Will Nayib Bukele's, President of El Salvador, Anti-Gang strategy been seen as a positive model (in reducing homicide and crime rate) in 2030?
Background: (Feb 2023) Nayib Bukele has initiated aggressive policies punishing gang members. The homicide rate has drastically fallen in his first years of tenure, with 50% and 58% reduction year over year. At the same time, his tenure has been criticised as an example of democratic backsliding by the US government, and been reported to have made deals with the largest gang in El Salvador (MS13).
Resolution: This resolves subjectively to my own judgment, but I would ideally love to defer to experts who seem level headed and reliable.
Some reasons I could imagine this resolving positive:
The homicide rate continues to fall and stay low
The crime rate, GDP and quality of life metrics also trend in a positive direction
Other countries model similar strategies with similar success
Western security and foreign policy experts generally have a positive impression of him
Some Reasons this market could resolve negative:The crime rate spikes drastically, erasing the progress made
The current government is unstable
The current government seizes power and transitions into authoritarianism
The crime rate, GDP and quality of life metrics also trend in a negative direction
There's some kind of 0 sum trade off with the reduction in homicides coming at the cost of something else
The homicide rate figures are incorrect and had been manipulated for political gain
Feb 25, 10:55pm:
Will Nayib Bukele's Anti-Gang strategy been seen as a positive model in 2030?→ Will Nayib Bukele's Anti-Gang strategy be seen as a positive model in 2030?
1,000
1.00There is a lot of ambiguity on this market:
Most discussion about this strategy of my own country focuses on whether is "good" or "worth it". However, your market title speaks about this being a "good model", which implies that is something that should be replicated in other countries.
It´s perfectly possible for Bukele´s strategy to be the "right" one or "necessary" for my country in this moment, but to NOT be a good model for other countries with different situations (e.g: Costa Rica´s current crime spike).
I will explain it with an example:
If you have cancer, you usually get chemotherapy. In fact, many people have had their lifes saved by chemotherapy. However, Chemo is not a cure, but a "treatment". In fact, some people choose to not undergo chemo because the cure can be "worst than the disease", and that is a valid decision. So, would you say that Chemo is a "positive model" in reducing cancer?
That´s how I see this market: Is just not asking the right question.
Some (imho) better questions would be:
In 2030 will Nayib Bukele's anti gang strategy be seen as "worth it" by the population of El Salvador?
In 2030 will Nayib Bukele's anti gang strategy be seen as "worth it" by experts?
In 2030 will at least 5 countries copy Nayib Bukele´s anti-gang strategy?
I think this issue will be sufficiently contentious that "experts" will be divided on this issue into 2030. Those who are concerned about maintenance of the right to due process, individual rights, and who are suspicious of government power will continue to be opposed. those who value economic growth and the right to a safety and freedom from violence are likely to support it. I'd like to bet on a market like this but I don't think the criteria as you laid out are sufficiently clear. It could help clear things up if you make a choice on whether e.g. American major media outlets vs. local Honduran academics or media are taken as your "expert" reference.
@B I think this question has to resolve subjective to avoid goodhearting. I am not too concerned about experts with opposing viewpoints, as I suspect I will be able to fairly accurately judge the legitimacy of their comments. If civil liberties are mentioned, I expect them to be related to some objective outcomes (I.e. voter turnout has reduced, or their democracy index has drastically reduced). Generally speaking, I will find an expert much less credible if they a) haven't updated on new data b) don't seem to use a cost-benefit analysis
@B Because of this, I don't want to specify what area or background the expert should come from, as this isn't very relevant to my criteria of what makes an experts opinion reliable