Cheran: The town that threw out police, politicians and gangsters (2016)

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37612083

by sudoaza • 6 years ago

162 80 6 years ago

bbc.com

elliekelly• 6 years ago

Political parties were banned - and still are - because they were deemed to have caused divisions between people.

What an excellent idea.

Waterluvian• 6 years ago

I'm embarrassed that I haven't thought of this much before. Imagine everyone running as independents and Congress being all independents. It could work.

frosted-flakes• 6 years ago

It's how municipal governments in Ontario work, and the focus in the media really is on the individuals and their actions. Obviously, sometimes it's obvious which party a candidate would belong to if there were parties[1], but that doesn't really matter.

Since there are no parties, there can be a larger variety of candidates with different viewpoints that can overlap, rather than just two extremes. And of course, councillors vote individually, which means the mayor has much less power than a party leader (each councillor is free to vote against the mayor at any time).

I really like this system, and am curious how it would work on a larger scale.

[1]: For example, Toronto mayor John Tory was leader of the Progressive Conservative party in the Ontario legislature from 2005-2007, so it's obvious he'd be a Tory.

int_19h5• 6 years ago

It doesn't work, because parties offer an advantage, and you can't truly ban them without banning freedom of association. At best, you can ban overt expression of affiliation, so all candidates are nominally independent - but it'll still be obvious who's who.

smabie• 6 years ago

It sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately it's mathematically unstable and doesn't form any sort of equilibrium (Nash or otherwise). Any participant can gain an advantage by grouping up with one other participant. Once everyone has grouped up into pairs, they will then group up again and again, ultimately creating a two party system.

derefr2• 6 years ago

Why even allow grouping (politically) into pairs? The town could just ban non-politicians from expressing political speech entirely (as a social norm, not a law.)

Politicians could still speak politically in the form of campaigning; but they'd not be allowed to make reference to other politicians' positions on things; only to speak about their own beliefs on how things should be/how things should work.

For anyone who isn't an actively-campaigning politician, the only political speech you'd be allowed would be (private-ballot) voting. Anything else would get you shunned by the community.

(Yes, I realize how ridiculous this sounds.)

klysm• 6 years ago

Practical limits can be placed on the advantage from 'grouping up'.

seer2• 6 years ago

The voting system does determine how many and what types of parties you end up with.

FPTP as in the US will always yield a two party system in the long run as thats the only way you can “win” in it.

More elaborate systems would get you an equilibrium of multiple parties, with much better overlap of what people want to their representatives.

Grouping would indeed always happen, but you wouldn’t need to go to 50% of society to get what you want, so the wants and political speech can be much more varied and relevant.

The best explanations of how it all works I’ve seen were from CGP Grey’s videos https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

geewee• 6 years ago

I think that's a silly notion. Many countries have political systems with many political parties, e.g. Germany has 14 and Denmark has 11. Certainly these parties often pair up to form government in (reasonably) established political blocks, but it still allows for intra-block disagreements and even parties from different blocks working together on issues they care particularly much about.

throwaway419202• 6 years ago

From what I've seen, once parties are dropped from the ballot (it's common to have positions where party isn't listed) people seem to stop caring about them. I've seen hyperpartisan areas where people will never vote for party B over party A when party affiliation is listed on the ballot, but when it's not listed they end up happily vote for someone from party B over A. Removing parties from voting would make it less likely that so many issues break down among strict partisan lines, and would make compromise much more likely because not every piece of policy would be tied to a political identity. Factions would still exist, but they would be much more fluid and adaptable.

fuzzc0re• 6 years ago

Can you please give us a reference to this model?

irrational• 6 years ago

Have you ever read George Washington's farewell address?

https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/arti...

