidad de las estrategias y acciones a emprender”, [Chinchilla, p. 7] sino también en alcanzar la sostenibilidad en términos de armonía, empatía y creatividad con relación al conflicto de manera individual como personas y colectiva como nación por las décadas venideras.
La tercera dimensión se refiere al conflicto propiamente dicho. Un conflicto es generalmente compuesto por actitudes, comportamientos y contradicciones. Las actitudes incluyen elementos como el miedo. Los comportamientos se refieren a elementos como evitar factores de riesgo. Las contradicciones son incompatibilidades en la forma en que algunas personas pretenden vivir sus vidas y, al hacerlo, interfieren con la forma en que otros quieren vivir la suya. Saber exactamente cuál es el conflicto y poner esta información a disponibilidad del público para aumentar la concientización permitirá una acción colectiva más comprensiva y en la dirección correcta.
Es hora de que pensemos creativamente hacia un nuevo paradigma realizando saltos conceptuales imaginando un mejor futuro. “No podemos resolver problemas usando la misma forma de pensar que usamos cuando los creamos.” [Einstein]
Referencias
1. Chinchilla, Laura. Plan de Gobierno como candidata presidencial par alas elecciones nacionales del 7 de febrero de 2010. http://www.laurachinchilla.com/html/secciones/vida/index.php, en “Pensamiento/Plan de Gobierno.” Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
2. Einstein, Albert. http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
3. La Nación, periódico, “Janina Del Vecchio dice que inseguridad no es tan alarmante”, 16 de abril, 2008. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2008/abril/16/sucesos1499749.html. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
4. La Nación, periódico, “Para no caer en el abismo, Parte I” Kevin Casas, 23 de agosto, 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
5. La Nación, periódico, “Para no caer en el abismo, Parte II”, Kevin Casas, 30 de agosto, 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
6. La Nación, periódico, “Para no caer en el abismo, Parte III” Kevin Casas, 04 de setiembre, 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/septiembre/04/opinion2079273.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
7. Ministerio de Justicia, “Plan Nacional para la prevención de la violencia y la promoción de la paz social 2007-2010: Un país sin miedo”. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_601.pdf. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
8. Ministerio de Justicia, “Plan Nacional para la prevención de la violencia y la promoción de la paz social 2007-2010: Un país sin miedo”, presentación de diapositivas. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_430.pdf. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
9. Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica de la República de Costa Rica. http://www.mideplan.go.cr/sides/social/08-05.htm. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
10. República de Costa Rica, Constitución Política. http://www.cesdepu.com/nbdp/copol2.htm. Revisado por última vez el 24 de febrero, 2010.
11. Time revista periódica, “Por qué desapareció el crimen,” David Von Drehle, 22 de febrero, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html. Revisado por última vez el 22 de febrero, 2010.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Violence out of control
Your Excellency, madam Laura Chinchilla,
It is with great concern that I write these lines, regarding the vicious spiral of violence that has taken our nation at the expense of the peace that characterizes our idiosyncrasy. I am confident that you, Madam President-elect , have the most accurate diagnosis of the situation, having been Minister of National Security during the 1994-1998 Administration, and having been both Vice-president and Minister of Justice during the 2006-2010 Administration that precedes yours.
It is then, with all due respect, that I address you to offer some insights about ways in which the problem of insecurity in the country can be transformed more effectively, given the urgency and limited time available to contain this spiral from growing larger and faster, and the imperious need to revert the process towards a more peaceful coexistence.
After considerable review of your Government Plan 2010-2014, more concretely its first chapter on National Security as the number one issue in your agenda, I call your attention to the effort that has been done during the present Administration under the name “National Plan for the Prevention of Violence and Promotion of Social Peace 2007-2010: A Country Without Fear” , which you coordinated as Minister of Justice.
Your Government Plan claims that some of the actions of “A Country Without Fear” have been “effective to face numerous factors associated to violent crimes.” Nevertheless, your former fellow Vice-president and current researcher at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., Dr. Kevin Casas, has published a trilogy of articles that reveal quite the contrary regarding the effectiveness of policy actions taken in terms of security in recent years. He says, “the increase in the intentional homicide rate in Costa Rica for 2008 […] the most basic one in terms of national security- went from 8.2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2007 to 11.2 a year later, a 37% increase.” He further explains that, past the threshold of 10 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants is regarded by the World Health Organization as a serious public health issue.
As you well know, Dr. Casas is a qualified reference to speak about security, as he was in fact the coordinator of the 2005 National Report on Human Development for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) “Defeating Fear: National Insecurity and Human Development in Costa Rica”, which contributed with facts and figures for the elaboration of “A Country Without Fear” policy under your Ministry.
His two main recommendations for a sustainable strategy in terms of national security are: number one, to “rethink the debate […] to resist the strident calls to solve the issue through ‘crackdown’ policies and twisted repressive populism, that almost always fails to reduce the levels of crime, but never fails at violating the Rule of Law.” He makes reference to such State-violent strategies implemented in neighboring El Salvador and Honduras – two of the countries with the highest homicide rates in the world – with no effective results whatsoever.
Number two, to invest in information as the single most important requirement to fight crime as a short-term strategy. As the saying goes, information is knowledge, and knowledge is power. The most effective way to allocate police resources in fighting crime is to know accurately where, when, and how crime takes place.
Time Magazine would agree with Dr. Casas, and in fact illustrates with the same example he uses: crime reduction in New York City under Rudy Giuliani’s administration. They refer to CompStat, “a real-time database of crime statistics and other intelligence useful for pinpointing trouble spots and targeting resources.”
This is nothing new to your Government Plan, where you propose the creation of an “Integrated System of Police Statistics that unifies statistics and information […] allowing therefore permanent monitoring of criminal behavior and better planning of police action” , and “installing a System of Electronic Surveillance through video cameras in several especially crowded public spaces and with closed circuit television.”
Still, this would not provide a solution for drug-related crime, which is so obscure and appears to take place underground in broad daylight. Again, Dr. Casas offers a diagnosis of this type of crime that is worthy of attention: “The impact of drug trafficking on the violence epidemics that affects our entire region cannot be minimized. Half of the intentional homicides that occurred in Mexico in 2008 are directly linked to drug dealing. In Puerto Rico it was 79 percent. Very few countries keep a detailed account of such deaths, but it is undisputed that a similar exercise in Costa Rica would offer an alarming result.”
Time goes on to suggest that, apart from statistics, another way in which the city of New York brought the crime levels to a remarkable low was speedy incarcerations. The article quotes Mark Kleiman, a criminal justice expert from UCLA, arguing that “new strategies for targeting repeat offenders – including reforms to make probation an effective sanction rather than a feckless joke – could cut crime and reduce prison populations simultaneously.”
As a matter of urgency, this may not be a practical measure for our country since its prison system is beyond its full capacity. As of legal reform, implementation might be relatively quick, but the policy-making field is quite unpredictable.
Violence breeds violence. Every day we wake up to a more violent country. Our easygoing lifestyle has suddenly been sequestered by fear the instant one leaves the household, and even at home people do not feel safe anymore. In fact, as Dr. Casas exemplifies, men are more vulnerable than women of becoming victims of crime in public areas, but at home it is the opposite. “For women”, he says, “the most serious problem of security is not in public spaces, among unknown people, but at home, among well-known people.”
Fear is paralyzing. A country without fear is what we used to be. Many lives have been lost, many families have been dismembered, and many crimes have left indelible marks in men, women and children around the country. Our population has learned to be afraid, and reverting the process will take time, which is precisely what we do not have anymore. People are not only afraid but also tired of waiting for a solution that seems to be delayed a little too long.
Fear is not an empty emotion. Neither is it only a “sensation of fear” , as referred to in the opening paragraph of the first chapter in your Government Plan, and it is not only “an alarming increment in the perception of insecurity”, as you wrote in the introduction for “A Country Without Fear.” The Ministry of Justice under your leadership issued a parallel document with a slideshow presentation of “A Country Without Fear” in which a few statistics allow to make a point in this regard. Crime rates have soared in the last two decades. For example, from 1990 to 2005, filed complaints about theft increased 693% , violations to the Law of Narcotic Substances grew 406% , and intentional homicide rose 46% (in fact, 133% if we consider Dr. Casas’s figure of 11.2 by 2008). On the other hand, perception about the level of insecurity in the country grew from 59.8% in 1999 to 78.5% in 2004. Even though the dates from one slide to another do not match, it still allows for a general overview of a disproportionate growth in crime than in the public opinion’s perception of crime.
The Ministry of Planning reveals statistics about the increment in criminal cases being tried at national tribunals and courthouses. From 1990 to 2008 criminal cases skyrocketed from 22,854 to 188,074, more than 800% variation. So the perception of the people is grounded on facts, and is treating them mildly, because the statistics are alarming.
We well know the public reaction of disapproval to the Minister of National Security’s inaugural statement regarding insecurity and its perception. She was quoted saying: “What Costa Ricans are perceiving is a growth in violence rates, since crimes are more violent (…), what is true is that the perception of insecurity is higher than insecurity itself.”
