 |
| Photo: Gearóid Ó Loingsigh, Cesar, Colombia |
In the first part of this article, I looked at the reaction of the commentators to the ELN attack in Arauca and finished by saying that the ideas and proposals, the political programmes were more important.
Everyone wants to talk about the violence but not the proposals of the violent ones, if it is the case that they have any, and if they do are they adequate and meet the needs of the working class and peasantry. Now I would like to deal with the ELN’s proposals in the context of the peace process with reference to the FARC and other guerrilla groups that were present in Colombia and even the world.
When the FARC were founded, they launched their agrarian programme, which more than a programme was a list of short but accurate demands aimed at the peasants. They reaffirmed their agrarian programme and updated it at their eight conference in 1983. The programme could be criticised but not their audacity. Without any equivocation they proclaimed:
Free land, the confiscation of large estates and imperialist companies, are terms that we have not heard much for a long time. Obviously the FARC did not manage to negotiate that programme, nor did they try. When they reached the negotiating table, they hadn’t the strength required to demand even a minimum part of that. It is understandable that a defeated force didn’t manage to impose its agrarian programme. But that is not the problem. The problem is that they completely abandoned the political demands of that document. They no longer argue in favour of expropriating anyone’s land. Of course, the FARC or the Comunes (Commoners) Party as it styles itself nowadays is not going to ask for the rich’s lands to be expropriated and if it disappears from the debating agenda, less so. However, it is a simple and necessary demand.
When the FARC and the ELN rose up in arms in 1964, the Colombian bourgeoisie held five million hectares in farms larger than 500 hectares and now according to a report from Oxfam:
The demand for confiscations is more necessary now than ever. That they couldn’t negotiate that with the state is no reason to stop demanding it. But the FARC has now adjusted to centre of power and the capitalist rules of the game. It is worth saying that they are not alone in that, many peasant organisations have also sidelined the demand and now talk of an agrarian reform led by the market etc. or projects financed by foreign aid.
For its part the ELN had a similar formulation to the FARC in the Programmatic Principles of the ELN:
They made this declaration in their early years (1965), but it is still valid, except for the last point on the development of cattle farming. Once again, it is worth pointing out that the ELN is not going to negotiate the expropriation of large estates, they are not in a position to demand that, but they can and should keep the idea alive as a political idea, unless they like many peasant organisations, President Petro, the Historic Pact and the countries that act as guarantors in the process with them consider it to be unfashionable.
In reality it is a timid demand, formulated at a time when neither the FARC nor the ELN spoke that much about socialism. It is a democratic demand, bourgeois. So much so that around the same time, even the Catholic Church supported some version of an agrarian reform. It defended private property but also public property and an agrarian reform, though with compensation. The Catholic pope Giovanni Battista Montini, alias Paul VI, in Gaudium et Spes argued in favour of good salaries for rural workers, education, aid and stated that:
So, if the Catholic Church can demand it, why are the guerrillas and the social organisations now so timid? The agrarian reform was not the only historic demand of the ELN nor the social movement. They had many demands around education and health and despite the passage of time (60 years) there demands on those issues continue to be valid. Their point six on health does not require any changes or updating and it is more daring and ideal that than the attempts at change by Petro that are in reality cosmetic. It says a lot of the Colombian state that a guerrilla group made demands 60 years ago that are still valid. On industry point three states:
The subsoil now belongs to the nation, but it is exploited to benefit foreign companies. When Camilo Torres was a leader of the United Front before joining the ranks of the ELN he made a similar proposal and placed a condition on the exploitation by any private company that the state’s participation not be less than 70%. Who asks for that nowadays?
It seems anachronistic to cite texts from 60 years ago to talk of problems today and even more so to talk of a talks process between the last insurgency left and the Colombian state. It even seems anachronistic to ask that these be the current demands of the ELN and also the social movements. The social movements stopped arguing years ago for the nationalization or confiscation of the assets of large or foreign companies. It is true, they Seem anachronistic, but they are not. First, we should be clear as to why they seem to be before arguing they are still valid.
