Darkness falls on Colombia yet again (has it ever left the place?). Tomorrow we go to the polls and yet our presidential hopefuls have only managed to disappoint rather than inspire.
Worse still, we have witnessed the obscene spectacle of a dirty tricks campaign in which we have been asked to determine whether the most cunning of criminals is either Juan Manual Santos or Oscar Ivan Zuluaga.
Any proposals or visions for Colombia the candidates might have had have been drowned out. Read more…
Is Colombia doomed continually to repeat the errors of her past?
Albert Einstein argues insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The recent wave of protests against neoliberal agricultural and healthcare policy carried out by medicine students and farmers, and supported by the general population, certainly reflect widespread clamor for “different results” regarding the way Colombia is being governed. Paradoxically, the same people who protest and demand “different results” seem intent on voting for the same people and parties that got us into this mess.
Any Colombian intent on voting for the likes of Partido de la U, Uribe Centro Democrático, Partido Liberal, Partido Conservador, Cambio Radical, PIN and the likes of these pro-global capitalism, clientelist and nepotist parties, who somehow expects a better becoming for Colombia because of this electoral choice, should be sent to the psychiatrist – according to Einstein, of course. The progressive concentration of resources and power which the members of these parties have shamelessly, and in a corrupt manner, assured themselves, supplemented by their alignment with global-capitalism, have left Colombia in its actual state of extreme inequality, crisis and general nonconformity. Paradoxically, somehow, people still consider these parties as viable options.
Are Colombians who vote for these parties truly insane? Perhaps, but before we pass sentence on those citizens who continuously vote for the same corrupt idiots and yet complain about the shameful state of our country, we should revise the concept of the ruling ideology in our times. According to philosopher Slavoj Zizek, ideology today works through the following mental exercise; “(“I know very well…”) and the subject of the enunciation (“…nevertheless I act as if I didn’t”)”.
A theoretical example of today’s ruling ideology would be “I know very well that all ethnic cultures are equal in value, yet, nevertheless, I will act as if mine is superior”. A latent, everyday example of today’s ruling ideology in Colombia is “I know very well that parties like Partido de la U, Uribe Centro Democrático, Partido Liberal, Partido Conservador, Cambio Radical, PIN have governed Colombia is the worst possible manner only catering to their member’s personal interests at the expense of the general population, yet, nevertheless, I will act as if my vote for these parties implies a better future.” This is ideology at its purest.
In other words, those Colombians who choose to vote for the before mentioned parties might not be insane, but the ideology which they practice certainly leads them to vote as if they were truly, genuinely insane. Of course, this comes as no surprise, the only way in which the sort of people who govern us can reach the posts they reach through popular vote (despite evident and brave exceptions of good politicians) is by being elected through the ideology of insanity.
Sadly, the ideology of insanity works in two directions. Not only does it perpetuate bad politicians in power, it also might keep good politicians from reaching power. Here, Antonio Navarro Wolff comes to mind. Even though Navarro-Wolff was declared as the best mayor in Colombia (over Antanas Mockus) while he was Mayor of Pasto, due to his outstanding results, and even though he was declared as the best Governor in the country when he governed Nariño, for achieving equally impressive policy outcomes, a large number of people immediately discard him as a presidential option.
The reason is none other than he is a leftist. Again ideology is clear, the ideological paradox I know very well that because of his leftist ideals Navarro has been a successful governor and mayor, nevertheless, I act as if left-leaning individuals were incapable of governing is clearly at work in many of Navarro´s detractors, before he has even presented his presidential proposal, or even before it is certain that he will be running for the presidency.
The ideology of insanity is certainly a worrying phenomenon, despite its long lasting historic tradition in Colombia. Today, ignorance and the mass media uphold this ideology. Of course, there are also psychoanalytic factors in each ideologized individual that hunger for such ideology.
Most nations in the continent have surpassed their ideological limitations and have been able to elect leaders from new political and social sectors which have, in many cases, delivered wonderful results while improving the quality of life of their citizens. With the upcoming electoral year in 2014, there is no question that Colombia can only guarantee a better becoming by getting rid of its ideology of insanity. Optimism is scarce however, despite all the current upheaval and discontent, ideology is hardly ever defeated by facts.
Why uribistas still consider that Uribe is “El Gran Colombiano”: Deciphering uribista ideology for non-uribistas.