In an effort to diagnose the scope of the situation, it is important to consider three dimensions that provide an analytical framework to be more effective in the identification of the problem. The first dimension refers to the parties involved in this conflict. There are multiple actors and roles they play or could play in diagnosing and transforming the situation. There are the victims of crime, the victimizers or criminals, organized institutions of the Civil Society like a few you propose on your Government Plan, for example “Safe Schools” and “Citizen Security Committees” ; private corporations that have funds allocated for social responsibility; local governments; public institutions in general, and also in particular those related to security, justice, and health; policy decision-makers, especially in the Executive and Legislative branches.
Last but not least, the people in general are a complex actor because it includes victims, victimizers, and participants in all institutions mentioned before. As it is stated in our Constitution, “sovereignty resides exclusively in the nation,” and “the government [is] exercised by the people…” The slideshow “A Country Without Fear” makes a statement about the separation of roles dealing with this conflict. It says “The responsibility is, above all, public, but help from the Civil Society is welcome.” Perhaps a more thorough analysis of the causes and the proposals for transformation will lead us to believe that Civil Society participation is required and, in some cases, even obligatory. Clarity in the identification of the parties involved will offer more efficiency coordinating efforts depending on the social and political participation that each person has.
The second dimension has to do with time and the elapse of the conflict. In diagnosing the situation with precision, it is important to conduct a critical and historical analysis of the causes and origins of the present conflict, one that did not exist only a couple of decades ago. As quoted as an opening remark on the first slide of “A Country Without Fear”, “We shall be hard on crime but harder on the causes that provoke it.” Specificity in the root of these causes will allow for a more effective intervention dealing with the problem wherever it may be possible. This chronological study should also be driven into the future, not only in the sense of “guaranteeing continuity of strategies and actions to take” , but also in achieving sustainability in terms of harmony, empathy, and creativity dealing with conflict individually and collectively as a nation for the decades to come.
The third dimension regards the conflict itself. A conflict is generally composed of attitudes, behaviors and contradictions. Attitudes include elements like fear. Behaviors refer to elements like risk. Contradictions are incompatibilities in the way some people pretend to live their lives and, in doing so, interfere with the way others want to live theirs. Knowing exactly what the conflict is and making this information available to the public to raise awareness, will allow for a more comprehensive and even collective action in the right direction.
It is time to think creatively towards a new paradigm by leapfrogging with our imagination of a better future. “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
References
1. Chinchilla, Laura. Government Plan running as candidate for nacional elections on 07 February, 2010.http://www.laurachinchilla.com/html/secciones/vida/index.php, in “Pensamiento/Plan de Gobierno.” Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
2. Einstein, Albert. http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
3. La Nación Newspaper, “Janina Del Vecchio says that insecurity is not so alarming”, 16 April 2008. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2008/abril/16/sucesos1499749.html. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
4. La Nación Newspaper, “Avoiding the Fall into the Abyss, Part I” Kevin Casas, 23 August 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
5. La Nación Newspaper, “Avoiding the Fall into the Abyss, Part II”, Kevin Casas, 30 August 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
6. La Nación Newspaper, “Avoiding the Fall into the Abyss, Part III” Kevin Casas, 04 September 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/septiembre/04/opinion2079273.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
7. Ministry of Justice, “National Plan for the Prevention of Violence and Promotion of Social Peace 2007-2010: A Country Without Fear”. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_601.pdf. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
8. Ministry of Justice, “National Plan for the Prevention of Violence and Promotion of Social Peace 2007-2010: A Country Without Fear”, slideshow presentation. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_430.pdf. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
9. Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy of the Republic of Costa Rica. http://www.mideplan.go.cr/sides/social/08-05.htm. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
10. Republic of Costa Rica, Political Constitution. http://www.cesdepu.com/nbdp/copol2.htm. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
11. Time magazine, “Why Crime Went Away,” David Von Drehle, February 22, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
It is with great concern that I write these lines, regarding the vicious spiral of violence that has taken our nation at the expense of the peace that characterizes our idiosyncrasy. I am confident that you, Madam President-elect , have the most accurate diagnosis of the situation, having been Minister of National Security during the 1994-1998 Administration, and having been both Vice-president and Minister of Justice during the 2006-2010 Administration that precedes yours.
It is then, with all due respect, that I address you to offer some insights about ways in which the problem of insecurity in the country can be transformed more effectively, given the urgency and limited time available to contain this spiral from growing larger and faster, and the imperious need to revert the process towards a more peaceful coexistence.
After considerable review of your Government Plan 2010-2014, more concretely its first chapter on National Security as the number one issue in your agenda, I call your attention to the effort that has been done during the present Administration under the name “National Plan for the Prevention of Violence and Promotion of Social Peace 2007-2010: A Country Without Fear” , which you coordinated as Minister of Justice.
Your Government Plan claims that some of the actions of “A Country Without Fear” have been “effective to face numerous factors associated to violent crimes.” Nevertheless, your former fellow Vice-president and current researcher at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., Dr. Kevin Casas, has published a trilogy of articles that reveal quite the contrary regarding the effectiveness of policy actions taken in terms of security in recent years. He says, “the increase in the intentional homicide rate in Costa Rica for 2008 […] the most basic one in terms of national security- went from 8.2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2007 to 11.2 a year later, a 37% increase.” He further explains that, past the threshold of 10 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants is regarded by the World Health Organization as a serious public health issue.
As you well know, Dr. Casas is a qualified reference to speak about security, as he was in fact the coordinator of the 2005 National Report on Human Development for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) “Defeating Fear: National Insecurity and Human Development in Costa Rica”, which contributed with facts and figures for the elaboration of “A Country Without Fear” policy under your Ministry.
His two main recommendations for a sustainable strategy in terms of national security are: number one, to “rethink the debate […] to resist the strident calls to solve the issue through ‘crackdown’ policies and twisted repressive populism, that almost always fails to reduce the levels of crime, but never fails at violating the Rule of Law.” He makes reference to such State-violent strategies implemented in neighboring El Salvador and Honduras – two of the countries with the highest homicide rates in the world – with no effective results whatsoever.
Number two, to invest in information as the single most important requirement to fight crime as a short-term strategy. As the saying goes, information is knowledge, and knowledge is power. The most effective way to allocate police resources in fighting crime is to know accurately where, when, and how crime takes place.
Time Magazine would agree with Dr. Casas, and in fact illustrates with the same example he uses: crime reduction in New York City under Rudy Giuliani’s administration. They refer to CompStat, “a real-time database of crime statistics and other intelligence useful for pinpointing trouble spots and targeting resources.”
This is nothing new to your Government Plan, where you propose the creation of an “Integrated System of Police Statistics that unifies statistics and information […] allowing therefore permanent monitoring of criminal behavior and better planning of police action” , and “installing a System of Electronic Surveillance through video cameras in several especially crowded public spaces and with closed circuit television.”
Still, this would not provide a solution for drug-related crime, which is so obscure and appears to take place underground in broad daylight. Again, Dr. Casas offers a diagnosis of this type of crime that is worthy of attention: “The impact of drug trafficking on the violence epidemics that affects our entire region cannot be minimized. Half of the intentional homicides that occurred in Mexico in 2008 are directly linked to drug dealing. In Puerto Rico it was 79 percent. Very few countries keep a detailed account of such deaths, but it is undisputed that a similar exercise in Costa Rica would offer an alarming result.”
Time goes on to suggest that, apart from statistics, another way in which the city of New York brought the crime levels to a remarkable low was speedy incarcerations. The article quotes Mark Kleiman, a criminal justice expert from UCLA, arguing that “new strategies for targeting repeat offenders – including reforms to make probation an effective sanction rather than a feckless joke – could cut crime and reduce prison populations simultaneously.”
As a matter of urgency, this may not be a practical measure for our country since its prison system is beyond its full capacity. As of legal reform, implementation might be relatively quick, but the policy-making field is quite unpredictable.
Violence breeds violence. Every day we wake up to a more violent country. Our easygoing lifestyle has suddenly been sequestered by fear the instant one leaves the household, and even at home people do not feel safe anymore. In fact, as Dr. Casas exemplifies, men are more vulnerable than women of becoming victims of crime in public areas, but at home it is the opposite. “For women”, he says, “the most serious problem of security is not in public spaces, among unknown people, but at home, among well-known people.”
Fear is paralyzing. A country without fear is what we used to be. Many lives have been lost, many families have been dismembered, and many crimes have left indelible marks in men, women and children around the country. Our population has learned to be afraid, and reverting the process will take time, which is precisely what we do not have anymore. People are not only afraid but also tired of waiting for a solution that seems to be delayed a little too long.
