DRUG-RELATED VIOLENCE AND DEMOCRACY IN MEXICO Javier Osorio University of Notre Dame

In December 2006 the Mexican government declared a war against drugs by staring a fullfledged military campaign against Drug-Traffic Organizations (DTOs). Rough estimates suggest a death toll of more than 22,000 people killed since 2006. The war against drugs and its immediate consequences will have an enduring effect on the political life, quality of democracy and institutional stability of Mexico, as well as on the personal lives of a large part of the population, specially on the most vulnerable sectors of the population. This historical challenge requires a committed and rigorous analysis of the effects of drug-related violence on citizens perceptions of public security and institutional performance, quality of democracy, and political attitudes and behavior. The general objective of the proposed research project is to assess the effects of increasing drug-related violence on citizens attitudes and political behavior in the context of local elections to be held in several Mexican states on July 4th, 2010. The empirical strategy will draw on a nationally representative public opinion survey to analyze the impact of violence on three specific priority areas: (i) perceptions of security and institutional performance; (ii) democratic values and civil liberties: and (iii) political attitudes and behavior. The research will provide empirical evidence to inform public policy decision makers about the effects of the drug-related violence on citizens political attitudes. In addition to the ongoing effects of the war against drugs, the research will provide an early signal benchmark for risk assessment about citizens propensity to seek security in non-state actors such as self defense forces, community lynching and private security groups. The research project draws on the insights of Terror Management Theory (TMT) and research on public opinion. TMET analyzes individual reactions in terms of attitudes and behaviors under an intense perception of threat or anxiety (Greenberg et al. 1990: Pyszczynski, Greenber y Solomon 1997, Davis 2007). TMT claims that in a situation of intense and generalized
1

threat, individuals seek protection from actors or beliefs that are considered capable of providing security. In consequence, individuals reaffirm their loyalty to those actors, institutions or belief systems. Analyses on the consequences of September 11 terrorist attacks on political perceptions of US citizens indicate that, in a context of intensified threat, individuals reaffirm their support for political actors, the state and security institutions (Davis 2007) in their effort to provide security to their citizens. However, the context of generalized threat imposes a trade-off between security and democracy in which individuals may concede resigning to some of their civic and political liberties to allow the state a wider margin of maneuver in its effort to provide security. The perception of threat explains why some citizens consider acceptable some state activity such as domestic surveillance, detention, police militarization, and torture of suspected terrorists that would not been tolerated otherwise. The trade-off between security-democracy represents a risk for values, attitudes and political necessary for the functioning of a democratic regime. Daviss argument works adequately for a wealthy and developed democracy that experienced a single (yet tragic) violent event. However, his argument needs to be explored in contests of continuous and increasingly intensifying violence in countries with weak political institutions and high levels of poverty and inequality. It is particularly important to analyze citizens political attitudes and behavior when the generalized perception indicates that the state is not capable of providing security. What do citizens do if they perceive that the state failed to protect its population even after citizens resigned to some liberties to support states efforts? Where will they seek for security? The drug-related war in Mexico provides an adequate case to provide valuable insights of the effects of increasing violence on citizens political attitudes and behavior. For that reason, the research will analyze three main areas of research:

1. Perceptions of security and institutional performance The project will study citizens attitudes concerning:

Personal exposure to drug-related violence The perceived intensity of personal and contextual threats caused by drug-related violence The performance of various institutional and political actors in the fight against drugs (e.g. president, governors, political parties, military, and police forces) at different levels of government
2

Blame attribution towards different actors for causing ongoing violence or for not solving the problem Corruption, institutional capabilities, and confidence

Support for the ongoing military strategy or support for alternative tactics

2. Democratic values and civil liberties The project will analyze the trade-offs citizens make between security and democracy. In contexts of intense violence citizens may concede civil liberties and democratic guarantees to increase the states capabilities to provide security. The project will identify citizens attitudes concerning:

Support for civil liberties and democratic values (e.g. personal integrity, freedom, tolerance) Support for increasing state efforts to provide security (e.g. police militarization, surveillance) The extent to which citizens favor decreasing democratic guarantees in exchange for security at different levels of violence (e.g. tolerating the torture of drug-dealers to extract information)

Support for a strong actor capable of rapidly imposing order at the expenses of democratic rights or support for an actor gradually restoring peace while protecting rights and liberties

3. Political behavior and attitudes Based on the previous two modules, the project will analyze the effects of violence on institutional and non-institutional political behavior in terms of:

