Sociology

When Thomas Hobbes conceptualized a state of nature in his book Leviathan, he was speaking of a hypothetical situation. The idea that life is nasty, brutish and short in a country wherein no law and government is tasked to supervise the population was made to teach the population that a government is necessary for any country or population that wants to live in peace. It is almost like telling stories of non-existing entities such ghost and monsters to children. The state of nature was never a description of a place that existed in Hobbes time.

Even in the countries that are not systematized in the Western sense of civilization and development, it will be hard for us to find an exact replica of what Hobbes called as a state of nature. The idea of Hobbes is so extreme in the sense that it represented the ideal of a failed community.

In addition, even Hume speaks of Hobbes state of nature as a product of mere imagination. As long as he is concerned, it will be impossible for the state of nature to materialize because of the humans natural tendency to socialize.

However in our modern times, it is not hard to see that Hobbes idea of a state of nature is materializing in some parts of the world. In this modern era wherein the idea of state had already undergone different changes and innovations and in an era wherein international communities are playing some of the biggest roles in national and international affairs, it is hard to imagine that some states are transforming to Hobbess state of nature. In this paper, we shall examine some of these candidate states, analyze them and if possible provide our recommendations.

The Modern Face of Conflict and Instability
Anarchy in Somalia
Though it can be argued that the world generally experienced peace, growth and prosperity in the last half century, we cannot deny some degenerations and corruptions in some parts of the world. The case of Somalia is arguably the best example in this dreadful and terrible situation.

Jeffrey Gettleman, the New York Times chief bureau in the Eastern Africa regarded Somalia as the most dangerous place in the world. In his article, The Most Dangerous Place in the World (2009), he described Somalia as a state governed by anarchy and a breeding ground for what can be regarded as the most vicious professions in the world such as warlords, pirates and bomb makers. In his historical analysis of Somalia, he argued that Somalia is a failed subject of foreign policy and foreign aids experiments.

People are killed for a little money, women are raped without the aggressor being punished and territories are fought over by warlords unleashing their military grade weapons. This is how Gettleman described the scenario in Somalia treating it as the closest manifestation of Hobbes state of nature.
In his historical analysis, he stated that even in the past, all foreign intervention failed to give Somalia a break. The Italians and the British failed in the 19th century to hold Somalia and of course who will forget the famous Black Hawk Down history of the United States that put the strongest nation on earth in shame and convinced to take their hands off in the Somali affairs.

Analysis of the Author
The almost two decades of no government in Somalia had raised a kind of crisis that is far worse than the ruin of its buildings and houses. For the international community, the difficulty lies on to where they can are to link their aids and resources. It is difficult to identify who are the countries leaders to negotiate their aids. For the Somali people however, the difficulty lies on a new mental attitude that is passive when it comes to acquisition of a national government. The mindset of the people had been stacked in clan rivalry and clan protection totally disregarding an aim for national reconstruction. In my opinion, this is a very serious problem.

Narcoviolence in Mexico
The case of Mexico is not as bare as to what is happening in Somalia. Actually the country had managed to show interesting recovery since it was hit by the 1994 recession. If not with the 2008 financial crisis, the country will be able to show better progress. However, buried within this positive feedbacks and opinion to the country, deep within its system is an already entrenched and rooted sub-economy, the narcotics industry.

Lately this underground system is moving to the foreground as the government of Mexico with the help of foreign aid start tracking these drug cartels. Francisco Gonzales, in his report Mexicos Drugs War Get Brutal (2009) shows how these drug syndicates infest fears to both the citizens and the government itself.  Retaliation of the drug cartel groups include bombing of public places, displayed of battered human body and heads, paraded and exposed mutilated bodies and even the publication of video postings showing tortures and beheadings in the cyberspace.  What is happening in Mexico is almost comparable to what you can watch to an action suspense movie full of gore and blood.

In Gonzales historical analysis, he stated that narcotic business in Mexico started even before the Prohibition years. Even during the Civil War, Mexico is already a prime source of opiates such morphine and heroine of the United States. With its territorial advantage, Mexico also became an entry point of cocaine that came from the Andes regions and these supplied the cream of the crop of the American society. Additionally, even the mass marketed marijuana is introduced to the United States by the Mexicans.

It was a widespread practice that was already spread its roots in the system for the last 100 years. As Gonzales reported, most Mexican administrations managed to finish its term with a live and let live approach to these big drug cartels. There is even a widespread working relationship between some of the higher ranks of the bureaucracy and the military with these drug syndicates.

With these elements and conditions in mind, it is not hard to see why there is a strong resistance to the recent actions of the government to eradicate these drug cartels even with the aid of the United States who is the number one consumer of drugs from Mexico.