Fear is not an empty emotion. Neither is it only a “sensation of fear” , as referred to in the opening paragraph of the first chapter in your Government Plan, and it is not only “an alarming increment in the perception of insecurity”, as you wrote in the introduction for “A Country Without Fear.” The Ministry of Justice under your leadership issued a parallel document with a slideshow presentation of “A Country Without Fear” in which a few statistics allow to make a point in this regard. Crime rates have soared in the last two decades. For example, from 1990 to 2005, filed complaints about theft increased 693% , violations to the Law of Narcotic Substances grew 406% , and intentional homicide rose 46% (in fact, 133% if we consider Dr. Casas’s figure of 11.2 by 2008). On the other hand, perception about the level of insecurity in the country grew from 59.8% in 1999 to 78.5% in 2004. Even though the dates from one slide to another do not match, it still allows for a general overview of a disproportionate growth in crime than in the public opinion’s perception of crime.
The Ministry of Planning reveals statistics about the increment in criminal cases being tried at national tribunals and courthouses. From 1990 to 2008 criminal cases skyrocketed from 22,854 to 188,074, more than 800% variation. So the perception of the people is grounded on facts, and is treating them mildly, because the statistics are alarming.
We well know the public reaction of disapproval to the Minister of National Security’s inaugural statement regarding insecurity and its perception. She was quoted saying: “What Costa Ricans are perceiving is a growth in violence rates, since crimes are more violent (…), what is true is that the perception of insecurity is higher than insecurity itself.”
In an effort to diagnose the scope of the situation, it is important to consider three dimensions that provide an analytical framework to be more effective in the identification of the problem. The first dimension refers to the parties involved in this conflict. There are multiple actors and roles they play or could play in diagnosing and transforming the situation. There are the victims of crime, the victimizers or criminals, organized institutions of the Civil Society like a few you propose on your Government Plan, for example “Safe Schools” and “Citizen Security Committees” ; private corporations that have funds allocated for social responsibility; local governments; public institutions in general, and also in particular those related to security, justice, and health; policy decision-makers, especially in the Executive and Legislative branches.
Last but not least, the people in general are a complex actor because it includes victims, victimizers, and participants in all institutions mentioned before. As it is stated in our Constitution, “sovereignty resides exclusively in the nation,” and “the government [is] exercised by the people…” The slideshow “A Country Without Fear” makes a statement about the separation of roles dealing with this conflict. It says “The responsibility is, above all, public, but help from the Civil Society is welcome.” Perhaps a more thorough analysis of the causes and the proposals for transformation will lead us to believe that Civil Society participation is required and, in some cases, even obligatory. Clarity in the identification of the parties involved will offer more efficiency coordinating efforts depending on the social and political participation that each person has.
The second dimension has to do with time and the elapse of the conflict. In diagnosing the situation with precision, it is important to conduct a critical and historical analysis of the causes and origins of the present conflict, one that did not exist only a couple of decades ago. As quoted as an opening remark on the first slide of “A Country Without Fear”, “We shall be hard on crime but harder on the causes that provoke it.” Specificity in the root of these causes will allow for a more effective intervention dealing with the problem wherever it may be possible. This chronological study should also be driven into the future, not only in the sense of “guaranteeing continuity of strategies and actions to take” , but also in achieving sustainability in terms of harmony, empathy, and creativity dealing with conflict individually and collectively as a nation for the decades to come.
The third dimension regards the conflict itself. A conflict is generally composed of attitudes, behaviors and contradictions. Attitudes include elements like fear. Behaviors refer to elements like risk. Contradictions are incompatibilities in the way some people pretend to live their lives and, in doing so, interfere with the way others want to live theirs. Knowing exactly what the conflict is and making this information available to the public to raise awareness, will allow for a more comprehensive and even collective action in the right direction.
It is time to think creatively towards a new paradigm by leapfrogging with our imagination of a better future. “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
References
1. Chinchilla, Laura. Government Plan running as candidate for nacional elections on 07 February, 2010.http://www.laurachinchilla.com/html/secciones/vida/index.php, in “Pensamiento/Plan de Gobierno.” Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
2. Einstein, Albert. http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
3. La Nación Newspaper, “Janina Del Vecchio says that insecurity is not so alarming”, 16 April 2008. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2008/abril/16/sucesos1499749.html. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
4. La Nación Newspaper, “Avoiding the Fall into the Abyss, Part I” Kevin Casas, 23 August 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
5. La Nación Newspaper, “Avoiding the Fall into the Abyss, Part II”, Kevin Casas, 30 August 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/23/opinion2066594.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
6. La Nación Newspaper, “Avoiding the Fall into the Abyss, Part III” Kevin Casas, 04 September 2009. http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/septiembre/04/opinion2079273.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
7. Ministry of Justice, “National Plan for the Prevention of Violence and Promotion of Social Peace 2007-2010: A Country Without Fear”. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_601.pdf. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
8. Ministry of Justice, “National Plan for the Prevention of Violence and Promotion of Social Peace 2007-2010: A Country Without Fear”, slideshow presentation. http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_430.pdf. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
9. Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy of the Republic of Costa Rica. http://www.mideplan.go.cr/sides/social/08-05.htm. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
10. Republic of Costa Rica, Political Constitution. http://www.cesdepu.com/nbdp/copol2.htm. Last reviewed February 24, 2010.
11. Time magazine, “Why Crime Went Away,” David Von Drehle, February 22, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html. Last reviewed February 22, 2010.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Resaca democrática
De vez en cuando, las democracias se van de fiesta. La gente se disfraza y sale a la calle a apoyar a sus favoritos y, sobre todo, a cumplir con el deber de votar. Es un deber que se ha venido convirtiendo en un privilegio, pues la mitad del planeta no tiene la posibilidad de decidir libremente quién conducirá la administración pública por el próximo período de gobierno.
En una democracia, el poder reside en el pueblo. Al votar, el pueblo delega ese poder en varios partidos políticos representados en la Asamblea, primer poder de la República, y en uno de ellos que liderará el Poder Ejecutivo para la implementación de la respectiva agenda de gobierno. Las campañas ruidosas e irrespetuosas como esta última nos impiden conocer a fondo las agendas de los diferentes partidos. La desinformación del votante debilita la democracia.
Al terminar la fiesta, es hora de volver al camino. Conforme crecemos en años y en madurez, vamos entendiendo que la indiferencia política no provoca ningún cambio constructivo, como tampoco el reclamo y la acusación a los que están en el poder o lo estuvieron ayer.
Estamos en una encrucijada nacional respecto al tema de la seguridad, pues nuestra paz se basa en ella. Para nadie es un secreto que la sociedad se ha tornado violenta, y las estadísticas criminales así lo reflejan. Se requiere de mayor eficacia creando una agenda nacional para tratar el tema, y valorar los costos de oportunidad de divagar o enfrascarnos en más rencillas bochincheras que obstruyen nuestra capacidad de actuar. Como los conejos que vieron venir los perros a lo lejos y comenzaron a discutir de si aquellos eran galgos o eran podencos. No importaba. Eran perros, y se los iban a comer.
Más que pensar en crear una nueva Constitución Política, ha llegado la hora de revisar el significado que tienen hoy para nosotros algunos de los valores supremos consagrados en la sólida y sabia Constitución actual, tales como libertad (y sus límites), igualdad (y sus obstáculos), inviolabilidad de la vida humana (sin excepciones), adecuada distribución de la riqueza (sobre todo de oportunidades), derecho a un sano medio ambiente (natural y social), educación obligatoria y gratuita, costeada –y elaborada – por el Estado, seguridad social de amplia cobertura (en cantidad y también en calidad), entre otros.
El presidente Obama dijo atinadamente en su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión el mes pasado, respecto a la Oposición, que “oponerse a todo porque se puede es quizás una buena táctica política a corto plazo, pero no es liderazgo.” Cuánto bien le haría a la democracia de nuestro país quitarle la etiqueta de “Oposición” a los partidos que no ocupan el Poder Ejecutivo, y llamarles de otra manera, como la “Facilitación” o el “Contrapeso.” Las diferentes fracciones políticas de la Asamblea se necesitan mutuamente para ser eficaces. Es como lavarse las manos juntas o por separado. Le llaman sinergia. Habría suficiente tiempo –y voluntad política de sobra – para aprobar los principales proyectos de cada fracción en cada legislatura si hubiera entendimiento de este fundamental principio de la administración. En cambio, si se trata de zancadillear al otro, se logra muy poco o nada entre todos.
La eficacia depende de todos los partidos, porque la Asamblea Legislativa es una sola y es ella, no cada fracción o bloque legislativo, la que resulta ineficaz como órgano reformador de políticas públicas. En eso nos está fallando a todos por igual, porque el país es uno solo y el subdesarrollo es del país entero, no sólo de los pobres, de los delincuentes, de los mal educados y de los corruptos.
Sería propicio también entender que nadie, por su propia cuenta, puede resolver los problemas para todos. Nos compete a todos aportar desde nuestras posiciones sociales y políticas lo que corresponda hacer. Muchos ya lo hacemos: trabajamos, estudiamos, conducimos con precaución, educamos a nuestros hijos, somos buenos vecinos, pagamos impuestos, sembramos árboles, votamos, tenemos aspiraciones y fe, ahorramos, convivimos pacíficamente.