This column is dedicated to my fellow non-uribistas. My heart goes out to them. Any reasonable Colombian should by now have acknowledged and internalized that Alvaro Uribe was much less than a good president, in fact the most basic of analysis will prove how his administration was nothing short of disastrous for Colombia. A deeper analysis will probably send us to psychiatric therapy.
Being a political ally of terrorist groups, using his power within the State to commit crimes, fostering state policy against human rights activists, selling the country to the lowest bidder, and bribing to secure his re-election are just some of the things we should hold Uribe accountable for. If we also take into account that he destroyed relations with our neighbors, and that his big claim to fame, his security policy, wasn’t even that much of a success (if you don’t believe me read la Silla Vacia’s report on how kidnappings didn’t decrease at all during Uribe’s administration), the perplexity regarding his high popularity only increases.
The fact that we know this only makes it more astonishing, confusing and offensive when we hear the foolish, yet irritating news that Uribe was chosen as “El Gran Colombiano”. Apparently, this game is some sort of common-sense popularity contest supposed to establish who the greatest Colombian of all time was. Astonishing, confusing, and offensive….and yet, it is still a bit of laugh.
Of course, the reasonable non-uribista will have a much more difficult time when friends and family which he or she knows, loves, respects and/or admires, also declare themselves uribistas. Unlike, El Gran Colombiano, in this situation, we cannot dismiss this people as idiots or morally deficient, we know them; we know they are good, honest, friendly, hardworking, helpful, goodhearted people…..so why on Earth would they go along with this uribista nonsense?
Political philosopher Slavoj Zizek can truly be enlightening in this regard. He has become world famous by deciphering the thought of today’s right-wing thinking, and how it has become completely uninfluenced by reason and knowledge. It is all based on belief, and when I say belief I refer to what former US president George W. Bush’s administration’s referred to as a “gut feeling”; Remember the famous statement “All these things give me kind of a gut feeling, not that I have a specific threat that I have in mind right now, but we are entering a period of increased vulnerability”, made by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, regarding terrorism threats
Our starting point to understand more about this “gut feeling” will be an example given by Zizek himself. Consider the following affirmation “I know that there is not a small dragon in my room, yet I believe that there is”, or in other words, I have a “gut feeling” that there is a small dragon in my room. There is truly nothing illogical about this statement.
Very well, this small concept is crucial to understanding uribista proceedings. We can apply this example to many situations (but we should we leave that to uribistas). For example, I know that indigenous people are not inferior, but I have a “gut feeling” that they are. I know the poor do not deserve to be poor, but I have a “gut feeling” that they do. I know Uribe is up to his neck in paramilitary activity, bribery, and criminality, but I have a “gut feeling” that he is not a part of any of those things.
But there is more. We know that from a rational standpoint, Catholicism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive. Think of the catholic imperatives, “we are all children of god”, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”, “solidarity with thy fellow man”, etc. Now think of the capitalist imperatives of “my only responsibility is improving my lot”, “the poor are lazy losers and we hurt them by giving them State aid”, “we should not tax the rich”, etc. In spite of this evident contradiction between Catholicism and Capitalism, Uribe a fundamentalist Catholic Opus Dei member, is also the champion of capitalist neo-liberalism in Colombia. This is the same belief that allows certain United States Republican party members to be anti-Semite, pro-Israel Zionists.
So, if Uribe, (and me, and you and everybody) knows that Capitalism and Catholicism are mutually exclusive, non-compatible forms of thought, is he lying to us, deceiving us, playing us for fools when he politically stands before Colombians representing both? Not even in the smallest degree. Uribe might well know, that Capitalism and Catholicism are mutually exclusive, yet he certainly beliefs that they are not. This is the essence of uribista thought. Regardless of the facts at his or her disposal, an uribista’s “gut feeling” is all he or she truly knows.
To find out more about what uribistas know, remember Donald Rumsfeld’s famous justification for the US invasion of Iraq: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
So there are things that we know that we know (you know that Petro is mayor of Bogota, and you know that you know that Petro is the mayor of Bogota). There are things that we know we don’t know (You don’t know how many people are in living in the streets of Bogota, and you know that you don’t know how many people are living in the streets of Bogota). Finally, there are things that we don’t know that we don’t know (Saddam Hussein’s plan to use WMDs against the US, Piedad Cordoba’s secret plans to emigrate to North Korea and procreate a communist dynasty, Bayern Munich’s secret wish to fire Guardiola and hire Chiqui Garcia). Of course, these are all valid reasons to invade Iraq.