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

RikNieu• 6 years ago

That's... incredible. That last paragraph especially. Beautifully written speech too.

dash2• 6 years ago

Being against parties was a cliché of 18th century thought. Edmund Burke first pointed out that parties could be more than just conspiracies against the public interest:

Party is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.... It is the business of the politician, who is the philosopher in action, to find out proper means towards those ends, and to employ them with effect. Therefore every honourable connexion will avow it as their first purpose, to pursue every just method to put the men who hold their opinions into such a condition as may enable them to carry their common plans into execution, with all the power and authority of the State.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/796#Burke_0005-01_348

Slightly offtopic: it's unfortunate when people, perhaps technically brilliant people, come up with naïve solutions to political problems, showing little awareness that there are long and sophisticated traditions of thinking about these issues.

konschubert• 6 years ago

Political parties can be great for stability and continuity that survive changes in the political personal.

Political parties are needed and if you want to enable politicians that aren’t rich and can pay a campaign out of pocket.

Show me a country with drama-free, stable governance and i show you a country with strong political parties.

lifeisstillgood• 6 years ago

Perhaps a simpler move would be to stop party affiliation being published in the ballot paper.

Then if you wanted to vote for your local Tory / Republican / whatever you have to look them up, find out their name - and even compare policies.

This is not banning parties (Parties do at least have value as stability mechanism) but it discourages blind partisanship at least

Edit : it is also testable - one could randomly do this on ballots across nations and watch the outcome. I doubt the null hypothesis is same results as ballots with party affiliation.

INTPenis• 6 years ago

Yeah but if the community comes together and decides to ban another group, aren't they now politicians?

And if they then come together and actively drive out a criminal element, aren't they then the police?

ajb• 6 years ago

Yes, IMO - the minimum possible number of parties is 1.

jrochkind12• 6 years ago

Anyone have an update of what has happened since 2016?

int_19h5• 6 years ago

https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2019-10-07/mushrooms-cher...

jrochkind12• 6 years ago

Damn, this is the kind of inspiring story I need right now, thanks.

pjc506• 6 years ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/after-long-fight-self-go...

int_19h5• 6 years ago

Their method of local organization is very similar to the Zapatistas, or more recently, Rojava - both also shift the focus of governance onto the local level, where it can be done by the community itself as much as possible.

The details of the system in Rojava are better documented - they have a written constitution, for starters, but there's also more media scrutiny because of the war, producing some very detailed write-ups. Both can be fascinating to read:

https://corporatewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Strugg...

https://www.scribd.com/document/441234886/Social-Contract-of...

clarkevans• 6 years ago

They are treating the forest as a common pool resource; see "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action" by Elinor Ostrom.

cultus3• 6 years ago

These systems (most explicitly Rojava) are similar to Murray Bookchin's [0] ideas on libertarian municipalism. Basically, control over economy and environment is mostly devolved to the local level, with citizen's assembly and that sort of thing. It does seem to work well in practice, which is really encouraging.

It's obvious now that we need a fundamental reorganization of our political economy for both material well-being and the climate. Something along these lines would probably be the best. The future will hopefully be much, much, more local in physical production and distribution. In such a scenario it would only make sense to keep power democratic and on the local level.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin

hippich2• 6 years ago

I see a lot of parallels between political organizations, organisms, computer systems, etc. A larger system with vertical integration is more efficient at producing the result. In our life it manifests itself in affordable mobile phones, being able to launch a satellite, small amount of time necessary to understand contractual expectations, etc.

But the larger the system - higher are the stakes if something goes wrong - eg. economy in 2000 -> 2008 -> 2020. In nature usually there are external factors that seem to do well at keeping systems from growing too much. I wonder what could be an equivalent in the political environment (without Darwinism and constant death of many to find the fittest ones).

int_19h5• 6 years ago

It's part borrowing, part convergent evolution - Ocalan was moving slowly in a similar direction for a while before discovering Bookchin, but when he did, it seems to have accelerated that process substantially.

http://new-compass.net/articles/bookchin-%C3%B6calan-and-dia...

And yes, I find it very encouraging that in places where the system is being experimented with, it's proving to be fairly stable, neither breaking up nor sliding into totalitarianism. Well, Rojava is not particularly stable - but that's mostly about Turkey, not about their internal politics.

