Security (and other false hopes)

In Guatemala, there are 3 private security guards for every police officer. Every bank, shopping centre, delivery truck and local official has security guards. I´ve often thought that it must be a really boring job as they always seem to end up doing something else at the same time... security guards in shopping centres become armed car park attendants, security guards in banks become armed doormen and so on and so on.

But a recent article in the paper here, also explained the training the security guards receive. According to the law, security guards should recieve 18 months of training in issues like human rights, the law, conflict resolution. However the average training recieved by security guards in registered companies is 3 days. (And that´s in the legal companies!) The training includes how to clean a gun, but few agencies give any training in how to use it safely or in how to diffuse difficult situations without violence. And there´s many incidences that demonstrate this lack of training - security guards who have shot (and sometimes killed) people by accident simply moving or dropping their gun. Another private security guard shot a carpark attendant when he simply asked for his ticket. Others are involved in criminal activity. There´s very little accountability for the licenced security agencies - let alone for the illegal ones.

That they exist at all is worrying in the first place. I guess it started from a lack of police presence in the face of growing violence, so local businesses sought out other means to 'guarantee' their safety. At the same time, there´s been a huge growth in the number of private shopping centres in Guatemala, (in the style of American Malls), of course each with their own security officers. For those who can afford it, shopping centres provide a ´privatised´ shopping experience as people increasingly see the truly public spaces, such as the street, as unsafe, and the official protectors of society (the police) as untrustworthy or simply absent. Unfortunately when normal upstanding citizens leave the public spaces, this does not make them safer - in many ways it´s an sign of defeat, giving up on any previous attempt to stand up for what is right in the face of violence and threats of violence. By leaving, the violence, and those who use it, win. Does it need to be explained that the rise of private security services has not diminished the violence in any way. In fact it has worsened.

In the face of a similar situation, neighbouring Honduras, has recently decided to assign the Army to support the police in their regular duties on the streets. They have reported that the initial affect has been positive. The Guatemalan President-elect, who is due to take office in January, is considering similar measures, but I´m not sure that they will be received in quite the same way. Honduras has never had a civil war, in contrast to Guatemala, where the army fought a 36 year war against guerillas in the highlands, and managed to massacre 200,000 indigenous people in the process. Understandably the army doesn´t enjoy a huge amount of respect from the general society.

Even so, the President-elect might follow in Honduras´ footsteps anyway. He is an ex army general after all! He´s also considering involving the army in the countries war on drug trafficking, following Mexico´s example. Many Mexican commentators, however, would site their Presidents decision to use the Army as the starting point of an increase in violence, rather than an diminishing of it.
So how is it that governments think that the presence of guns and 'state-sanctioned violence' will decrease the illegal variety, when so much evidence proves the opposite. Some governments have even managed to convince many of their own citizens that the strategy will work.... this time ... under this new government.

I think it was Einstein who said that only a fool continues to do the same thing, and expects a different result.

Of course, new governments in themselves, seem to be the other popular false hope; it will all be better with the next President. And in Guatemala (judging from the recent election process) it seems like Christians are the most susceptable to this over simplistic belief, particularly when a candidate is labelled 'Christian', regardless of their policies or plans or integrity. Many church leaders simply told their congregations to vote for the Christian candidate, without any mention of the need to weigh up and evaluate the policies, track record, and ability of each of the candidates.

For me, within a democratic systme, our responsibility as Christians is so much more than to simply vote for a Christian. What´s needed is for normal Christians to be involved in political processes at every level of society, bringing the values of Jesus into play in the public arena. The same is true for the church to confront the situation of violence. The church tends to be very good at avoidance (buying into those good old middle class values of 'getting on in life', ie moving out to the suburbs and leaving problems behind them), and in some cases even employ their own armed security guards at the church doors (don´t even get me started on what I think Jesus might make of that!). Instead the church needs to be teaching and training Christians to engage with their neighbours, to confront the real root issues of poverty and powerlessness in their community in order to bring about transformation in communities as well as in individuals.

Thank God that there are some who do.