The Left and Order

In his latest intellectual contribution, Zizek maps the blind spots of liberal visions on the question of order. Libertarians champion anarchy and self-regulation on one side; socialism insists on guiding and deciding for society on the other, positing order as a sine qua non for human progress. Neither path is easy to walk.

In what reads as something close to desperation, Zizek zeroes in on how left-wing projects fail to deliver results by anchoring their hypothesis in the underlying causes of crime. Treating crime as an effect of inequality and social context deflects individual responsibility for the choice to break the law, and sidelines the importance of policing and the exercise of state power.

The aspiration of communities to benefit from contextual social change as a path to prosperity is both a desire and a right. Neighborhoods and public spaces must have effective mechanisms to provide options and experiences that foster commitment and social cohesion. That alone, however, is not enough. In a landscape hostile to the rule of law, taking that path alone amounts to surrender before entrenched powers. Time and again, governments of the so-called left have seen their security strategies fail precisely because of this premise.

Zizek's argument arrives at a moment defined by Russia's violent invasion of Ukraine. Against a backdrop of European instability, rising far-right ultranationalist movements, and a potentially severe economic crisis, left-wing governments will be incapable of changing the structural context, making direct engagement through punitive methods unavoidable. I agree that the roots of many social problems are systemic, yet the challenge to left-wing regimes remains both valid and necessary. A world more focused on societal development requires successful left-wing governments.

The risk in shifting toward punitive use of state force also hinges on having resilient institutions capable of checking abuses. It is not simply a matter of more policing; transparency and justice must accompany it. Any act of abuse must be corrected through the justice system. Streamlining and expediting that system is a necessary condition for effective public safety and social peace.

In Mexico, security is the population's primary concern. Interestingly, in recent elections it has not been the decisive factor in determining winners. Yet understanding the security phenomenon through a micro-social, community-level lens could generate considerable electoral effects. Proposals and strategic actions focused on resolving the everyday problems of communities would shift the national narrative, which is currently trapped in reading the phenomenon through macro-level national crime statistics.

A proposal that addresses the everyday anxieties of our communities could be an inflection point. Ending bus robberies, reclaiming urban zones made impassable by street crime, and driving down criminal incidence in specific spaces opens the possibility of genuinely restoring security.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Zizek's critique of left-wing approaches to crime?

Zizek argues that left-wing projects fail to deliver results because they focus exclusively on the structural and social roots of crime, deflecting individual responsibility and sidelining the importance of policing and punitive state action.

Why do left-wing governments consistently struggle with public security?

According to the article, left-wing governments repeatedly fail on security by treating crime purely as a symptom of inequality. In hostile security environments, this approach amounts to ceding ground to entrenched criminal powers.

How could a community-level security strategy change Mexico's electoral dynamics?

While security is Mexico's top public concern, macro-level crime data has not translated into decisive electoral outcomes. A micro-social, community-focused strategy, eliminating bus robberies and reclaiming impassable urban zones, could shift the national narrative and generate meaningful electoral effects.