Nevada-Smith• 6 years ago

May as well throw out the lawyers too.

justnotworthit2• 6 years ago

according to the latimes article they essentially did, punishing and making up law as they go.

pnako4• 6 years ago

... with guns. Just sayin'

huragok• 6 years ago

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”

_bxg1• 6 years ago

Last I checked the United States isn't an anarchy with roving bands of unopposed, murderous gangs.

pnako4• 6 years ago

Well, it depends who you ask. My original post is slightly provocative, I admit, but I think there is a real debate regarding this issue.

To me, it seems to validate the need for citizens to be well armed, preferably before it's too late.

samsari• 6 years ago

Give it a week or two...

the_other• 6 years ago

Correct. It’s a republic.

pjc506• 6 years ago

This is an attempt to jam a radically different situation into a one dimensional faultline of US politics, rather than learn anything from the town itself.

pnako4• 6 years ago

I did not specifically mention the US. I'm not American and I have never even visited the country.

welder3• 6 years ago

"armed with sticks, rocks and firecrackers"

https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2019-10-07/mushrooms-cher...

justnotworthit2• 6 years ago

Not initially, but now maintained, yes. Safe to assume illegally imported (at least the rifles), and certainly illegally used according to Mexican law.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Mexico)

Mexico is an interesting case because it's constitution protects gun ownership, but increasing revisions and laws limit it more than, say, France. These laws were passed in response to a massacre... by the government.

fit2rule• 6 years ago

ahem Machetes.

anigbrowl• 6 years ago

Expect to see this model spread in the years to come. It has a lot of potential, though I'm not sure it's easily adaptable to non-agrarian economies.

pjc506• 6 years ago

Radical, indigenous, feminist, anti-colonial, self-organising. I think that's the real lesson, that almost all the problems were brought in from outside by exploiters and that the armed decolonization of the town was the real liberation.

It's not an ideal situation: you can't have a zero party state, that always turns into a one party state. The actual situation of control will turn out to be a set of family relationships embedded in the matriarchy running the town, but analysing this will be impossible for journalists. It's also why it's very difficult to replicate.

asdkjh345fd4• 6 years ago

Radical, indigenous, feminist, anti-colonial, self-organising.

According to the BBC's laughable propaganda. Not according to any of the people actually involved. Even then there's nothing colonial about Mexican cartels stealing from Mexicans.

The actual situation of control will turn out to be a set of family relationships embedded in the matriarchy running the town

What a bizarre notion. Why and how would that suddenly occur?

joshuaissac3• 6 years ago

According to the BBC's laughable propaganda. Not according to any of the people actually involved.

Also not according to the BBC, since the article does not contain any of the words you attributed to its propaganda, except "indigenous".

pjc506• 6 years ago

Oh, the wording is all mine, inferred from this fairly thin set of news reports. But:

- radical: doesn't get much more radical than an armed uprising

- indigenous: they're Purepecha. This is very important. While they're Mexican nationals, and would be called Mexican by Americans, they're not of Spanish descent. They're descendents of a tribe unconquered by the Aztecs. Racial discrimination against people of indigenous descent is common all over Latin America.

- feminist: all the news coverage points out that the initial uprising was initiated by women.

- anti-colonial: outsiders of a different ethnic background coming onto traditional tribal land to steal natural resources? With the collusion of the police? Sounds pretty colonial to me.

- self-organising: found a bit more on this; https://elenemigocomun.net/2018/08/cheran-names-government/ ; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/after-long-fight-self-go...

It's crucial to being exempted from normal politics such as elections. "arguing before the courts that there were provisions in Mexican law that permit indigenous communities a form of self-government based on their customs"; sounds analogous to the semi-autonomy of Indian reservations in the US.

> "set of family relationships embedded in the matriarchy running the town"

So it looks like I overstated this a lot, but if you refer to the NBCnews article above it's a "council of elders". And they don't have parties? Family is a party you're born into. It's more or less the default arrangement of pre-bureaucratic politics. It's hard to avoid even in modern states. Add up all someone's in-laws and second cousins and it's easy to get to hundreds of people, which goes a long way in a community of 20,000.