What Rumsfeld failed to note (what a surprise), and Zizek points out, is that there is one piece of the matrix missing. There are known, unknowns. Things that we know, but we don’t know that we know them. Is this not the very “gut feeling” itself?
Uribistas know that Uribe will never spend a single day in jail, but they don’t know that they know it. Uribistas know that Uribe does not make mistakes, but they don’t know that they know it. Uribistas know that Uribe does not lie, but they don’t know that they know it. Uribistas know that Uribe has a right to kill, bribe, etc. but they don’t know that they know this.
And this is why, it is crucial that Santos’ uribista government keep appearances. Yidis Medina is in jail for receiving bribes from Uribe’s men, but they are free (they had nothing to do with it). Uribe’s protégé and former DAS top man Jorge Noguera is in Jail for illegally wiretapping Uribe’s imagined enemies (but Uribe had nothing to do with it). There are convicted people for the disgraceful Angro Ingreso Seguro program, but according to Uribito they, (both Uribe and Uribito) had nothing to do with it.
Of course, they know that they had something to do with it, we know they had something to do with it, the courts know they had something to do with it………most of all Uribistas know that they had something to do with it. They all know that we all know, and yet, the denial goes on.
If you find this silly, you’re completely right (not right-wing of course). But this happens all the time. Again, Zizek provides an amazing example. Think of one Alfred Hitchhock’s movies, Vertigo, filmed at the beginning of the 20th Century. In one of the scenes in Vertigo, there is a woman in bed covered by some blankets. After you see the woman, the next scene shows women’s underwear hanging on a rope. History tells us that what spectators saw as women’s underwear in vertigo were actually cloth rags made to look like women’s underwear.
The reason for this was that a censorship committee forced the makers of Vertigo to use cloth rags instead of actual women’s underwear. Why would the censors do this? Using women’s underwear would make viewers think that the woman in the bed was naked. Of course, viewers would think this anyway, because the hanging cloth rags in fact looked exactly like women’s underwear, nudity was still implied. So who were the censors censoring for? Perhaps it is the same person for whom uribistas must demonstrate that Uribe is “El Gran Colombiano”.
–Grande Zizek
Colombia Politics had the valuable opportunity to discuss Colombian politics with a top European politician, Dr. Arjan Vliegenthart.
Dr Vliegenthart is a Senator in the Dutch first Chamber and Head of the Dutch Socialist Party Research Institute.
He agreed to talk to us, and give us his insight and opinion on multiple topics like the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia, the Colombian Peace Process, Tanja Nijmeijer, the value of tolerance towards left-wing thought in Colombian democracy, and what we identified as lesson drawing opportunities from the Netherlands. Here is what he had to say:
Liberal Party member Piedad Cordoba is Colombia’s most controversial politician. From receiving Nobel Peace Prize nominations to being suspended as congresswoman for “promoting and collaborating” with terrorists, Cordoba is an iconic figure for Colombians, regardless of their political views.
Despite being suspended from holding any post in the public sector, hardly a day goes by without Piedad Cordoba making headlines. She has made a political career advancing a progressive agenda, representing political views such as the struggle for the rights of ethnic minorities, political minorities, the resolution of Colombia’s armed conflict though dialogue, and gender equality.
48 year old Cordoba was born in Medellin. Her uncle was influential Partido Liberal representative Diego Luis Cardona, known for his contribution to the creation of Chocó Department, as a political and administrative entity. Cordoba is a lawyer from Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana in Medellin, with a specialization in Public Opinion and Marketing from Universidad Javeriana in Bogota.
Her first steps in the Public Sector were taken at the Medellin city government in 1984. There, she developed close political ties to brilliant Antioquia politician William Jaramillo (who amongst many other things invented the CAI police stations). By 1988, Cordoba felt confident enough to enter the electoral race in Medellin, and thus, obtained her first electoral success becoming Edil. Her successful performance allowed her to be elected into more influential offices, first being Medellin councilwoman in 1989, and then securing office at the Antioquia Departmental Assembly.
