Vigilantism and collective violence in times of pandemic in Latin America

A few days ago, on May 22nd, a senior official from the World Health Organization stated that “South America has become a new epicenter of the disease”; meanwhile, in both Central America and the Caribbean, as well as in Mexico, the number of daily infections recorded by most countries does not appear to have peaked. The Working Group on “Vigilance and Collective Violence” would like to share some reflections on the effects of the pandemic in the region.  

Given the lack of known medical treatments to prevent or cure the virus, most governments have adopted the strategy of home confinement to avoid mass infections. Based on the infection and death tolls in various countries, quarantines have thus far been the most effective measure to slow the rapid spread of the virus among the population and thus prevent the collapse of healthcare systems, which in many countries were already facing a severe crisis before the pandemic. Governments that underestimated the virus and rejected preventive measures are now facing serious humanitarian and social crises.  

States that adopted preventive isolation as a practice of mutual care have faced other challenges that we wish to highlight here. In cases where mandatory confinement was implemented, strict controls on the movement of people had to be deployed. The actions of the security forces were key to ensuring compliance with the measures; however, in some territories, they were responsible for reprehensible episodes of institutional violence and abuses of power.  

At a social level, the tension between the pedagogy of individual responsibility and vigilant social control surfaced. The mutual care necessary to prevent contagion was at times transformed into social authoritarianism and community policing. Fear of the disease engendered widespread suspicion toward those who did not or could not comply with the established quarantine, ignoring the fact that not everyone could guarantee home confinement practices: informal workers, single mothers caring for children, and a significant segment of the poor living in overcrowded conditions without access to basic urban services. This authoritarian drift materialized in attacks on people infected or suspected of being infected, as well as public shaming or protests in front of the homes of infected families, healthcare workers, or security forces—the population most exposed to health risks. This attitude was amplified by the mass media, reproducing hegemonic ways of complying—or not complying—with the quarantine. At times, the authorities have also prioritized a policing approach over the health aspect when announcing and managing care measures, for example by involving military forces in controlling the movement of the population or by giving a certain prominence to officials linked to public order in decisions regarding these measures.  

On the other hand, the struggle between central governments and regional or local administrations has sent erratic signals from the government in almost every country. The disputes over how to manage the pandemic have generated disorientation among citizens regarding preventative measures, contributing to the pre-existing climate of distrust in the authorities. This has opened the door for local communities to take authoritarian action regarding health measures; actions that redefine who is in charge. other in the context of the pandemic. Thus, for example, it has been observed that local communities sometimes organize themselves to control access to their territories and eventually expel anyone identified as a threat to the community's health and safety. That other It can be represented by subjects as diverse as migrants, residents of neighboring communities, or tourists.  

This appropriation of violence by communities intensified in territories where the state's monopoly on force was previously contested. The Peasant Patrols in Cajamarca, Peru; the Regional Coordinator of Community Authorities-Community Police of Guerrero and the Community Patrol of Cherán, Michoacán in Mexico; and the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca in Colombia have been examples of this type of process in which civilian patrols are responsible for enforcing the measures and guaranteeing restrictions on movement.  

The Covid-19 pandemic in Latin America has exacerbated existing social structures and problems in the region, intensifying feelings of uncertainty, insecurity, vulnerability, and fear. Its repercussions in terms of vigilantism and collective violence must be understood within the context of the pre-existing relationships among the various actors involved. To adequately address the academic challenges and political dilemmas posed by the current situation, we must first consider the social fabric upon which the pandemic has settled. 

In this context, one of the main questions for the future will be whether the mechanisms of social vigilantism that have been strengthened by the current pandemic will remain in place, being used by States to maintain social order in the face of economic and institutional instability in a post-pandemic scenario; or whether they will be deactivated once the virus ceases to be a threat to our societies.

Faced with states weakened, worn down and delegitimized by COVID-19, vigilantism and collective violence are likely to persist as phenomena characteristic of post-pandemic Latin America.  

2020 June
CLACSO Working Group
Vigilantism and collective violence

This statement expresses the position of the Working Group on Vigilantism and Collective Violence and not necessarily that of the centers and institutions that make up the CLACSO international network, its Steering Committee or its Executive Secretariat.