BBC: "Most people who live in Cheran are from the town. Social mores dictate that locals marry locals - there are very few outsiders here. Families are large, and they are close. Everyone knows everyone else. And that is the foundation of the town's unity."

NBC: "Patricia Hernández, a taco vendor and mother of four, accepted the challenge to be part of their government when her neighbors chose her to represent their fogata. She is now one of four women who will govern Cherán for the next three years as part of the twelve-person council known as K'eri Jánaskakua.

"Before the government didn't take us [women] into account, until we were the ones who started this new government seven years ago," said Hernández to NBC News. "We said 'Ya Basta!', (Enough!) to put an end to this violence."

(more feminism! with machetes!)

It doesn't "suddenly occur", it was always there, it just took a lot of adversity to mobilize it to the level of armed self-government.

shadowprofile77• 6 years ago

The commentary here seems to miss a certain basic point about the situation with Cheran (and many other regions of Mexico, where I live, that are controlled by autodefensas groups and other types of local vigilante security groupings).

What the people of Cheran did is worthy of applause, because it brought some measure of peace in the middle of a desperate situation of insecurity, extreme violence and governments that at both the federal and state level are almost catastrophically corrupt on guaranteeing security.

However, for this very reason it's a sad thing to see. The single most basic debt to society that a government owes in return for paying taxes and agreeing to its rule is a monopoly on violence that's fair and sufficient enough to prevent rampant criminality, yet Mexico suffers from the latter so severely that large swathes of the country are firmly outside the government's supposed rule of law, and make small towns and regions have no choice but to take measures like these.

Who knows how sustainable this is, or its long term ramifications. What it definitely does do is further weaken that same government's capacity for reestablishing its main responsibility.

The government of Mexico of course knows this, and so do the state governments that supposedly have authority over places like Cheran. For this reason (and for reasons of extreme corruption) they not only resent vigilante efforts like these or any attempts by private citizen groups to defend themselves with weapons or by other means, but also often actively, violently try to impede them "legally" despite not being able to replace these localized security measures with a useful reformation of their own.

This is done under the pretext that non-state armed security groupings are dangerous to public safety, but curiously, the same efforts at curbing heavily armed groups outside the law seem to evaporate when it comes to curbing the power and rampant impunity of cartels that also control whole regions much more viciously.

One of the reasons why? Unlike the people of Cheran or many private citizen defense groups, these cartels are typically colluding with the same politicians that claim armed vigilante activity as dangerous. The cartels also have their own similar reasons for disliking armed civilians who tend to retake peace from corrupt gangsters and politicians.

baybal22• 6 years ago

From my experience growing up in Russia, I can say that no organised crime can exist without somebody providing them legal cover.

Think this way: even a single caught gang member can spill the beans on the whole group. Eventually, as the gang grows, it happens.

TeMPOraL2• 6 years ago

I always thought organized crime works in such a way that, at any given layer, a person could only provide evidence of criminal activity of their peers at the same layer, and maybe a bit of dirt on their bosses a layer above - but they couldn't bring enough legally admissible evidence to impact the higher layers. So if a random bottom-tier gangster starts to testify, everyone above them on the ladder just denies knowing them (and each other). The legal system can't proceed, and meanwhile someone from the gangster's family suffers a fatal "accident".

baybal22• 6 years ago

legally admissible evidence to impact the higher layers.

This does not prevent the police from getting on their tail, putting them under intense surveillance, and effectively neutralising them.

restalis• 6 years ago

This reminds me of "Cartel Land" movie¹, which depicted similar events (in the same Mexican state of Michoacán, BTW) a few years before, mostly around José Manuel Mireles Valverde².

¹ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4126304/

² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Mireles_Valve...

Cheran: The town that threw out police, politicians and gangsters (2016)

Related Stories