Citizen marches, homicides and disappearances, plus political tension, reveal the new dimension of the conflict in Colombia: a conflict about change, where diverse demands and expectations converge and clash with the establishment that resists change.
The 2016 Peace Agreement between the government and the FARC rebel group is a key reference point for this dispute. Unlike agreements elsewhere in the world, in Havana, no significant concessions were negotiated for the rebels, but rather the conditions to undertake structural reforms that were long delayed in the country, largely under the excuse of war. In fact, once the FARC handed in their weapons and became involved in political life, the influence of the former guerrilla group became marginal. Thus, the myths created by those opposed to the agreement about the threat of Castro-Chavismo and the FARC as a Trojan horse that would lead the country to a left-wing authoritarian regime have collapsed.
The current conflict can also be analyzed from a global perspective, where the health, economic and ecological crises strain institutional capacities to offer solutions that benefit the population as a whole. A citizenry that has lost hope in the progress of society and that suffers and despairs because of the growing gap between privileged minorities and excluded majorities.
Some sectors advocate profound transformations in our way of understanding the world and the role we human beings play in it and, consequently, push for new economic, social and cultural models. Meanwhile, other sectors, reluctant to change, cling to the idea of a past in which order prevailed in the face of what they perceive as a future of chaos.
In a way, this conflict transcends the historical debates between right and left because there are progressive and conservative sectors in both groups. And because, faced with the uncertainty of the future and the lack of economic and political references, political dogmas lose strength due to the rigidity of their analysis.
At this global crossroads there are two fundamental issues: the quality of democracy and public security policies.
Democratic culture and institutions are fundamental to channel the social and political conflicts inherent to the human condition. But they can only perform this function if the public trusts them. This trust is undermined in many countries because the institutions fail to respond to the needs of the majority and are perceived as instruments for consolidating the privileges of a few minorities. In some countries, there are even doubts as to whether the state has become an instrument of organized crime.
In this context, the concept of security takes on special relevance: What do we understand by security? Whose security and against what? If the state does not allow different political proposals to be settled through democratic channels, the security forces become a protective arm of the status quo, whether in Venezuela, Hong Kong, the United States or Colombia.
Thus, what is happening in Colombia these days is the local expression of a broader phenomenon. It is an outburst of exasperation by those who fear a darker future or who no longer have anything to lose. It is also a new case of digital battles for the control of the narrative, where each side wields a video to reinforce their position and delegitimize that of the other, without taking into consideration the overall picture.
Five decades of armed conflict weigh heavily. A Colombian political culture marked by violence has little tolerance and little experience in dealing with discrepancy and alternation of power. Now that the war with the FARC is over, there is no reason why the country cannot face a brighter future and bring about an improvement in living conditions for the whole of society.
The country needs a new peace framework. The 2016 agreement is a starting point that calls for new deliberations, at all levels, to identify and agree on a path towards a better future: one where peace does not germinate in furrows of pain – as the national anthem suggests – but as a result of collective and inclusive effort and commitment.
Kristian Herbolzheimer, director of the ICIP
May 12, 2021
