In Venezuela, it is curious how President Hugo Chavez’s opponents use a very simple strategy against the government. Making use of influential TV stations, they incite thousands of citizens from the upper and middle classes, along with some unhappy lower class groups and paid troublemakers, to hit the streets and start trouble - which has even left some dead. If Chavez’s government would locked the troublemakers up in prison, he would be accused of repression and therefore, of censuring the opposition’s right to free speech. On the other hand, if Chavez’s government would not act in order to avoid any type if involvement with non-governmental activities, he would be accused of not trying to stop the violent activities - organised by paid troublemakers mixed with the crowds. In any situation, Chavez’s administration and their supporters would be considered responsible for these acts.

There is no way out: Although many people get involved in public riots with peaceful, decent intentions, a certain logic unfolds which, interpreted by the media, always ends up blaming the government of negligence, violent repression or manipulating its supporters against the peaceful opposition.

Certainly, the lack of security experienced by Latin America, Mexico and its capital, the Federal District, is in fact a consequence of the lack of resources generated by neo-liberal policies that have increased the number of unemployed in the country. The “remedy” to this lies on the federal government, not a specific city’s authorities.

Putting the blame on a governor is a simplistic attempt to address the problem without tackling the causes that put the country in such a situation. Poverty is responsible for this. Mexico is suffering the consequences of having to pay the debts of private companies - which, in a totally unjustified manner, were turned into a federal government debt. This means that this year, Mexico will have to pay US$52 000 million for external and internal debt (accumulated since López Portillo’s government and increased by Carlos Salinas and, especially, Zedillo’s “Saving the Banks” scheme).

This debt is prior to the current federal government and Federal District administrations. To imply that a specific government has full responsibility on these issues is simply not fair.

In any case, people’s motivations to protest are real. However, it seems to be that the issue is treated exactly as it is usually handled in Venezuela, which indicates that certain tactics are becoming part of the socio-political guidelines on how to control this kind of situations in Latin America, and that has to be a matter of constant scrutiny.

That is why we have to be very cautious at the moment of dealing with this issue. The Federal District’s government opposition makes its consequences unpredictable. Meanwhile, the city’s government will have to study the situation by giving extreme importance to it. It is actually a new confrontations’ field. It does not only involve the unfairly organized juridical field, but it also comprises the socio-political sphere. Lots of people are now hitting the streets, usually where masses of people are starting to throw themselves to the streets, constantly backed up by TV and radio stations’ stories against the authorities.

The way political activities are interpreted is the one that counts. Like Italian thinker Agambe said, both in Mexico and in Venezuela is prevailing the so-called “mediacracy”, or the power of the media. Nowadays, instead of acknowledging the law and real actions, the common citizen is usually misinformed and only gets to know the “interpretation” of the facts. Any activity can be interpreted fair or unfair, good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, regardless of its real nature. But this “interpretation” process may follow a disturbing thread: If it leads to a reaction, such reaction is wrong because it becomes threatening, but if it does not bring up any action, such inaction is also considered wrong, precisely because anything was done. At any extent, “interpreting” a situation may always lead to a wrong decision.

Due to the lack of independent media that can compete with the mass media, the latter’s interpretation of the events is always the one that infallibly imposes in the people’s minds. And because this interpretation manipulates the real significance of the events, then the political sphere ends up falling into the interpreters’ game. The governor’s faculties (even when he had not been elected by a large majority) is unable to operate legitimately having the power of the media’s interpretation around (Agambe’s mediacracy), and even more when that media produces massive activities of political connotations where they will be part of. In other words, media create an environment in which any political act can be used against the authorities.

Despite this unfortunate reality, there are still ways to control the situation. It is fundamental for this specific circumstance to consider the freedom of information right. It is certainly part of the democracy basis. However, it is much more important to highlight the right for truthful information. The citizen has the right to be well, accurately informed. That will require the development of information committees, and even an office in charge of the legal aspects of the problem, since there should be legal actions applied in order to maintain the stability of the country. Latin America is adjusting into a phase of development of new policies regarding the media (especially on television and radio), as an articulated struggle of the masses to control the problem making use of these same media. It has to turn into a new and fundamental chapter in politics and in the political science field.

Is Mexico falling under the Venezuela’s political model? I am not sure about it, but the fact that there is an articulation being developed from the “media/movements of opposition groups” makes us think that a similar strategy is being applied.