Columbia’s Test to Democracy and the West

Following the aching defeat of Colombia’s peace referendum, Juan Manuel Santos, President of Colombia, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday Oct. 7, “for his resolute efforts to bring the country’s more than 50-year-long civil war to an end.”

Founded in 1964, FARC, a Stalinist rural army, is the modern culmination of Colombia’s legacy of economic inequality and instability. The conflict has claimed 220,000 lives and displaced millions, utilizing extortion and radicalizing youth. Fueled by the cocaine trade, it is believed to be one of the richest rebel movements in the world. The opposition, spearheaded by ex-president Álvaro Uribe, believes the measures of the peace deal are too lenient, allowing murderers, criminals and drug cartels to infiltrate the government and threaten national security and social stability. As one opponent of the deal told The New York Times, “let them be punished by serving jail terms, sir. And don’t give them any money. I wake up at 4 a.m. every morning in order to earn 689,000 pesos (about 200 dollars) and they were being paid for doing nothing, for committing crimes, because they’re not going to give up vice just like that.”In the latest chapter of a blood soaked political narrative, Colombia shocked the world by voting “no” to a peace deal with the FARC (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) that established a permanent ceasefire and negotiations to neutralize radical groups. The deal also offered judicial leniency and some economic cushioning for FARC members to cut drug trafficking. The plan is a diplomatic trailblazer, finely constructed to emphasize unity and peace, pledged to reinvigorate a neutral, non-polar political discourse and set the foundations for a new national identity.

Ironically, the most distrust was harboured by those least affected. The New York Times quotes The Colombian news website, La Silla Vacia, citing the Foundation for Peace and Reconciliation report “that in 67 of the 81 municipalities most affected by the conflict, Yes, was the winner.” Geographically speaking the bulk of “No” voters are collected in the center of the country in urban centers not as affected by the FARC conflict. El Tiempo, a Colombian newspaper, reports that 50.2 percent of people voted “No” and 49.7 percent voted “Yes,” mirroring Brexit in terms of margin and polarization. The FARC, born out of the period of censorship and military leadership and clenching of conservative power following Colombia’s civil war represent a stagnant, defective political arena. One founded in fragmentation, turmoil and ideological factions forming a part of both Colombian legacy and founding a popular struggle. Urban opposition groups, prompted by the ex-president’s philosophies, are believed to have been swayed by the perception that the peace deal is a step toward “Castro-Chavismo,” referring to systematic communist takeover.

This is a powerful fear for citizens seeking economic freedom and success as well as democratic process. Despite this, El Tiempo also notes that only 37.4 percent, 20 million people, voted. Why? Is there a lack of democratic faith, a failure to commit to a vehicle designed to bring peace and social restoration? Headed by a leader in the UN spotlight, commended for orchestrating solutions most in touch with diplomatic values, who fails to convince his own people of the pact’s own political efficacy? Fear can’t entirely explain the failure to vote as populous urban centers, with the smallest FARC presence, must represent a significant number of those who didn’t vote. Why is the Western world more convinced than the Colombian citizens themselves? The New York Times ran an article crediting this as “Proof that (Colombian) Democracy Doesn’t Work,” and lamenting the South American country’s newest defeat of good conscience. The situation in Colombia should act as a universal wakeup call, to reexamine the validity of democracy as a peace quantifier and subsequent cruelty of macroeconomic condemnation by world powers.