The extent to which violence affects electoral turnout or abstentionism The extent to which citizens base their vote choice on the desire to sanction the security failures of incumbents or to reward challengers campaign promises for increased security Which actors are sanctioned or supported by citizens votes at state level elections (e.g. Presidents party, governors party, mayors party, all political parties) Citizens support for candidates presumably associated with drug-traffic organizations Citizens propensity to participate in protests against authorities demanding public security Citizens propensity to migrate to other cities or countries seeking security

Citizens propensity to seek protection by non-state actors (e.g. supporting or organizing selfdefense forces, participating in community lynching of criminals, hiring private security personnel) The research methodology will rely on a nationally representative public opinion survey

with 1,500 interviews in Mexico during the summer of 2010. Conducting this survey during the summer also represents a valuable opportunity to assess the effect of different levels of violence on citizens political behavior because 14 states having elections in July 2010. Among the states holding elections three of them have experienced the most intense drug-related violence since the begining of the war against drugs (Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Sinaloa), the rest of the states have experienced relatively lower levels of violence (Baja California, Durango, Hidalgo, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tlaxcala). In this sense, local elections in Mexico provide a natural experiment to simultaneously analyze political behavior in 14 states under different levels of violence. To conduct the survey, I will count with the support of Intelligence and Market Opinion Systems (Sistemas de Inteligencia y Mercado de Opinin, SIMO, www.simoconsulting.com). SIMO has been in charge of conducting the National Security Public Opinion Survey in Mexico for the last two years. Due to its vested interest in national security research, SIMO has agreed to conduct the survey for the research presented in this proposal at minimum cost. In compliance with the standards of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (APPOR), the survey design will consider the following methodological characteristics. The survey will be conducted in Mexico. The instrument will consider 35-40 questions. The target population are Mexican citizens with voter registration card (18 years and older). The primary sampling units are Electoral Sections. The sampling frame is the Nationwide Electoral Sections data base of the Mexican electoral authority, Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE). The sampling strata are urban, rural and mixed municipalities as defined by the Mexican census authority, Instituto Nacional de Geografa, Estadstica e Informtica (INEGI). The observation selection method is simple random sampling. The sampling method is the Probability Proportional to Size Systematic method. Household selection is based on simple systematic method. The survey design considers 1,500 observations, including an oversampling of 500 cases in rural areas. The sampling error is +/- 2.7%. The confidence level is 95%. The expected response rate is 1 out of 3. The survey will be conducted
4

three weeks after the elections in July 4th, 2010. If awarded by the GCST Small Grant I will be able to partially cover the expenses of the survey. In addition, I received funds from the Department of Political Science and the Kellogg Institute from the University of Notre Dame to cover the rest of the expenses.

BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY Berisnky, Adam. (2004). Silent Voices. Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Brady, Henry and Paul Sniderman. (1985). Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning, The American Political Science Review, 79 (4): 1061-1078 Bond, Hewstone, K-C Wan, and C-K Chiu. (1985). Group-serving attributions across intergroup contexts: Cultural differences in the explanation of sex-typed behaviors, European Journal of Social Psychology, 15: 435-4351 Davis, Darren (2007) Negative Liberty. Public Opinion and the Terrorist Attacks on America, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Davenport, Christian, Hank Johnston & Carol Mueller (2005) Repression and Mobilization, University of Minnesota Press Davenport, Christian (2009) State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace, Cambridge University Press Davenport, Christian (2007) State Repression and Political Order. Annual Review of Political Science Davenport, Christian (1995) "Multi-dimensional Threat Perception and State Repression: An Inquiry into Why States Apply Negative Sanctions." American Journal of Political Science 39(3): 683-713. Delli Carpini, Michael and Scott Keeter. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press, New Heaven. DeMaio, T. (1984). Social Desirability and Survey Measurement: A Review. In C. Turner & E. Martin, Eds., Surveying Subjective Phenomenon, 257-282. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Edward Muller (1985) Income Inequality, Regime Repressiveness, and Political Violence. American Sociological Review 50(1): 47-61. Goren, Paul. (2004). Political Sophistication and Policy Reasoning: A Reconsideration, American Journal of Political Science, 48 (3): 465-478. Goldstein, Robert J. (2001) Political Repression in Modern America, University of Illinois Gurr, Ted (1970) Why Men Rebel Princeton University Press McAdam, Doug, John McCarthy and Mayer Zald (1996) ComparativePerspectives in Social Movements, Cambridge University Press Moore, Will (1998) The Repression of Dissent: A Substitution Model of Government Coercion." Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(1): 107-27. Ron, James (1997) Varying Methods of State Violence. International Organization 51(2): 275-300. Tilly, Charles (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution (Addison Wesley: Selected chapters)
6