Entonces son unos pocos –o un poco de cada uno de nosotros – lo que nos está impidiendo ser prósperos hoy, y no en el futuro utópico que prometen algunos a cambio de votos. Queremos paz hoy, empleos hoy, comida hoy, créditos para pequeña empresa hoy, justicia hoy, salud hoy, educación hoy, oportunidades hoy, riqueza hoy. Muchos queremos eso y que además alcance para todos, sin distingo de género, nacionalidad, edad, religión, ideología, sexualidad o apellido. Cumplamos el mandato constitucional.
Para que crezca la riqueza y sobre todo para que se distribuya justamente se requiere seguridad ciudadana y jurídica, un sistema de recaudación fiscal justo que impida la evasión de los que tienen más medios e incentivos para evadir, un medio ambiente exquisito y al alcance de todos. También, que el Estado sea facilitador para crear oportunidades que desarrollen, ya sea en salud, educación, adaptación social, conectividad, financiamiento, empleo, infraestructura, desintoxicación, adaptación para personas con alguna discapacidad, etc.
Pongamos manos a la obra. Demos un salto cualitativo y fuera de lo ordinario. Disputémosle a Noruega y a Australia los primeros lugares en desarrollo humano, así como le disputamos a Islandia y a Suiza los primeros lugares en desempeño ambiental. Claro que se puede.
En una democracia, el poder reside en el pueblo. Al votar, el pueblo delega ese poder en varios partidos políticos representados en la Asamblea, primer poder de la República, y en uno de ellos que liderará el Poder Ejecutivo para la implementación de la respectiva agenda de gobierno. Las campañas ruidosas e irrespetuosas como esta última nos impiden conocer a fondo las agendas de los diferentes partidos. La desinformación del votante debilita la democracia.
Al terminar la fiesta, es hora de volver al camino. Conforme crecemos en años y en madurez, vamos entendiendo que la indiferencia política no provoca ningún cambio constructivo, como tampoco el reclamo y la acusación a los que están en el poder o lo estuvieron ayer.
Estamos en una encrucijada nacional respecto al tema de la seguridad, pues nuestra paz se basa en ella. Para nadie es un secreto que la sociedad se ha tornado violenta, y las estadísticas criminales así lo reflejan. Se requiere de mayor eficacia creando una agenda nacional para tratar el tema, y valorar los costos de oportunidad de divagar o enfrascarnos en más rencillas bochincheras que obstruyen nuestra capacidad de actuar. Como los conejos que vieron venir los perros a lo lejos y comenzaron a discutir de si aquellos eran galgos o eran podencos. No importaba. Eran perros, y se los iban a comer.
Más que pensar en crear una nueva Constitución Política, ha llegado la hora de revisar el significado que tienen hoy para nosotros algunos de los valores supremos consagrados en la sólida y sabia Constitución actual, tales como libertad (y sus límites), igualdad (y sus obstáculos), inviolabilidad de la vida humana (sin excepciones), adecuada distribución de la riqueza (sobre todo de oportunidades), derecho a un sano medio ambiente (natural y social), educación obligatoria y gratuita, costeada –y elaborada – por el Estado, seguridad social de amplia cobertura (en cantidad y también en calidad), entre otros.
El presidente Obama dijo atinadamente en su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión el mes pasado, respecto a la Oposición, que “oponerse a todo porque se puede es quizás una buena táctica política a corto plazo, pero no es liderazgo.” Cuánto bien le haría a la democracia de nuestro país quitarle la etiqueta de “Oposición” a los partidos que no ocupan el Poder Ejecutivo, y llamarles de otra manera, como la “Facilitación” o el “Contrapeso.” Las diferentes fracciones políticas de la Asamblea se necesitan mutuamente para ser eficaces. Es como lavarse las manos juntas o por separado. Le llaman sinergia. Habría suficiente tiempo –y voluntad política de sobra – para aprobar los principales proyectos de cada fracción en cada legislatura si hubiera entendimiento de este fundamental principio de la administración. En cambio, si se trata de zancadillear al otro, se logra muy poco o nada entre todos.
La eficacia depende de todos los partidos, porque la Asamblea Legislativa es una sola y es ella, no cada fracción o bloque legislativo, la que resulta ineficaz como órgano reformador de políticas públicas. En eso nos está fallando a todos por igual, porque el país es uno solo y el subdesarrollo es del país entero, no sólo de los pobres, de los delincuentes, de los mal educados y de los corruptos.
Sería propicio también entender que nadie, por su propia cuenta, puede resolver los problemas para todos. Nos compete a todos aportar desde nuestras posiciones sociales y políticas lo que corresponda hacer. Muchos ya lo hacemos: trabajamos, estudiamos, conducimos con precaución, educamos a nuestros hijos, somos buenos vecinos, pagamos impuestos, sembramos árboles, votamos, tenemos aspiraciones y fe, ahorramos, convivimos pacíficamente.
Entonces son unos pocos –o un poco de cada uno de nosotros – lo que nos está impidiendo ser prósperos hoy, y no en el futuro utópico que prometen algunos a cambio de votos. Queremos paz hoy, empleos hoy, comida hoy, créditos para pequeña empresa hoy, justicia hoy, salud hoy, educación hoy, oportunidades hoy, riqueza hoy. Muchos queremos eso y que además alcance para todos, sin distingo de género, nacionalidad, edad, religión, ideología, sexualidad o apellido. Cumplamos el mandato constitucional.
Para que crezca la riqueza y sobre todo para que se distribuya justamente se requiere seguridad ciudadana y jurídica, un sistema de recaudación fiscal justo que impida la evasión de los que tienen más medios e incentivos para evadir, un medio ambiente exquisito y al alcance de todos. También, que el Estado sea facilitador para crear oportunidades que desarrollen, ya sea en salud, educación, adaptación social, conectividad, financiamiento, empleo, infraestructura, desintoxicación, adaptación para personas con alguna discapacidad, etc.
Pongamos manos a la obra. Demos un salto cualitativo y fuera de lo ordinario. Disputémosle a Noruega y a Australia los primeros lugares en desarrollo humano, así como le disputamos a Islandia y a Suiza los primeros lugares en desempeño ambiental. Claro que se puede.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
SE NECESITA 20 personas
Se busca veinte personas interesadas en conformar un grupo con vocación de organización no gubernamental (ONG), para elaborar soluciones creativas y pacíficas para transformar el conflicto del narcotráfico que está deteriorando a nuestra sociedad costarricense.
Requisitos: compromiso a dedicar diez minutos por semana al grupo, y tener muchísimas ganas de que la situación de seguridad de nuestro país se transforme en paz. Comíquese conmigo en Facebook, por favor. Yo dedicaré diez minutos diarios a la coordinación de esta tarea.
No podemos seguir esperando a que el gobierno resuelva todos nuestros problemas. Para eso no son los gobiernos. Son para ordenar, y la Administración actual lo ha hecho, como lo hará también la próxima, quien sea que resulte electo.
El narcotráfico está más allá de lo que el Estado puede controlar. Países como Estados Unidos, Brasil, Colombia y México no han podido resolver el problema por la fuerza.
Hay que cambiar de paradigma. Apegarnos al Estado de Derecho, a la institucionalidad y a la ley. Aferrarnos a la fe. El poder de la gente de bien es mucho mayor que la intimidación de malhechores. Debemos recuperarlos como bienhechores en nuestras sociedad, para que contribuyamos juntos a un mejor futuro, de verdad próspero y de verdad justo, "para mis nietos y los nietos de sus nietos," como dice el Dr. Daniel Goleman.
Me rehúso a quedarme de brazos cruzados viendo el país siendo arrastrado hacia una “costa” no tan “rica” a la que hemos acostumbrado por casi dos siglos, que no es tan próspera como la que heredamos de nuestros padres y abuelos, y que es incierta para todos.
“Cuando alguno pretenda tu gloria manchar, verás a tu pueblo, valiente y viril, la tosca herramienta en arma trocar." Usemos la ley, que ha sido nuestra mejor herramienta para labrar la paz.
Nuestra sociedad podría colapsar por el miedo que estamos sintiendo. Siempre ha temblado en nuestra tierra bendita pero nunca hemos tenido tanto miedo. El miedo paraliza. Necesitamos acción. Urgentemente.
Acompañémonos y pongámonos de acuerdo. Lo pido del fondo del corazón, que late como el de todos, por la misma “…Patria querida, vergel bello de aromas y flores…”
En especial lo pido para las señoras y señores Diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa de la República que serán electos el domingo 7 de febrero próximo. Con la ayuda de Ustedes, señoras y señores Diputados, y con el apoyo político de las respectivas agrupaciones que ustedes representarán a partir del 8 de mayo en sus curules, nos será más armonioso a todos esforzarnos para transformar el conflicto del que somos partícipes y víctimas por partida doble.
No nos matemos en las carreteras. No nos ofendamos. Ni de palabra. Y mucho menos atentando contra la vida de otros.
Nuestra Constitución Política manda el derecho inviolable a la vida humana. Respetemos la ley. Amémonos los unos a los otros, como sugirió Jesucristo.
Recuperemos la paz. Nuestro país la respeta como forma de vida y ha sido reconocido internacionalmente por ello. "Sepamos ser libres, no siervos menguados; derecho sagrado la Patria nos da." Por supuesto que podemos. Dependemos de nosotros mismos.