Analysis of the Author
The difficulty of eradicating Mexicos problem on drugs lies to the depth of the industry to the bureaucracy and other important institutions of the country.

Even leaders of the drug cartels were captured, it does not wipe out the operation of the drug industry. The clich of cutting the heads seems to be irrelevant in Mexico. This is because even though you neutralize these leaders, the situations and conditions in the country still provide a fertile ground for the rise of new characters that will take over the industry.

Philosophical Framework of Conflict and Instability
In the time of the Pre-Socratics, it was the philosopher Empedocles who first conceptualized and theorized the nature of conflict and instability. In his own terms, he referred them as strife in contrast to love. For the philosopher Empedocles, it is love and strife that are shaping the universe. Almost the same with the concept of Yin and Yang, the history of the world is cyclical and repeating. All the elements in the world will be brought together by love and after the formation of all the elements, the strife will manifest itself and shall break all the bonds in the world reducing the world to fragmented and separated elements. As all the elements are now separated, the process will repeat itself over and over again. For Empedocles, this is the dynamics of history. (Knierim 2009)

Plato however believed that a conflicted and unstable state is brought by a wrong constitution and wrong ruler. It must be noted that in his famous dialogue, The Republic, he argue that the ideal constitution for an ideal state is in the form of aristocracy or the ruling of the few wise and intelligent philosopher or what is commonly known as the philosopher kings. Any deviation from this kind of constitution is a corruption to the ideal and shall bring different degrees of injustice to the state. Among the defective constitutions that Plato tackled are oligarchy or rule of the wealthy. timocracy or rule of the militaristically virtuous, democracy or rule of the mobpeople and finally the dictatorship of an unjust man. For Plato, all of these constitutions open the city to conflict and disorder. (Balot et al. 2003)

With these two opposing concepts in mind wherein one sees conflict and instability as necessary while the other one perceive it as corruption, where should we posit ourselves This is a very significant question because deciding where to place our argument in this question will determine our course of actions. Treating conflict and instability as necessary will induce passive attitude to the situation while treating conflict and instability as a manifestation of corruption and deviation from the ideal will bear active participation to keep them at bay.

In this debate, I would side to Platos interpretation of conflict and instability. Though how much it sounds ideal to aspire for a society that is perfect and just, what is important is we are putting ourselves to a quest and journey to discover what is best for the humanity. This in direct contrast to a passive attitude towards any form of strife that perceive it as a necessary and inevitable part of life rather than a situation and problem one must take seriously.

From clearing this part of the debate we can now push through to our recommendations.

Recommendations
The situation in Mexico will be difficult to solve using the top-bottom approach that dominated most of the action plans in the country. No matter how much effort and resources be spent by the Mexican government itself even with the aid of the United States, the problem will still continue and worsen. What is needed now is to redefine the approach to the situation. Rather than solely focusing on the changes above, why not reinforce the action plans in the population itself. The industry blossomed because the public or the general population are benefitting on the industry in one way or another. If we can provide an alternative industry and source of income to the general population, it is not difficult to expect that slowly, the general population will be the one to turn it back away from the forbidden industry.

The case of Somalia poses more difficult recommendations of what must be done. Almost all international efforts were put into trash and worse backfired to the sponsoring nation. What we are recommending in the case of Somalia are the recommendations of Prof. George B. N. Ayittey in his paper entitled Somali Crisis Time for African Solutions (1994) wherein he argued that there must be some fundamental changes in how we see the crisis in Somalia. Rather than seeing it as comparable to the situations in the West or in Asia, we must invent a unique approach in the case of African situations.

For example, rather than directing the help or aid to the government which in his opinion became very ineffective in its task, why not distribute the resources to the people directly or thru their own local communities. Another notable recommendation from him is position for neutrality of the powerful nations such as the United States in the ongoing civil wars not just in Somalia but also in other parts of Africa. In many cases, the position of the West became detrimental for itself because of its siding to the wrong side.

Conclusion
I believe that we learned one important lesson in the experiences of Somalia and Mexico and to the attempts to remedy the crisis and situation. The lesson simply says this, we cannot always reuse plans of action from other crisis situation.

Every situation in every country possesses different elements that can dictate what the best action that must be taken is.  What we must do is to see every situation as a unique case that demands unique course of actions. We must never treat every case as a replica of the earlier one. Though there is truth in the clich, History repeats itself, it does not follow that same actions must be taken to what seem to be the same situations. No matter how much two situations are alike, we can still find bits of differences that can alter the outcome of our interventions.