Hybrid violence and criminal governance in Latin America
By Kees Koonings, Dirk Kruijt
Show moreSince the turn of the century more people in Latin America have been killed or otherwise afflicted by violence and insecurity than during the times of dictatorship, repressive regimes, guerrilla uprisings, and armed conflict (1960s–1990s). Latin America has turned into what is on average the most lethal region in the world in terms of homicide rates. The 2013 Regional Human Development Report (UNDP 2013, v) mentions that “in the last decade, more than one million people have died in Latin America and the Caribbean as a result of criminal violence”. In 2012, Latin America’s citizens represented only 8 percent of the world’s population; however, they produced around 37 percent of the world’s homicides in that year (Chioda, 2017, 1). Since then, regional statistics have not really improved.1 Formally at peace and formally democratic, one of the most salient aspects of this violence is that it is not explicitly directed at acquiring or defending state power. Rather, it is labelled ‘criminal’ or ‘social’ and includes not only everyday forms of direct violence and coercion but also institutional and symbolic forms of violence. These dimensions, in turn, rest upon a long history of social inequality, exclusion, and elite privileges that are often enveloped as structural violence. Except for drug-related violence corridors in Colombia, Central America and Mexico, Latin American violence is largely urban (Koonings & Kruijt, 2015). According to the Mexican NGO Seguridad, Justicia y Paz (2020), of the 10 most lethal cities of 300,000 inhabitants or more in the world in 2020, seven are Mexican. Of the 50 most lethal cities, 40 are Latin American or Caribbean: 17 are Mexican, 11 Brazilian, six Venezuelan, two Honduran, two Colombian, one Jamaican, and one Puerto Rican. Of the remaining cities, five are American and five SouthAfrican.2 What is behind these dismal statistics? After the disappearance of the dictatorships and the re-democratisation process in the course of the 1980s new and violent non-state actors emerged, not aiming at revolutionary political transformations like the former guerrilla groups but aspiring to become a ‘regular’ element with prestige and negotiating power in the economy and society. They operate in criminal, violent, clandestine or at least extra-legal ambiences. But they are not hidden or invisible. They vigorously put forth their claims to local, municipal, regional, and national involvement. They control larger or smaller territories or commercial corridors for smuggling, levy taxes on ‘their’ people, provide ‘protection’ by eliminating ‘adversaries’ (legal or illegal competitors) and try to establish an economy of uninterrupted profits and a society of continued legal impunity, replacing official rule of law by criminal justice and extra-legal order making. So, despite the apparent non-political nature of this system of violence, it does have farreaching repercussions for social life as well as for politics, governance, the law, and the state. In this contribution we seek to examine the implications of contemporary violence in Latin America for order making and governance. The article is developed as follows. As a starting point we combine two concepts, namely protracted hybrid conflict and criminal governance, to frame the paradox of violence in Latin America. This paradox rests on the proposition that chronic violence coincides with formally democratic states that are, in a conventional sense, not at war. We will then look briefly at the historical context of violence, state and hybrid order making in Latin America. Subsequently we will explore three specific and intersecting mechanisms of criminal governance in Latin America: state capture, layered micro-sovereignty, and statetransgression.