Review: The Failure of Colombia's "Democratic Security"
The article titled “The Failure of Colombia’s 'Democratic Security'”, written by Heather Hanson and Rogers Romero Penna, deals with the current policies that the Colombian Government is implementing in order to achieve peace in Colombia. It analyses the consequences that, in the authors’ view, “Democratic Security” policies have had on the Colombian population from 2000 until now. What “Democratic Security” means is basically a strategy drawn by president Alvaro Uribe that resembles those principles associated with the US-lead “War on Terror” , namely a strategy of frontal war against all illegal armed groups in Colombia, giving official “terrorist group” status to all of them (FARC, ELN and Paramilitaries alike).
The main argument in this article is that “Democratic Security” policies of the current government have been a failure. They have only served as a mean to undermine Civil Rights in Colombia, and as a consequence have increased the armed confrontation between the parties involved (especially between FARC Guerrillas and the Government). The authors claim that this scenario has left Colombians even more insecure than ever before and they draw the conclusion that ironically what has been called “Democratic Security” has actually brought more insecurity and has undermined democracy in this country, because of constant human rights violations by the Uribe administration and the implementation of legal reforms to Colombian law that inhibits the rights of the population.
The argument presented might be accurate enough, but what if Colombians never have had any rights at all in the first place? What I want to point out is that even though Colombia has one of the most comprehensive written constitutions in terms of protection of civil and human rights since the 1991 constitutional reform (it entails a number of Chapters exclusively dedicated to this matter, put together in Titles I and II of the oficcial document) , that constitution is only is a somewhat worthless piece of paper that exists in theory but is hardly ever implemented in practice, even before the current government took office. What I want to critique in this paper is not the attack on the “Democratic Security” policies of Mr. Uribe as such (those critiques made by the authors are completely justified in my opinion), but rather dispute a premise taken for granted by the authors while writing this article. The premise that there are indeed rights to be defended in Colombia. But if Colombians have never really enjoyed of rights protection by the government in the first place, then there is no need to worry about rights violations, because the governments in Colombia have consistently failed at completing this fundamental task. What would be the purpose of having such an extensive account on rights protection written down in the constitution of the country, if the government is unable to guarantee the implementation of those rights throughout the territory?
On another note, in terms of the violation of freedoms presented by the authors in the article, a very strong argument is made in this respect and I agree with it for the most part. They provide enough evidence to support their claims. For example, the claim that under the current government civil liberties have been reduced for the Colombian population in backed by numbers that show that “over the first year of Uribe’s government, (…) the government made 4362 arbitrary detentions”, or has passed bills that “allow the military to detain people for up to 36 hours, search homes and intercept communications without warrants or other judicial orders.”
Another point worth noting is that even though the implementation of Mr. Uribe’s “Democratic Security” has been portrayed as a success over the illegal armed groups, the number of kidnappings and forced displacement of the population continues to be very high. For example, “kidnappings continue at a rate of roughly 2,000 per year, and from January 2003 to June 2004, at least 337,953 people were forcibly displaced” . These examples clearly show that things are not as positive as the government often portrays them to be, and that the approach taken by the Uribe administration has done nothing more than limiting the freedoms of the civil society.
On another note, the authors criticize Uribe’s softer policies towards paramilitary groups, granting them favorable laws (I.e Ley De Justicia y Paz) that would enable them to pay as less as five to ten years of prison for reparation of crimes against humanity in the event of a successful peace negotiation, while on the other hand he goes on frontal war against the guerrillas. They criticize this particular approach by the government, because they see an inconsistency in calling FARC, ELN and AUC “terrorist groups” alike, but then handling the individual actors of the conflict on different terms, arguing a bias of the current administration towards favoring one part (AUC) and neglecting the other (FARC) . This critique made in the article is debatable, because the government is dealing with two radically opposing political views that are exemplified by AUC and FARC. If the government shows sympathy with one side, the other side is going to radically differ on those terms and will not be willing to negotiate with a government that is granting benefits to their ideological counterpart. It must not be forgotten that we are dealing with far right-wing vs. far left-wing representatives. Uribe’s administration cannot be blamed for this eventuality where we see a peace dialogue with AUC and war confrontation with FARC, because plainly put, peace negotiations with one part is automatically going to freeze the relationships with the other part.
Analyzing the concept of the “Ley de Justicia y Paz” further, even though it is legitimately subject for hard criticism as it is done in this article, I can also understand why such legislation granting benefits and guarantees to paramilitaries in order for them to incorporate themselves into civil, legal society is justified. It may be a necessary price to pay, to forgive and forget all past violence done by these groups, in order to start thinking about a future in peace. But to what extent is impunity over crimes against humanity justified? I do not know where to draw the line, but there are certainly some spheres within the public opinion in Colombia that are defiantly in favor of granting such guarantees to the paramilitary groups for successful peace negotiations, while others oppose to this position entirely.
To conclude this work, I will only say the following. Uribe’s administration has been passing bills limiting civil rights of citizens, all in the name of national security. The authors of the article say that this approach of “Democratic Security” taken by the government is wrong, because it leaves the Colombian people unprotected against treats and violations to privacy and freedoms from the very own government. But what rights and freedoms were there in the first place? I say none, because the governments throughout Colombian history have been unable to secure and guarantee the implementation of those rights to the people, especially in the rural areas. Even though the rights of the Colombian people are neatly written in the Constitution, they have hardly ever served a practical purpose and as such could not possibly be violated more than they have already have.
Reference:
Hanson, H. & Romero Penna, R. (2005). The Failure of Colombia’s “Democratic Security”. NACLA Report on the Americas, 38:6, 22-24.
Presidencia de la República de Colombia (1991). Constitución Política de Colombia. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.presidencia.gov.co/constitu/titulo1.htm
Presidencia de la República de Colombia (1991). Constitución Política de Colombia. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.presidencia.gov.co/constitu/titulo2.htm
last301
Read More......