¿Quién se apunta?
Requisitos: compromiso a dedicar diez minutos por semana al grupo, y tener muchísimas ganas de que la situación de seguridad de nuestro país se transforme en paz. Comíquese conmigo en Facebook, por favor. Yo dedicaré diez minutos diarios a la coordinación de esta tarea.
No podemos seguir esperando a que el gobierno resuelva todos nuestros problemas. Para eso no son los gobiernos. Son para ordenar, y la Administración actual lo ha hecho, como lo hará también la próxima, quien sea que resulte electo.
El narcotráfico está más allá de lo que el Estado puede controlar. Países como Estados Unidos, Brasil, Colombia y México no han podido resolver el problema por la fuerza.
Hay que cambiar de paradigma. Apegarnos al Estado de Derecho, a la institucionalidad y a la ley. Aferrarnos a la fe. El poder de la gente de bien es mucho mayor que la intimidación de malhechores. Debemos recuperarlos como bienhechores en nuestras sociedad, para que contribuyamos juntos a un mejor futuro, de verdad próspero y de verdad justo, "para mis nietos y los nietos de sus nietos," como dice el Dr. Daniel Goleman.
Me rehúso a quedarme de brazos cruzados viendo el país siendo arrastrado hacia una “costa” no tan “rica” a la que hemos acostumbrado por casi dos siglos, que no es tan próspera como la que heredamos de nuestros padres y abuelos, y que es incierta para todos.
“Cuando alguno pretenda tu gloria manchar, verás a tu pueblo, valiente y viril, la tosca herramienta en arma trocar." Usemos la ley, que ha sido nuestra mejor herramienta para labrar la paz.
Nuestra sociedad podría colapsar por el miedo que estamos sintiendo. Siempre ha temblado en nuestra tierra bendita pero nunca hemos tenido tanto miedo. El miedo paraliza. Necesitamos acción. Urgentemente.
Acompañémonos y pongámonos de acuerdo. Lo pido del fondo del corazón, que late como el de todos, por la misma “…Patria querida, vergel bello de aromas y flores…”
En especial lo pido para las señoras y señores Diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa de la República que serán electos el domingo 7 de febrero próximo. Con la ayuda de Ustedes, señoras y señores Diputados, y con el apoyo político de las respectivas agrupaciones que ustedes representarán a partir del 8 de mayo en sus curules, nos será más armonioso a todos esforzarnos para transformar el conflicto del que somos partícipes y víctimas por partida doble.
No nos matemos en las carreteras. No nos ofendamos. Ni de palabra. Y mucho menos atentando contra la vida de otros.
Nuestra Constitución Política manda el derecho inviolable a la vida humana. Respetemos la ley. Amémonos los unos a los otros, como sugirió Jesucristo.
Recuperemos la paz. Nuestro país la respeta como forma de vida y ha sido reconocido internacionalmente por ello. "Sepamos ser libres, no siervos menguados; derecho sagrado la Patria nos da." Por supuesto que podemos. Dependemos de nosotros mismos.
¿Quién se apunta?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Votar por Quién
Quién está dispuesto a resolver el problema de la violencia? El narcotráfico y la delincuencia y el deterioro social de las comunidades, y la violencia física, mental y espiritual en las personas, producidas por el negocio de la droga, no se puede vencer por la fuerza. Ni el ejército más poderoso del mundo ha podido evitar que el más valioso tejido social de los países –los jóvenes- se enferme de drogadicción.
Quién propone modernizar el Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje (INA) para que sea más virtual, más barato, menos costoso en tiempo, más eficaz en resultados de éxito, más accesible para todos, con más opciones, y que el INA vaya al estudiante?
Quién propone mejorar la carretera Interamericana norte, no ampliándola a ocho carriles y expropiando kilómetros de fincas productivas y de tierra fértil, sino demarcándola como debe ser, y que tenga pintura, reflectores, carriles para adelantar, divisorias elásticas para reducir la gravedad de accidentes, medidores de velocidad electrónicos, rotulación impecable, estaciones de descanso con baños públicos?
Quién está proponiendo cero muertes en carreteras para el 2020, emulando la ambiciosa y virtuosa meta del gobierno sueco?
Quién está proponiendo eliminar el dinero en efectivo de los buses? Hasta en la China comunista hay máquinas automáticas para comprar boletos de tren y de bus. Sin efectivo en los buses, qué le van a robar al chofer los maleantes? La tecnología ya permite eso, y es fácil y barato. Es cuestión de voluntad política, para variar.
Quién propone aumentar la cobertura de Parques Nacionales de 25 a 40% del territorio nacional? Que el dinero para expropiaciones de esas tierras salga de la explotación ecológicamente sostenible de los recursos naturales –sobre todo del turismo ecológico, de la investigación y desarrollo en biodiversidad, y de la generación de energía- de los propios Parques Nacionales actuales. Que se cree un fondo mixto público-privado-no gubernamental para velar por la sostenibilidad del desarrollo y por que se gaste la mayoría del dinero en la compra de más tierras para reserva sagrada, como lo son los parques nacionales.
Quién está proponiendo una reforma profunda al sector turístico para que pueda competir codo a codo con los países más avanzados del mundo en turismo ecológico, como Australia, Nueva Zelandia, Canadá y Noruega? ¡Qué gusto da la información disponible, el uso preciso y barato de tecnologías de navegación y la infraestructura pública básica de baños, albergues y parques para acampar! ¿Por qué no replicar el modelo exitoso de albergue del cerro Chirripó en todo el país?
Quién está anunciando, abiertamente, los lugares más aptos para construir marinas en nuestro país? Quién está proponiendo que se cumplan los más estrictos estándares de impacto ecológico para que, debajo de los yates y motos acuáticas, también se pueda ver la fauna marina tan rica de nuestro país, viva y coleando, como lo es en Australia, por ejemplo? Y Quién está proponiendo que se protejan cientos de bosques, playas, ríos y mares como patrimonio del planeta, como un regalo que Costa Rica le da al mundo y sobre todo a sus futuras generaciones?
Quién propone modernizar el Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje (INA) para que sea más virtual, más barato, menos costoso en tiempo, más eficaz en resultados de éxito, más accesible para todos, con más opciones, y que el INA vaya al estudiante?
Quién propone mejorar la carretera Interamericana norte, no ampliándola a ocho carriles y expropiando kilómetros de fincas productivas y de tierra fértil, sino demarcándola como debe ser, y que tenga pintura, reflectores, carriles para adelantar, divisorias elásticas para reducir la gravedad de accidentes, medidores de velocidad electrónicos, rotulación impecable, estaciones de descanso con baños públicos?
Quién está proponiendo cero muertes en carreteras para el 2020, emulando la ambiciosa y virtuosa meta del gobierno sueco?
Quién está proponiendo eliminar el dinero en efectivo de los buses? Hasta en la China comunista hay máquinas automáticas para comprar boletos de tren y de bus. Sin efectivo en los buses, qué le van a robar al chofer los maleantes? La tecnología ya permite eso, y es fácil y barato. Es cuestión de voluntad política, para variar.
Quién propone aumentar la cobertura de Parques Nacionales de 25 a 40% del territorio nacional? Que el dinero para expropiaciones de esas tierras salga de la explotación ecológicamente sostenible de los recursos naturales –sobre todo del turismo ecológico, de la investigación y desarrollo en biodiversidad, y de la generación de energía- de los propios Parques Nacionales actuales. Que se cree un fondo mixto público-privado-no gubernamental para velar por la sostenibilidad del desarrollo y por que se gaste la mayoría del dinero en la compra de más tierras para reserva sagrada, como lo son los parques nacionales.
Quién está proponiendo una reforma profunda al sector turístico para que pueda competir codo a codo con los países más avanzados del mundo en turismo ecológico, como Australia, Nueva Zelandia, Canadá y Noruega? ¡Qué gusto da la información disponible, el uso preciso y barato de tecnologías de navegación y la infraestructura pública básica de baños, albergues y parques para acampar! ¿Por qué no replicar el modelo exitoso de albergue del cerro Chirripó en todo el país?
Quién está anunciando, abiertamente, los lugares más aptos para construir marinas en nuestro país? Quién está proponiendo que se cumplan los más estrictos estándares de impacto ecológico para que, debajo de los yates y motos acuáticas, también se pueda ver la fauna marina tan rica de nuestro país, viva y coleando, como lo es en Australia, por ejemplo? Y Quién está proponiendo que se protejan cientos de bosques, playas, ríos y mares como patrimonio del planeta, como un regalo que Costa Rica le da al mundo y sobre todo a sus futuras generaciones?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Matt my mate 4: From Cuba with love
An important biological species is endangered due to the rapid and progressive liquidation of its natural living conditions: the human being.
Now we become aware of this problem when it is almost too late to prevent it.
