As a result of these developments the violence began to get out of control both parties decided to try to end the conflict. “At this point General Gustavo Pinilla was chosen by liberal and conservative party politicians to lead a coup d’etat”( Pearce 1990: 48)
This then lead to the emergence of the military government that lasted between 1954-1957. It was during this period that the national front government was introduced.
The national front was a formal agreement between the two parties. “The liberal and conservative agreed to alternate the presidency every four years and to divide equally the seats in all legislative bodies (congress, regional assemblies and municipal councils”( Pearce 2003: 69).
At this point democracy was under control because as a result of the national front government it guaranteed no third party challenge. Although, the national front government managed to end the la violencia a new kind of threat posed problems for a peaceful democracy in Colombia. The violence escalated into different dimensions through the emergence of banditry in wide areas of the country.
The bandits of this second phase of violence were peasants who had been called guerrillas in its first phase but who lost their political legitimacy in the new era. “These guerrillas had either not accepted the amnesty offered by Rojas, or had not done so and found themselves still under attack by the army ”(Pearce 1990: )
Since it’s independence in the year 1810, Colombia has gone through 11 constitutions civil wars, and conflicts with the military. “Colombia had a weak state even before the emergence of the guerrilla groups, drug dealers, and paramilitary squads that would weaken it further” (Kline 1999:5). Because of the weakness of the State, citizens began taking justice into their own hands. It is now clear that violence in Colombia is not new, but it has taken on new forms.
The Colombian military can be seen as one which has the least politically involved armed forces in Latin America. military leadership has only been possible when Rojas Pinilla was involved in the only single coup d,etat against a civilian government which brought about his presidency in 1953 . Colombia has managed to maintain a civilian-led government.
Colombia's armed forces have often supported the civilian political leadership through the maintenance of public order and internal security. Military support for the ruling civilian political elite with whom the officer corps often has agreed on political issues was considered important for Colombia’s continuing stability.
“The military considered itself a supporter of the Constitution, the relative ideological compatibility of the military and civilian leadership influenced the military's support for the government. Given this compatibility, respect for the president's constitutional authority remained sufficient to permit the chief executive to pursue his policy goals”(Robert,H. Dix 1967:pg 301).
At the same time, some human rights organizations made allegations based on the fact that military personnel were participating in right-wing death squads and were actively involved in torture and disappearances of leftist political opponents. The Colombian armed forces have traditionally had a poor human rights record. The number of direct human rights complaints against Colombian military personnel has dropped slightly in recent years, and the Government of Colombia has adopted a policy of combating right wing paramilitary groups. Yet there continues to be evidence that, at a minimum, mid-level Colombian officers do often continue to look the other way in the face of paramilitary activities.
Most paramilitary and self-defence groups formed because “the government still does not guarantee life, honour, and property in rural areas of Colombia.” (Kline 1999:152). However, their recent activities have been strongly condemned by the international community, and they have been increasingly viewed as not much different from guerrillas. “Many of these groups, some of which originated as officially sanctioned self-defence groups, have become private armies for drug barons or landowners who, with assistance on occasions from British ,Israeli and German mercenaries, established training camps”(CIIR 1992:20) .
The paramilitaries can be said to have worse human right records than the actually military. It is believed that they have been responsible for most of the violations committed in Colombia, especially against the countries civilian population
According to the Centre for International Policy in Washington, “The paramilitaries are responsible for about 75 percent of all politically motivated killings and the vast majority of forced displacements in Colombia”
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0008/organization.profiles/auc.html )
It is evident that the paramilitary groups in Colombia may pose a central threat to democracy and progress . Over the past half century, paramilitary groups have targeted their attacks on civilians who promote political reform and public participation in Colombian politics and on those institutions trying to encourage democracy, transparency, and human rights.
The presence of guerrilla organisations has had adverse effect on a legitimate democracy in Colombia
During the 1960s, an important guerrilla emerged. The FARC was primarily a group of peasants from the coffee-growing parts of Colombia who were protesting to force land reform on behalf of poor people. Under the leadership of Manuel Marulanda, the FARC began to fight back using violence throughout the country. The appearance of other guerrilla groups such as the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Popular Liberation Army (EPL) followed this action. Collectively, these peasant guerrilla groups issued an agrarian (land) reform program to create fairness in distribution of land away from the elite. This plan was met with great political and military resistance from the government that was being pressured by wealthy Colombians and outside corporate group by the name of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) began to interests to defeat land reform. “The rise of paramilitary in the 1990’s simply confirmed their view that the elite were not to be trusted and strengthened the position of military hardliners within the guerrillas”(Pearce 2003: 48). This set the stage for the current conflict which is causing problems for democracy in Colombia. This has lead to a number of human rights violations which has left the country unstable for long period of time. “The main source of income for these insurgents may come from kidnapping and drug trade. Some times the guerrillas kidnap politicians or diplomats for propaganda purposes, but in the vast majority of cases the motives is purely monetary”(Pearce 2003: 48). This was seen to be the second- largest source of income for the guerrillas.
