Paramilitarism and Colombia's Low-Intensity Democracy

Abstract

In the late 1980s and early 1990s political liberalisation, including the reduction of the military's institutional prerogatives, occurred in Colombia despite the increasing strength of an internal insurgency. Why would Colombia's national political elite weaken the institutional role of the armed forces in the context of an escalating internal war? What was the role of paramilitary groups, which were responsible for the vast majority of massacres and political violence against suspected unarmed civilians, during the 1990s? This paper argues that the elite civilian politicians who dominated the Colombian state promoted formal institutional changes, but tolerated paramilitary repression in order to counteract a strengthening guerrilla insurgency. These civilian leaders represented a modernising elite focused upon co-opting political opposition and establishing neoliberal economic reforms, thus constructing a Low-Intensity Democracy.

Islamic Militias and Capitalist Development in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia

“…These include: Indonesia (Wilson 2015;Sidel 2004);Thailand (Prajak 2016;Sidel 2004); the Philippines (Sidel 1997(Sidel , 2004; Myanmar (van Klinken and Su Mon Thazin Aung 2017); Russia (Volkov 1999); and Colombia (Aviles 2006). This means that even though non-state actors do exercise violence, the state does not penalise them and may endorse and back their actions.…”

“…Colombia, for instance, shows that the involvement of politico-business alliances in capital accumulation facilitated the emergence and persistence of civilian militias from the Cold War era. In Columbia, militias were used to mobilise public support in suppressing political opposition (see Aviles 2006Aviles , 2008Cake 2009). This was not because the Colombian government was unable to provide protection for its citizenry through formal institutions.…”

“…This was not because the Colombian government was unable to provide protection for its citizenry through formal institutions. Rather, militias became an integral part of a counterinsurgency strategy known as National Security Defence that was devised in coordination with the US government against leftist guerrillas (Aviles 2006(Aviles , 2009. Though rooted in the Cold War, these paramilitaries continued to have a significant role during the democratisation era from the late 1980s and despite policies to reduce their role.…”

“…Though rooted in the Cold War, these paramilitaries continued to have a significant role during the democratisation era from the late 1980s and despite policies to reduce their role. Some military and political elites continued to find paramilitary forces useful to control the activities of leftists, trade unionists and human rights activists and in insulating neo-liberal policies from societal challenges (Aviles 2006(Aviles , 2008Human Rights Watch 2015). In this period, the regime worked with civilian militias to supress political opposition to the project of closer integration with the global economy by ensuring the security of investment by international corporations that were being wooed.…”

“…According to Human Rights Watch, paramilitaries were responsible for the massacre of thousands of civilians in the 1990s and 2000s (see Romero 2000). The escalating violence exerted by paramilitaries corresponded with the decreasing number of direct human rights violations committed by the armed forces, providing a more conducive environment for global capital investment (see Aviles 2006).…”