It is necessary to mention that consumerist societies are fundamentally responsible for the atrocious destruction of the environment. They were born out of ancient colonial metropolis and imperial policies that also engendered backwardness and poverty suffered by the majority of humanity. With only 20 percent of the world population, they consume two thirds of the metals and three fourths of all energy produced in the world. They have poisoned seas and rivers, have contaminated the air, have debilitated and perforated the ozone layer, have saturated the atmosphere with gases that alter climatic conditions with catastrophic effects that we have already started to perceive.
Forests disappear, deserts extend, thousands of millions of tons of fertile land is washed down to the ocean every year. Numerous species are becoming extinct. Demographic pressure and poverty lead to desperate efforts to survive even to the expense of nature. It is not possible to blame Third World countries for this, as yesterday they were colonies, and today exploited and robbed nations by an unjust economic world order.
The solution cannot be to prevent those most in need to develop. Everything that may contribute today to underdevelopment and poverty constitutes a flagrant violation of ecology. Tens of millions of men, women and children die every year in the Third World due to this, which is more than in any of the two World Wars. Unequal interchange, protectionism and foreign debt harm ecology and promote the destruction of the environment.
If we wish to save humanity from this self-destruction, we must distribute better the wealth and technologies available in the planet. Less luxury and less waste in a few countries would allow less poverty and less hunger in most of the Earth. No more transfers to the Third World of lifestyles and consumer habits that ruin our environment. Let’s make human life more rational. Let’s apply a just international economic order. Let’s use all necessary science for a sustainable development free of pollution. Let’s pay the ecologic debt and not the foreign debt. Let’s make hunger disappear, not the human species.
When the alleged threats of Communism have vanished and there is no further pretext for cold wars, arms races and military expenditure, what will impede us from dedicating immediately those resources to promote the development of the Third World and combat the threat of the planet’s ecological destruction?
Let’s cease egotism, let’s cease hegemony, let’s cease insensitivity, irresponsibility and fraud. Tomorrow it will be too late to do what we should have done a very long time ago.
Thanks.
(Speech pronounced by Commander Fidel Castro at the United Nations Conference about environment and development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on June 12, 1992)
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Matt my mate 3: Kangaroos in the midst
Adelaide, South Australia.
Another splendorous day in Adelaide. It rained today. Then it turned sunny and warm. Then windy. Now it's fairly cold. They say it will be 36C next Wednesday. Very unstable weather. Lovely, nevertheless.
Yesterday I had the rare experience of feeding a kangaroo. Their fur is so tender. Their anatomy so peculiar. Their reproductive cycle so mysterious. They have been considered a plague in Australia, and thousands of miles of anti-kangaroo fences have been set up to keep them out of some places. They roam this land like they own it. There are millions of them all around.
Next Sunday will be the grand première of WangWang and FuNi, two pandas on loan from China to the Adelaide Zoo for ten years. They are the first pandas in the Southern Hemisphere. The Chinese government does great efforts at preserving pandas and their habitats. The panda has become a global icon of endangered wildlife. The reservations to see a panda in Adelaide are fully booked for six weeks. The local zoo has constructed a state-of-the-art, 8-million-dollar special facility for those two gorgeous animals. Imagine what the Chinese would do to be able to feed a kangaroo in China!
Then there (still) are sharks, those feared, pre-historic beasts that roam the seas searching for human hips to nibble on. As if a billion hips were nibbled on in 1989, when approximately those many sharks roamed the waters. Today, it is calculated that some 100 million sharks remain in the world (90% population decline in last 20 years), and that, at this rate of consumption of mostly shark fin and mainly in China, they will be in the brink of extinction in a couple of decades.
That is terribly bad news. Because if we manage to exterminate a fierce combatant like the shark, sharper and more sensitive than any Bodhisattva or Samurai or Monk, with seven senses (two more than humans!), then we are at high risk of extinction at our own hands. Human against human, perhaps eaten until the last lady finger [never thought I'd ever use it that way!], way past the last kangaroo and dog and bird.
The gravest consequence of inaction towards climate change mitigation is that we can soon reach a tipping point beyond which all species will be subjected to extreme pressure for resources. Without water, for example, humans do not subsist more than 72 hours. If you were an elephant, how long would you wait for the rains to come at the end of the dry season before migrating in search of water elsewhere as quickly as possible? And if you were a human? And if you had a baby? Dying of thirst is probably as gruesome as choking, but much slower. Completely alive until the last bit of water from your driest muscle. Ouch. That hurt. That's why it is mandatory that we do whatever is within our individual and collective power to make it impossible for a human being to die of thirst [in this argument, I stand shoulder to shoulder with Bjørn Lomborg in support for his Copenhagen Consensus]. Or hunger. Or AIDS. Or tuberculosis. Or gunshots.
It is all connected. We are all connected. The loss of an African child with no name because she had no water, is a loss for all of us. That's why the only way out of Climate Change is peace [Gandhi must have said it already. Perhaps even Fidel Castro on the Rio Summit in 1992]. Peace among the people and across species. That if we cannot experience the joy of hugging a tree, at least we may enjoy the tenderness of feeding a kangaroo [while its baby held its head out, as if posing for the photo...]
I hope we can all hug a koala and not have to pay $30 to do it [I didn't; petting them was for free ;) ], or hug a panda without having to pay 1000 Renminbi (RMB) for such unique experience.
So, let's all petition our governments to call on a radical ban for shark finning to assess the situation of the species and ways in which the harvesting of the fin could be done sustainably. Or better, that governments unite to request China -through diplomatic channels, as it should- to crack down shark fin soup. There is no smuggling legally-sold commodities into China. Especially the faster they progress towards the Rule of Law.
In the process, foreign NGOs could support the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs (where all NGOs must register in order to operate in the country) in establishing country-wide education campaigns to explain sustainability. There would be great support from the Chinese government (especially since they will have to guarantee that the information divulged in the campaign is aligned with public policy) and from private capital as well, and NGOs could recruit millions of Chinese young adult volunteers, conforming China's army of peace. That would, not only save the shark, but probably the panda and it habitat too.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Matt my mate 2: Stop the name-calling
The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) ranks Australia in second place for 2009 (according to Wikipedia). Maybe it has to do with how much the collectivity does to ensure the quality of living of all individuals, regardless of their individual condition. There are filthy-rich people, but there are no poor. Like in Norway. Which overrides the argument that the rich get richer to the expense of the poor and highlights the responsibility for the rich to reduce socioeconomic inequality. Start by eradicating poverty. China can teach us how.
How can we determine if Australia is doing as much for its citizens in socioeconomic terms as it is doing in environmental terms? Is the government jargon about Climate Change aligned with effective public policy towards the betterment of the country's environmental performance level?
I was wondering how can we compare two indexes that could allow us to incorporate the HDI with some other measurement of environmental performance of countries. So I took the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and I took as samples some countries I have visited, to compare what the stats say with what I have witnessed. And I found a couple of very interesting things. I assumed both HDI and EPI were comparable methodologies, so what I did was add both rankings for any one country and divide that resulting number by two. In one word: average.
There is an evident leadership among a very few countries that are both in the HDI and EPI Top 10. Of the countries I have visited, only four are such leaders: France, Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Most of the sampled countries I have visited in the last two years -six of them- rank outside either of the two Top 100 (yes, one hundred.) That's because I have been living in Beijing and traveling around Southeast Asia. Of these countries, three rank outside both Top 100 indexes: Burma, Indonesia, and Cambodia, which is, by the way, the country I have ever visited that ranks lowest in both indexes. Therefore, the poorest country I have ever visited.
Most poverty I have seen is very distant, geographically, from the richest I have visited.
This shows me two trends: first, that Scandinavian countries have done something right (in fact, four of the five Nordic countries feature in one of the two Top 10s). Second, that Southeast Asia will be in the top list of countries needing more attention in terms of cooperation for Climate Change adaptation. Definitely, dozens of African countries will be there too.
How can we demand accountability from the institutions in charge?
The rich have to pay. It is clear by now that there will be no agreement about who should pay how much. One alternative to the deadlock and the name-calling is to have countries pay in accordance with the volume of their military expenditures. Show me your big guns. And your money. With a similar parameter we may determine how to prioritize the assignment of cooperation: according to the rate of reduction of military expenditures by those countries more in need.
It may sound a bit coercive, but it would be a way to organize cooperation in terms of virtue from the receiving countries. For this, the major military sellers in the world (you name them) would have to agree that their business would be running low for a while.
Are we negotiating in Copenhagen in these terms? Or are we going to discuss carbon emissions, as if 350 parts per million or 400 were better than the 280 ppm of pre-industrial times?
And stop the name-calling. Because many countries perform far worse in the HDI than in the EPI. Like United States, Japan, and Israel. Others perform way better, like Brazil, The Philippines, and Germany. In modern days of severe environmental degradation, which country is richer then: Costa Rica, ranking an average 29 in both indexes, or Israel, 38? Or could we also say that Costa Rica (29), Australia (24), and the United States (26) have a similar development?
Where would you prefer to live?
Measuring the ecological impact of the Gross National Product (GNP)
Antonio Burgués, Costa Rican Ambassador to China. Álvaro Cedeño, admitted Public Policy student at Carnegie Mellon, Australia.