Further success and acceptance by Colombian citizens, motivated Piedad Cordoba to run for representative in the 1991 congressional election, she made it to Congress, obtaining 22.000 votes. In the Chamber of Representatives, Cordoba sought to advance her political convictions, proposing progressive legislation such as the negritudes (Colombians with African ancestry) law and the beverage industry tax law. Her first political clashes would also occur during this period, the Colombian liberal party divided in two factions, one representing political liberal ideas (which Cordoba is a part of), and another faction representing economic liberalism. Both claim to be the “true liberals”.
During her time as representative, Cordoba gained recognition for defending the rights of Colombia’s excluded minorities, as well as the rights of the poor. Due to this recognition, Colombians elected her for four consecutive terms (1998-2010) to the Senate. There, she was the author of multiple laws which sought to improve the lives of Colombia’s most vulnerable, such as, a tax to finance the “neighborhood moms” program, the creation of a national gender equality institution, a law which increased the finances for public education and healthcare, and the protection of family houses as an inalienable right.
However, Cordoba’s political stances also make her a threat for Colombia’s status quo, and thus, extreme right-wing politicians and criminals soon began to persecute her. In 1999 she was kidnapped by Carlos Castaño, the now deceased paramilitary Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) leader. Her captivity lasted over a month; afterwards she was released and posteriorly fled to Canada. So far only José Miguel Narváez, former director of DAS has been accused for the kidnapping, however there has been no verdict regarding his involvement.
Piedad Cordoba’s time away from Colombian politics lasted several months. Upon her arrival to Colombia another two unsuccessful attempts on life were carried out. In 2006 one of her closest advisors, Jaime Gomez, died in strange circumstance. Cordoba’s declared and unalterable support for a negotiated solution to Colombia’s armed conflict had made her an enemy of paramilitary groups, and of former president Alvaro Uribe.
In 2007 Cordoba claimed that Uribe was a paramilitary. Since then, Cordoba’s combative attitude towards the Uribe administration, and the Colombian State, has made her a castaway in the eyes of the government, mass media, and many Colombians.
Furthermore, Cordoba’s conviction of negotiated peace has made her attitude towards the FARC, much more lenient than that of most Colombians. She does not hide the fact that she has met with them to talk about releasing hostages, and does not treat them with verbal belligerence. This has helped to gain the FARC’s trust, and has facilitated negotiations.
Additionally, Piedad Cordoba outspokenly supported and befriended former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. She met with him many times, and showed constant support for his Bolivarian Revolution. This also generated resentment amongst influential conservative sectors of the Colombian establishment, and many citizens.
The shared trust with the FARC and her closeness to Hugo Chavez was enough for Cordoba to be appointed by Alvaro Uribe to integrate a humanitarian exchange commission (alongside Chavez and the Red Cross) in order to exchange prisoners between the Colombian State and FARC in 2007. However, the bilateral context of excessive presidentialism, and mutual lack of trust would spur a diplomatic crisis between Colombia and Venezuela, and the initiative was thwarted. Despite the bilateral crisis, Cordoba’s work helped the liberation of 6 hostages between December 2007 and January 2008. By 2013, that figure has risen to 14, something which arguably makes Piedad Cordoba the most authoritative voice on the hostage liberations.
As a result of this humanitarian activity, Cordoba’s image catapulted. In 2012 she was named by Foreign Policy as the most influential ibero-american intellectual. She was also nominated for the Prince of Asturias Awards in 2008, and the Noble Peace Prize in 2009.
Despite international recognition, things have been much more difficult at home. Alvaro Uribe – and other right-wing politicians’ – fierce opposition to Cordoba’s ideas and actions has led to many attempts to challenge Cordoba’s reputation. First, by connecting Cordoba to FARC through the computer found in top FARC guerrilla Raul Reyes’ camp after it was bombed in 2008.
These clashes have led Cordoba to look for alternative channels to promote her policy ideals and political stances. In 2008, she became a part of the NGO Colombianas y Colombianos por la Paz. While working for this NGO, she has promoted a negotiated peace to end Colombia’s armed conflict, and she has helped to liberate hostages.