The guerrilla groups began to receive funds from drug cartels, which provided the movement with arms and money. In exchange for the support, the guerrillas movement would cease hostilities against the drug cartels and protects facilities for the production and commerce of drugs and giving assistance to mobilise the transport of drugs. It is also generally believed that some subgroups of FARC actually produced and sold drugs. As result of these developments, it led to loss of support for their involvement with the drug trade and paid no attention to the civilian population. Colombia’s failure to maintain a stable democracy may be seen as a product of political exclusion and socio-economic injustice which, may as result created the hatred for it government by the guerrillas. The emergence of guerrillas movements has changed the face of how the democracy is portrayed in Colombia. This may be classed as one of the problem why democracy fails to be legitimate in this country because there are constant battles between the government and these peasant groups.
The trade of illegal drugs most importantly, is one of the major threats that has fuelled the breakdown of public order in Colombia. The drug cartels are responsible for corrupting national, political, economic systems and degradation of society.
These cartels have managed to infiltrate themselves into different spheres of society in Colombia comprising peasants, chemists, various kind of suppliers, buyers and sellers, pilots, lawyers, financial and tax advisers(banks), enforcers, bodyguards and smugglers who help to launder profits. “From city councilmen in the smallest pueblos right through the national campaigns of congressmen as well as presidential candidates. Time magazine recently quoted a figure of perhaps a million dollar as the amount two major drug dealers pumped into both traditional parties, conservative and liberal, in the 1982 presidential campaign”(Pacini and Franquemont 1985:94). This explain the immunity that the cartels have over policy which may indirectly hinder legitimacy in achieving a democratic political environment in Colombia.
Steps had been taking to combat the war on drugs in Colombia. Plan Colombia was heralded as the most ambitious campaign against drug trafficking in history. The Plan was been presented by the Colombian government as a means to enable the peace process.
“it was said to be the biggest US aid package to any country outside the Middle east, which has seen almost $3billion poured into largely military resources over the past five years”(The Observer, Sunday 9th January 2005). Plan Colombia was based on a drug-focused analysis of the roots of the conflict in Colombia, which completely ignores the role of the Colombian government and land inequality in leading to the conflict. The Plans aim was to bring peace to Colombia by stamping out the drug trade when, in fact, many believe that the real roots of the conflict are hunger, poverty, and landlessness. “Plan Colombia has already harmed the health of thousands of humans and animals and may cause irreparable damage to the Amazon rainforest, not only in Colombia, but in neighbouring Ecuador, Peru and brazil”( Livingstone 2003: 147).
Plan Colombia military aid is mainly directed towards the united states war on drugs rather than on Colombia’s problems. This maybe seen as bit of a problem for democracy in Colombia because the aid is not being spread around the civilian population. Instead, it was given to military and paramilitary forces who were the major groups responsible for human rights abuses and also have part to in drugs trafficking. It is clear that Colombia’s problems have been mainly aggravated by drugs, which has lead to countries atmosphere of extreme violence and lawlessness. But reforming Colombia democratic state will entail dealing with other root problems from its history such as: public insecurity, lack of economic confidence and political cynicism. “A regime is not a liberal democracy unless there are institutions—laws, courts, and police—capable of finding where rights have been violated and putting a stop to their violation. In a liberal democracy one who contemplates violating the law must know in advance that if push comes to shove his efforts must fail because public opinion will not stand for it” (Quoted in Kline 1999:3).
This essay has aimed to analyse the obstacles to the consolidation of democracy in Colombia. It has evaluated the different situation which have put Colombia in current situations. The violation of human rights by military, paramilitary and the guerrilla organisations causing the destabilised society waged with fear. The nature of politics of violence between the two tradition parties which have caused resurfacing of civil wars. The influence of drug cartels. The war on drugs and it effects for civilian population.
For Colombians, political reforms is can be the only potential for change in the foreseeable future. But the basic concerns rests on the wars and the desire for peaceful negotiation, eradication of poverty, human rights violations and the desire to see the state and paramilitary under control.
2237 words
Bibliography
Catholic Institute for International Relations (1992) Colombia: image and reality Russell Press Ltd, United Kingdom.
Dix, R,H (1967) Colombia: the political dimensions of change Yale university press, New Haven.
Harding, C (1996) In Focus Colombia: a guide to people, politics and culture South Sea International Press, London.
Kline, F(1999)State Building and Conflict Resolution in Colombia, 1986-1994 The University of Alabama Press, Alabama. Press, London
Kline, H,F.(1999) Colombia: Building Democracy Midst of Violence and Drugs The John Hopkins University, Baltimore
Livingstone,G.(2003) Inside Colombia: drugs, democracy and war Latin America Bureau, London.
Pacini,D.and Franquemont,C.(1985) Coca and Cocaine: Effects on People and Policy in Latin America Cultural Survival Inc and LASP, New Hampshire.
Pearce, J.(1990) Colombia: inside the Labyrinth Latin America Bureau, London.
The Observer, (Sunday 9th January 2005).The White Stuff
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0008/organization.profiles/auc.html
.
.