The Chinese word for “crisis” is “Wei Ji,” which means both crisis and opportunity. They believe in the Far East that crises must be conceived as a change for things to improve. Civilization has come to a Tipping Point not only regarding the way its economy has been growing, but also regarding the qualitative content of its impact on quality of life –life in the broad sense of the word- where traditional economic indexes are not enough anymore.
Dr. Daniel Goleman, intellectual father of the concept of emotional intelligence, has recently published the book “Ecological Intelligence,” right on the spot for the times we are living on the planet today in terms of growth and environmental impact. In this book, he elaborates about a concept that must be considered.
He speaks about “radical transparency” as an information principle that will more closely engage producers and consumers, introducing “an opening about the consequences of the things we do, sell, buy and discard, which goes beyond the current comfort zones of most businesses.”
This information interchange about the ecological impact of all our acts of commerce “will show an economic path that has not yet been taken: to measure the ecological impact to the things we buy with the same transparency standards required, for example, in financial statements.” We would add, also, in public government systems.
Which are the incentives to be transparent or to calculate and include the ecological impact of the products and services in the information made available throughout all commercial interchange? Essentially, to have the possibility to make more intelligent and ethically correct decisions regarding the long-lasting ecological footprint each human being leaves in his or her daily life.
Such measure would provoke, immediately, the need on behalf of countries and their economic policy to include ecological programs incorporated into the GNP, as well as to incorporate indexes to measure ecological impact or environmental performance for the entire economy.
This would reveal, with radical transparency, if a country is effectively growing at 8% per year, or if, instead, due to the environmental impact generated by such growth, it is decreasing economically. We would then also talk about ecological recessions, which would be harmonious with our environment.
The same way there are indexes to measure quality of life, happiness, environmental performance, quality of public education, or level of safety and security, there should be an index of sustainable growth that may reflect, in GNP terms, the ecological impact that the economy puts on natural resources, renewable or not.
The concept of developed country would be spoken in terms of conservation. It is not enough anymore to measure economy in terms of volume of money, but, also, in terms of preservation of renewable resources such as air, potable water, fertile land, forest coverage, biodiversity, and the integral residue management, among other things. Yvon Chouinard, founder of the brand of eco-clothes Patagonia, has said, “business can’t be done in a dead planet.”
Costa Rica is, therefore, a great example of development, since it has maintained economic growth while preserving, in good measure, its environmental performance, increasing its forest coverage and raising awareness, even through public policy, of its enormous richness in biodiversity.
These achievements make it only much more urgent and important to focus efforts on taking care of its areas of improvement, like the protection of aquifers, the transformation of agricultural production to make it less polluting, the legal protection of our patrimonial seas with greater richness in biodiversity, and the reeducation of our population regarding the integral management of domestic, industrial and hospital residues.
This change in methodology measuring economic indicators would serve as a tool for the search of both international cooperation among countries and transversal cooperation among private, public and non-governmental sectors, following the principle of win-win cooperation that has become popular.
Those projects that may require more attention or that may be more susceptible of generating economic and ecological wealth will be prioritized in domestic and foreign development agendas of a country.
When the measurement ruler changes, the rules of the game will also change and there might even be a variation between winners and losers. The most responsible societies investing in their ecological future, or in its economic growth with the incorporation of ecological variables, would increase its value and would be more susceptible of receiving international cooperation and attracting foreign direct investment.
This is precisely where the Consensus of Costa Rica and Peace with Nature intersect. Both have been a top priority of the Costa Rican crusade of this Administration through its foreign policy.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Matt my Mate: When does Copenhagen start?
Adelaide, Australia.
Dear Matt,
The stock market crashed, as painfully as it could, and left us all thinking and rethinking so many things about our daily lives, that we were globally caught up in the discussion. So, the year that we should have spent generating dialogue about an issue as rupturing in our civilization as the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change that starts today, we spent it talking about how come the market also crashes when it spends more than what it earns. Just like me. The greatest loss was all the rich synergies that could have been developed globally during this last year if we would have shared together that grandiose information apparatus humanity has created called the media for a common purpose.
The media is boring and manipulative and uninformative sometimes because there is really nothing that serious to report about. The media is not what is stupid. It is those of us who follow it as if it was a religion. I bet no responsible and serious media enterprise that covers world affairs has in its mission statement: "to make people believe in us." That is a mission statement that would be impossible to achieve in a community of highly-educated people that would not cross a dime unless there was sufficient proof that, under any reputable methodology, it could be considered probably or absolutely true that what is being presented in the media is, in fact, TRUE. Otherwise, they -the hypereducated- would take the information with the superficiality it deserves. And then start digging before forming an opinion, even before starting the pandemic of fear that usually adrenalizes us all en masse pandemonium, like when Michael Jackson passed away.
I am sure he would have preferred that all the energy and all the love (L-O-V-E) and all the time and money spent into the question of whether he was really dead or not or sick or not or murdered or not or rich or not or bald or not, or black or not, we would have used it to generate empathy across our borders (especially the mental borders) and try to think how can we prevent the ever-growing death tolls of natural disasters around the world. We all lose when we lose someone. Even if we are already numb to the suffering of others, we can still remember, as a glitch in our intoxicated brains, that if someone suffers, we all suffer. Our species will not evolve symbiotically if we disregard one another. We are not going to be better if we defeat ourselves to death.
That's why we need to change.
One idea that just popped to my mind (or I read about it in The Advertiser of Adelaide today, I can't really say...) is what if we divide the political responsibility of the decision-making process regarding climate change. There may be regions with far less territory and population than some small world states that would prefer to be left alone the way they are right now, without having or needing to change anything in their lifestyles because of others. Like for example, indigenous communities around the world that have earned their right to be in our current stage civilization, precisely because they proved to be sustainable (in fact, self-sustainable, as most didn't do much trade with other groups) for thousands of years.
Or it could be that some territorial unities are so contaminating to the world environment that they deserve a different treatment than the rest, with more financial and technological assistance to transform its industry from highly polluting to restorative, or higher taxation on specific emissions to that particular place, or recommendations about the species of trees that should be planted in that area to reforest it in 40 years from now. We need to go back to the forests, back to the jungles. We need to go back to building under the shade and protecting the pine trees that cut the strong winds from the mountain. We need to go back to drinking water from the tap and not fear our baby developing a respiratory condition. The same way a human being 100 years ago would not have liked to see a dear one being poisoned.
We have been poisoning ourselves. But that's nothing new. We are not going to get anyone off their chair by saying that. We smoke, we drink alcohol, we use combustion engines, we use electricity, we recharge batteries, we buy and buy and buy clothes and shoes and shit that piles up in desks and drawers and closets and attics, and warehouses and garbage dumps. So we are the problem. It is our responsibility. The tough challenge is that many of us are self-destructive (suicidal in slow motion) and many are skeptic. Fortunately, few are ignorant. So it is not a matter of intellect, but a matter of attitude (skeptics) and a question of punishment (in the case of the ones that match with suicidal conduct, like smoking tobacco or driving under the influence of alcohol.)
Now, before you throw your first rocks at me and start labeling me with post-Sept. 11-jargon about the extremist morality of my religion, it is important to remember that societies that are with us for over 5000 years do know the way better than those that have been here for less than 500 (in one word, all colonies, including the entire American continent except Guatemala and Bolivia, the two countries that still have a majority of indigenous people among their state population) [Congratulations, Mr. Evo Morales, for your re-election in Bolivia!]. Millenary civilizations know the way already, and the ones that are not, have been the ones ruling the industrialized planet for far too little time in their cultural existence. They have not prepared to flourish as a species and they seem doomed to extinction as well. I refer to the West (the wild, wild West...) And they won't die alone. With them, goes the rest of us. Therefore, there is no "Us" and "Them" (it sounds SOOOOOO last decade already...) anymore, but a "We" pronoun that stands for humanity. So part of our responsibility shall be to respect our elders -the more ancient ones among our cultures- to listen to them, to listen to the experience they have accumulated living much longer than us and through other harsher times. Let's ask them questions. We are facilitators in the process of having them show us the way. For that, we must learn to listen. To understand that pain will always be there once you get old, but a comforting hug or a phone call or a smile can make pain feel so much better for a bit.
If we were responsible at a smaller political level, it would be easier to participate. Plus, it would be more ethical, because the politicians in charge don't have that much to lose. They are not at the very top with the cherry in their mouths. It would be a lot more people like you and I gathering at night once a week and reading a few e-mails a week and making transformative decisions for the state of the environment as perceived from our smaller territorial unity.
In a country like Australia, this would be fairly easy. The country is so massive that 20 million people are divided in smaller groups that control vast amounts of territory. But in a country like Costa Rica, where are we jammed over each other for lack of planning and infrastructure to help secondary cities develop faster, then it is very difficult to make our communication more effective for problem-solving because we have to speak too loud to be heard, so we are unable to listen to anyone else. And everybody thinks they have a better opinion than the expert, be it a president, a football coach, a policeman, or your own freaking mother that gave birth to you. So, splitting the decision-making process into municipalities would result, in the case of Costa Rica, in 81 grassroot-think-tanks working voluntarily for the diagnosis, prognosis and transformation of the state of the local environment. So guess what would happen in Parque Nacional Las Baulas in Playa Grande, Guanacaste, when there is a municipal referendum to decide what to do with the freaking park. Didn't guanacastecos decide to join Costa Rica precisely in that same way? Was it any less civilized in 1824 than it would be today?