In 2010 Cordoba was suspended from Senatorial office and form any public function for 18 years, by Inspector General Alejando Ordóñez. Ordóñez claimed Cordoba “promotes and collaborates” with FARC based on Raul Reyes’ computer files. Many argue there is no real legal evidence to back up Ordóñez’s claims, while others argue strongly that Cordoba is a form of spokesman for the guerrilla group. As in much of Colombian politics, getting to the truth can be a challenge.
Despite Piedad Cordoba alienation from the Senate, she has managed to remain an influential political figure.
Further controversy has ensued, Piedad Cordoba was legally declared as a victim of illegal wiretapping by the Colombian Secret police, carried out during the Uribe administration – the famous “chuzadas” scandal.
Meanwhile the Ordóñez has opened another case against Cordoba for ties with FARC, however as yet, there has been no final pronouncement regarding the issue.
In 2012, she went to the courts in order to try to remove Liberal Party Leader Simon Gaviria, reviving the internal clash between political liberals (Ernesto Samper, Horacio Serpa, Piedad Cordoba) and economic Liberals (Cesar Gaviria, Simon Gaviria).
Cordoba’s latest political actions have been carried out as a member of the Marcha Patriotica movement. This movement is committed to the Colombian peace process and was an active promoter and participant of the march for peace in April of 2013. This political movement has declared its intention of becoming a political party, perhaps for the elections of 2014. Just as with Cordoba herself, the Marcha Patriotica has attracted controversy with the defense minister claiming the movement is funded by the FARC.
Cordoba´s true intentions with the Marcha Patriotica are difficult to predict, and will partly depend on the outcome of the peace process in Havana. What is certain is that like her or not, Piedad Cordoba is here to stay, and here to present her alternative vision for Colombia. Will she run for president in the future? Quite possibly.
Photo, El Espectador
Medellin born Sergio Fajardo is one of Colombia’s most recognized and acclaimed independently minded politicians. His rising political career, which includes holding mayoral office in Medellin, a vice presidential candidacy for national government, and a current tenure as Governor of Antioquia, make Fajardo an optioned presidential hopeful in the short and medium term. His successful governance outcomes have motivated the Colombian Green Party’s attempt to position Fajardo as their presidential candidate for the 2014 presidential election.
Fajardo’s career began far away from politics. Before going into public affairs, Fajardo was an academic; he obtained a Ph.D in Mathematics from University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1984, and a BSc from Universidad de los Andes in 1977. After concluding his studies, Fajardo proved to be an able teacher, researcher and scientist. This led him to occupy posts such as The National Council of Basic Sciences and the National Comission of Masters and Doctorates.
His transition from academia to politics was not sudden or unexepected. Sporadically, Fajardo began to make a name for himself in public life, fist publishing occasional opinion articles, then participating in different social fora. In 1995, Fajardo was asked to be a member of the Comisión Facilitadora de Paz de Antioquia, alongside Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias, as well as other recognized figures.
After gaining political visibility, Fajardo went on to create the, today extinct, Compromiso Ciudadano movement, alongside influential artists, thinkers, and businessmen including current Medellin mayor Alonso Salazar. Under the banner of independent and clean politics, Fajardo managed to secure an unexpected third place in the Medellin mayoral race of 2000. This largely unpredicted result, gave Fajardo enough confidence and political capital to become a serious contender in Colombian politics. True to his independent, anti-ideological style, Fajardo rejected the invitation to become a part of the Frente Social Amplio left-oriented movement.
In 2003 Fajardo, once again, attempted to become Mayor of Medellin, representing the Alianza Social Indigena movement. He secured an overwhelming victory with 210.000 votes, thus becoming Medellin mayor from 2004 until 2007. His time in office is well remembered for his successful performance.
While in office, Fajardo managed to transform the city of Medellin, as well as, public administration in Medellin. Responsible public spending, record numbers in social investment, a pronounced decrease in crime, and social inclusion policies made Fajardo the recipient of many national and international prizes of good governance, and successful public administration. Furthermore, Fajardo managed to renovate the reputation and performance of the public sector in the city of Medellin.
After his successful term as mayor, Fajardo decided in 2008 to try to run for the presidency of Colombia, with the aim of winning the 2010 election. In a time of intense political polarization and continuous government scandal, Fajardo opted to position his movement as entirely independent. Claiming to be neither left, nor right, not uribista, and not anti-uribista, Fajardo joined the short-lived “quintuplets” movement (alongside Antanas Mockus, Enrique Peñalosa, Marta Lucía Ramírez, and Luis Eduardo Garzón). He left after his demand to be their presidential candidate was denied.
