In Mexico, organised crime reaches everywhere, even into the smallest village - except for one small town in the state of Michoacan. Led by local women, the people of Cheran rose up to defend their forest from armed loggers - and kicked out police and politicians at the same time.
...
Early on Friday 15 April 2011, Cheran's levantamiento, or uprising, began. On the road coming down from the forest outside Margarita's home, the women blockaded the loggers' pick-ups and took some of them hostage. As the church bells of El Calvario rang out and fireworks exploded in the dawn sky alerting the community to danger, the people of Cheran came running to help. It was tense - hotheads had to be persuaded by the women not to string up the hostages from an ancient tree outside the church.
...
The municipal police arrived with the mayor, and armed men came to free their hostage-friends. There was an uneasy stand-off between the townspeople, the loggers and the police. It ended after two loggers were injured by a young man who shot a firework directly at them. And Cheran - a town of some 20,000 people - began its journey towards self-government."It makes me want to cry remembering that day," says Margarita. "It was like a horror movie - but it was the best thing we could have done."
The police and local politicians were quickly driven out of town because the people suspected they were collaborating with the criminal networks. Political parties were banned - and still are - because they were deemed to have caused divisions between people. And each of the four districts of Cheran elected representatives to a ruling town council. In many ways, Cheran - a town populated by the indigenous Purepecha people - returned to its roots: to the ancient way of doing things, independent of outsiders.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday October 24 2016, @07:30PM
The description of the events sounds like mob rule. While better than the previous corrupt government I am skeptical for the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @07:49PM
I prefer to call it "direct democracy."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @08:45PM
Apropos of nothing in particular, note that "direct democracy" was not at all what the Founding Fathers of the USA wanted. Just so you know.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:06AM
Apropos of nothing in particular, note that "direct democracy" was not at all what the Founding Fathers of the USA wanted. Just so you know.
In a world where news took weeks or months to travel, direct democracy wasn't even an option.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 24 2016, @09:18PM
The description of the events sounds like mob rule
While I think you're right and it does sound a bit like mob rule, when the mob is made up of people you're related to it probably becomes a bit more benign.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by bob_super on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:16PM
Until your relatives decide that you should be gang-raped and burnt for not being frigid.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 24 2016, @09:32PM
You could say our current government is mob rule - - but the mob is a small group of ultra wealthy.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:02AM
In other words, every rule is a mob rule, except for tyrannic dictator rule, but even tyrannic dictators need their supporting mob to exert their rule.
Adherence of ruling mob to laws and principles is essentially voluntary, even the most "moral" governments have freedom to transgress them.
Laws and principles are only as strong as the balance between forces in society who struck a deal which became the law.
We are quite idiotic generation to neglect necessity of having balance for having freedom.
On the other hand, in global proportions, seeking and restoring balance generated wast wars over centuries.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday October 24 2016, @11:16PM
Sounds like they went from skeptical about the present to skeptical about the future. I guess that's a sort of progress?