And then maybe the people from Beijing -or, for that matter, from the Chaoyang district where I used to live until last Month- would have to pay far more taxes than others in less polluted communities. And I don't mean that everybody has to pay more taxes. I mean those who individually contribute more with the environmental degradation. The poor have paid a heavy burden drinking dirty water and not having access to medication and dying young or violently. There would be far less suffering in the world if we would all die of old age, when your relatives have had years and years to say goodbye to you before simply fading in your sleep, like angels die. Not out of typhoid fever or diarrhea or cancer or AIDS or murdered. Imagine what the world would be like if all nations would have agreed to a human rights charter that started: "Every person has the right to die of old age..." Then we would be talking.
A brief note on the rich paying like poor: if the rich would pay 1% more -a small burden for most- than what they already pay (or if they only paid what they had to pay, without legal tricks to shake off the civic and moral responsibility of helping others help themselves) (and I include myself among the rich, definitely. After all I have seen out in some of the poorest places on Earth, I consider myself very rich -and privileged, and blessed- for the wealth that has surrounded me all my life), they could relieve a very heavy burden on hundreds or thousands or millions of people. Some burdens are life-threatening even at a young age, like the 1000 children under 5 that die every hour of a preventable disease, like malaria or tuberculosis. It is not that anyone wants to make the rich any less rich. It is empirically known that stealing is not sustainable. It is that the rich ignore the immense power they have to help heal the lives of so many others, perhaps because we the rich do not spend that much time coexisting with the poor. If we did, we would perfectly well know with how very little we could do so much for so many others. It is a question of morality. But not because we are immoral, but because we are ignorant of the conditions in which others live.
Every state, every province, every district, every municipality, every town hall, every neighbor gathering would permit far greater dialogue and creative search for synergies to deal with the environmental situation of the smaller community. And it would also allow, in very many cases, allow for a very rich and constructive interaction between the rich and the poor.
As professor Galtung used to say: "Sometimes, to solve a small problem you must make it bigger, and to solve a big problem you must make it smaller."
Cheers, Mate!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Medición ecológica del PIB
La medición ecológica del PIB
Antonio Burgués Terán
Álvaro Cedeño Molinari
El término chino para la palabra “crisis” es “wei ji”, que significa tanto crisis como oportunidad. Creen en el Lejano Oriente que se deben aprovechar las crisis como un cambio para mejorar lo que no andaba bien. La civilización ha llegado a un punto de inflexión no sólo en cuanto a la forma de crecimiento económico, sino al contenido cualitativo en cuanto a su efecto sobre la calidad de vida –vida en su sentido amplio- donde los índices económicos tradicionales ya no son suficientes.
El Dr. Daniel Goleman, padre intelectual del concepto de inteligencia emocional, ha publicado un libro recientemente bajo el título “Inteligencia ecológica,” puntual para los tiempos que vive el planeta en términos de crecimiento e impacto ambiental. En dicho libro, elabora en torno a un concepto que merece la pena considerar. Habla de la “transparencia radical” como un principio de información que vinculará más cercanamente a productores y consumidores, introduciendo “una apertura sobre las consecuencias de las cosas que hacemos, vendemos, compramos y desechamos, que va más allá de las zonas de confort actuales de la mayoría de negocios.” Este intercambio de información sobre el impacto ecológico de todos los actos del comercio “presentará un camino económico aún no recorrido: aplicarle al impacto ecológico de las cosas que compramos los mismos estándares de transparencia requeridos, por ejemplo, en estados financieros.” Agregaríamos, también, en sistemas de gobierno.
¿Cuáles son los incentivos para ser transparentes o para calcular e incluir el impacto ecológico de productos y servicios en la información divulgada en todo intercambio comercial? Esencialmente, tener la posibilidad de tomar decisiones más inteligentes y éticamente correctas en cuanto a la huella ecológica que cada ser humano deja, a veces de manera perdurable, en su vida cotidiana.
Una medida semejante provocaría, de inmediato, la necesidad por parte de la política económica de los países, de incluir programas ecológicos como parte del PIB, así como incorporar índices de medición del impacto ecológico o del desempeño ambiental de cada economía. Esto permitiría saber, con transparencia radical, si un país está efectivamente creciendo a 8% anual, o si, por el impacto ambiental que genera dicho crecimiento, estaría más bien decreciendo económicamente. Se hablaría entonces de recesiones ecológicas también, lo cual guardaría armonía con el medio ambiente.
Así como hay índices de calidad de vida, de felicidad, de desempeño ambiental, de calidad de la educación pública, o del nivel de seguridad ciudadana, también debe haber un índice de crecimiento sostenible que refleje, en términos del PIB, el impacto ecológico que tiene la economía sobre los recursos naturales, renovables o no.
El concepto de país desarrollado deviene en aspectos de conservación. Ya no basta medir la economía en términos de volumen monetario, sino, también, en términos de preservación de los recursos renovables como el aire, el agua potable, la tierra fértil, la cobertura boscosa, la biodiversidad, y la gestión integral de residuos, entre otras. Como ha dicho Yvon Chouinard, fundador de la marca de ropa ecológica Patagonia, “no se puede hacer negocios en un planeta muerto.” Costa Rica, por ende, es un gran ejemplo de desarrollo, pues ha logrado crecer económicamente preservando en buena medida su desempeño ambiental, aumentando su cobertura boscosa y creando conciencia, incluso a nivel de política pública, de su enorme riqueza en biodiversidad. Estos logros sólo hacen más urgente e importante enfocar esfuerzos en atender las áreas por mejorar, como la protección de mantos acuíferos, transformar la producción agrícola para que tenga un menor impacto contaminante, proteger legalmente las zonas de mar patrimonial con mayor riqueza en biodiversidad, y reeducar a la población en cuanto a la gestión integral de residuos domésticos, industriales y hospitalarios.
Este cambio en las metodologías de medición de los indicadores económicos fungiría como herramienta para la búsqueda de cooperación internacional entre países y transversal entre sectores privado, público y no gubernamental, siguiendo el principio de cooperación ganar-ganar que se ha popularizado. Aquellos proyectos que requieran más atención o que sean más susceptibles de generación de riqueza económica y ecológica serían los que recibirían prioridad en las agendas de desarrollo domésticas e internacionales del país.
Al cambiar las reglas de medición, también cambiarían las reglas de juego y habría quizás una variación entre ganadores y perdedores. Las sociedades más responsables que inviertan en su futuro ecológico, o en su crecimiento económico incorporando variables ecológicas, subirían su valor y serían más susceptibles de recibir cooperación internacional y atraer inversión extranjera directa. Es aquí precisamente adonde intersecan el Consenso de Costa Rica y la Paz con la Naturaleza, dos planteamientos que han encabezado la cruzada costarricense en este cuatrienio a cargo de la política exterior.
El primer compromiso para poder asumir su responsabilidad con el planeta por parte cualquier país ecológicamente deficitario debe ser el de asumir la responsabilidad con la calidad de vida de sus propios ciudadanos y las futuras generaciones. De otra forma, y como lo ha mencionado recientemente la revista The Economist, “…el subsidio de prácticas insostenibles es una licencia para robar de una generación a la próxima” (Tricks of the Trade, 2 de noviembre de 2009.) Esa responsabilidad debe ser traducida en índices más concretos de economía, que a su vez también permitirían generar índices particulares, sectoriales y por empresa y medir su impacto ecológico.
Varios han planteado ya este tema. Joseph Stiglitz, Premio Nóbel de Economía, acuñó el término “asimetría de la información” como la teoría de cómo la información da forma a la operación de los mercados. Sugiere que las brechas de información en el intercambio comercial resultan en una falla que atenta contra la eficiencia y la justicia de los mercados.
En este nuevo siglo la economía hay que concebirla como un todo, y al servicio de todos los seres humanos. Eso es así aún para los incrédulos sobre los efectos que la economía cortoplacista tiene sobre la ecología y la calidad de vida de todos nosotros, usuarios y actores activos y pasivos de la economía y del medio ambiente.
La virtud de esta medición a los activos nacionales en el PIB les da transparencia con esta y con futuras generaciones para crear un país más social y ecológicamente responsable y con liderazgo a nivel mundial.
La gran oportunidad que representa la crisis económica y ecológica que vive nuestra civilización demanda ideas innovadoras y virtuosas. Son quizás ideas a las que les ha llegado su tiempo. Las nuevas generaciones tienen incorporado el valor ecológico en sus expectativas, y cada vez será más relevante y significativo el derecho humano a un medio ambiente sano, según lo consagra nuestra Constitución Política en su artículo 50. Tarde o temprano esto se va a dar, gracias al sentido de conciencia y responsabilidad de las nuevas generaciones. A ellos, nuestro voto de apoyo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