Fajardo carried on in his presidential attempt however, visiting the different regions of Colombia and campaigning in the streets with a face-to-face approach towards the people. He also led a movement of candidates for the senate, which failed to secure any congressional seat. After this defeat, Fajardo accepted an invitation from the Green Party to be fellow scientist Antanas Mockus’ running mate for the 2010 presidential election.
Alas, Fajardo once again suffered defeat, as Mockus came second in the election of 2010. This did not stop Fajardo from seeking political office, thus, as a member of the Green Party, he became Governor of Antioquia in 2011, promising to replicate the successful policies he implemented in Medellin. As the Governor of Antioquia, amongst other things, Fajardo has published a public administration report titled “The White Book”. This report has helped to increase transparency and show the high levels of corruption and negligent management of the previous administrations.
An ever ready and ever optioned presidential candidate, electorate favorite German Vargas Lleras might very well represent Colombia’s political future. The principle cause being, that German Vargas Lleras is a politician who embodies Colombia’s political past. He embodies that certain archetype of Colombia politician, who’s born into a family with political power, changes parties according to political convenience, fiercely opposes former political allies when necessary, and is not overly concerned about sharing party ranks with members of Colombia’s illegal armed groups.
Vargas Lleras has promoted and led movements whose names evoke change, like Nuevo Liberalismo (New Liberalism) and Cambio Radical (Radical Change),and yet, he has always managed to become an active member of traditional officialism.
As the grandson of former president Carlos Lleras Restrepo, Vargas Lleras was born into political power. He holds a lawyer’s degree from traditional Universidad del Rosario as well as a master’s Degree in Government and Public Administration obtained at Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Vargas Lleras’ career as a politician began at a very young age, not yet surpassing his late teens. Following his grandfather’s footsteps, Vargas Lleras joined the ranks of the Liberal Party. At first, he was part of the dissident branch named Nuevo Liberalismo headed by Luis Carlos Galan. Galan appointed Vargas Lleras to coordinate his campaign, and also to coordinate political support in Los Martires sector of Bogota.
In 1988, Vargas Lleras was voted councilman for the Bojaya City Council. A year later, while giving a speech during his presidential campaign, Luis Carlos Galan was assassinated. Galan’s death led to the dissolution of Nuevo Liberalismo, and thus, Vargas Lleras decided to return to his grandfather’s Liberal Party. Time would later show that Galan’s magnicide was planned by then Liberal Party Senator Alberto Santofimio, in coordination with another (by then former) Liberal Party Senator, Pablo Escobar.
As a member of the Liberal Party, Vargas Lleras was elected to the Bogota City Council, occupying the post of councilman from 1990 to 1994. During his time there, Vargas Lleras became its president, in 2011, he received a decoration from that institution recognizing his political career.
After his second term as councilman, Vargas Lleras successfully made the leap to the senate. He would be elected another three consecutive terms, holding senatorial office from 1994 until 2006. During his first years in the Colombian Senate, Vargas Lleras became known for his ardent opposition to Conservative President Andres Pastrana’s peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
The Liberal Party’s favorable stance regarding the peace talks resulted in a party change for Vargas Lleras. And thus, the Colombia Siempre movement was born. Vargas Lleras secured another term in the senate running for Colombia Siempre. At the same time, he supported another Liberal Party dissident’s campaign, that of former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The fierce opposition to Pastrana’s peace talks with FARC created the Vargas Lleras-Uribe political alliance for the 2002 congressional and presidential elections.
These eventful times also witnessed the first of two assassination attempts made on Vargas Lleras, presumably by the National Liberation Army (ELN). In 2003, Vargas Lleras became President of the Senate as the Colombia Siempre movement became a part of Radical Change Party. Soon after, Vargas Lleras also became the President of Radical Change.
After securing these important posts, the now hugely influential Uribista figure suffered a second assassination attempt in 2005, this time presumably, orchestrated by Colombian secret police state forces. During this period of his stay in the senate, Vargas Lleras supported Alvaro Uribe’s presidential reelection, his call for constitutional reform and his presidential campaign, despite evidence of corruption and paramilitary infiltration in officialist U Party. In terms of public policy, Radical Change supported officialism, as a member of Alvaro Uribe’s governing coalition.
Scandal maculated Vargas Lleras in 2006 as a result of the so called “parapolitics” congressional disgrace. Forty percent of the congressmen belonging to Vargas Lleras’ Radical Change party were suspended for alleged ties (many later proven true) with terrorist organizations. As the head of Radical Change, Vargas Lleras stood accountable for the party’s political actions.
Two years later, Vargas Lleras once again made big headlines by withdrawing support from former President Uribe’s attempt at a second constitutional reform, which would give legal base to his second reelection. Instead of supporting Uribe, Vargas Lleras left the Senate, and announced his candidacy for presidential office.
And thus, Vargas Lleras paradoxically ended up running against former political ally, and political heir to Uribe, Juan Manuel Santos (amongst other candidates) in the 2010 Colombian Presidential election. Vargas Lleras’ attempt at the presidency was quite ill-fated, securing just 10% of the votes. Yet his political career was not over yet, former election rival (now president) Juan Manuel Santos, appointed Vargas Lleras as his Interior and Justice Minister, and thus, Radical Change returned to officialism.
Shortly after, Vargas Lleras was named Housing Minister, were he has promised to deliver 100.000 houses for the poor. Regardless of the many scandals around him (perhaps even because of them), Vargas Lleras remains a political figure with ample support, holding a considerable chance of one day becoming Colombia’s Head of State.
Promissory winds seem to befall Colombia’s, long overdue, search for peace. Yet again, Colombia’s government, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have found themselves sitting in the negotiating table. This time, the outcome actually looks promising.
Have Colombians become less violent? Have social indicators improved? Has corruption decreased? Has land reform actually been implemented? The answer is probably quite the opposite. And yet, the soil set out for peace appears more fertile nowadays, the simple answer being that war has stopped being lucrative for a large section of Colombia’s economic elite.
With decreased Plan Colombia assistance during the Obama years, and military expenditure accounting for half of the total governmental expenditure in Colombia, the Uribe war-economy model has become unsustainable. Santos’ bet for a first sector extraction economy based on foreign investment will have the final green light with the FARC, voluntarily, out of the way. This makes peace a necessity, or at least an insurmountable opportunity for Santos, to clinch re-election in 2014 and thus to keep his Unidad Nacional political clientele happy.
The equation is not solved yet however, for some stand to lose from peace. For now former president Alvaro Uribe, and wealthy landowners have already expressed their opposition to the peace process. Uribe is bound to suffer at least politically from successful peace talks and a de-mobilized FARC. Alas, his whole political platform is based on fighting that armed group, and Colombians have forgiven what has been described by experts as the “gradual africanization of the country” just to see the end of the armed rebels. Without FARC, what’s left for Uribe?
Landowners have also expressed their fears regarding the peace negotiations. The alarms of agrarian reform have already set this minoritarian, yet powerful, population group on the alert. Their opposition is bound to be fierce, and, based on previous experience, sectarian. Just some years ago, Colombian land owners repudiated the long standing preferential trade scheme, where Venezuela’s government handed them a de facto monopoly over meat and dairy imports. The reason being, their dislike for leftist Hugo Chavez.
Can Santos and his allies’ economic interests triumph over Uribe and company’s, in order to have a peace agreement? For now it seems highly probable. Santos has powerful economic allies, the traditional (and highly corrupt) political machinery in his pocket as well as the media on his side. Still, Uribe, an arduous fighter, will make an attempt to sabotage the peace agreement by running in the senatorial race for the, unaptly named, Puro Centro Democratico movement.
Meanwhile, the non-traditional political sectors, and the left (who by the next congressional and presidential elections might include former FARC members) have been openly supporting the peace talks. Former Bogota mayor Antanas Mockus even offered “1,000 hours of labor” to act an as advisor for the peace process. The actual chances which these sectors stand for the upcoming elections are quite unclear, however. When these sectors have actually reached political office in Colombia, it is usually on account of conjunctural electoral phenomena.
Now then, will a successful peace agreement guarantee peace itself and happy times? Not a chance, but it is certainly a necessary step in the right direction. It would seem that this time the stars are aligned for successful resolution, and that the potential threat can only become an actual threat by surging from that quintessential flaw of Democracy: Colombian’s bad decisions at the voting polls.