It is in this context that the Artetas of the world, the NGO functionaries and intellectuals come along. They are all right, the world has changed, but that doesn’t mean that what the world needs has changed. It changes, demands and analysis are updated, but in the fundamentals little has changed. But they are right about how anachronistic these demands seem. But there is an explanation.
They, in particular the intellectuals, used to produce analysis, books and articles that dissected the national reality and made proposals according to the needs of the peasants and workers as they saw them. Some of them were close to, or sympathisers of one or other insurgent group. But not anymore. They are sympathisers of the centre of power and their bank balance. If public discourse in Colombia has changed, it is because they no longer produce what they used to. It is anachronistic because they changed their discourse, they ceased to place their intellect at the service of the workers and peasants, but rather at the service of their own economy, writing what the centre of power wants to hear. When drunk in bars they like to sing La Lora Proletaria, sober in cafés they like to quote Marx, Camilo and Che “be realistic, demand the impossible”, but the only impossible thing they demand now is their salaries, which are impossible for the overwhelming majority of the Colombian population. They are part of the reason why necessary discourses seem out of date.
The popular movement is not to blame for intellectuals surrendering to capitalism. But it is to blame for not wanting to raise the necessary demands for agrarian reform etc. The ELN is not to blame for intellectuals and many organisations not wanting to demand what is required. But it is to blame when it doesn’t do it either. In the context of the process we don’t know what the ELN’s policies are, which is not the same as what they think they can negotiate, or so we hope. Now they talk of “Earth Democracy” a concept borrowed from Vandana Shiva in India. She has some interesting ideas on ecology, cooperatives and the struggle around seed rights, but it is not an anti-capitalist proposal, more like a longing for a rural peasant society that no longer exists nor can it and it is not clear what the ELN understands by this concept.
So, following the attack, the entire discussion on each side concentrated on the military question and not the political questions. The ELN as a political reference point for Colombian society does not exist, rather it is a reference point on the question of political violence, nothing more. It is up to the ELN to tell us what its proposals and positions are. We know that the FARC defended almost nothing in the negotiations. After they demobilised they defended less. Their passage through Congress stood out for one act, and that was when Julián Gallo saved the life of the extreme right winger Obdulio following his heart attack. A disservice. They will not be remembered for anything else. They are not alone in this. There is not a single example of an armed organisation that demobilised and came out of the peace process defending the same causes it fought for. Not one, anywhere in the world.
So, political positions are not defended at the end of the process, but rather before and during the process. It is not clear what are the programmatic principles of the ELN nowadays, if they have changed or modified them in some way. Of course, the ELN is not going to negotiate an agrarian reform with the state. The state is negotiating with an enemy that is no position to take power, either militarily or politically. The question is what do they defend and what can we expect from them after they sign an agreement. If they go back to the mountains and the war it is even more important to know which banners they raise. They are going to kill people, be killed and end up in prison and in that case, it is even more important to know what their positions are, as despite wanting a more open process and despite the social participation, none of this is clear. The participation of society in the process seems to be a replica of some peasant mobilisations. More than once they mobilized for political demands such as a revision of the free trade agreements and each community ended up negotiating projects.[6] It would seem that in this process with the ELN something similar is unfolding. According to the Jesuit priest Javier Giraldo S.J.:
The document on the participation of society is broader than a shopping list and it does have interesting points on the political regime etc. We should ask to what degree is it being implemented.
What is being discussed with the state at this time cannot be the end all of their demands. Although their political positions may not be achievable in the war or at the talks, that is no reason to abandon them. Or does the political struggle end once this process is over? It is what happened with the FARC who barely struggle to give first aid in the Congress but don’t have a single position that can be described as even leftwing, not to mention revolutionary. It would be interesting to have clarity about what the ELN defends in terms of ideology and what they propose. This is currently not a central point of the discussions with the ELN. When the attack happened, no one said “there goes the discussion on agrarian reform” or “the debate on natural resources was cut short”. Everyone concentrated on the only point that is part of the public debate; the end or continuation of their armed struggle. After sixty years, that is depressing.
[1] FARC-EP (1993) Programa Agrario de los guerrilleros de las FARC-EP.
[2] Ibíd., P. 15
[3] ELN (1965) Programa de Simacota del ELN
[4] Gaudiem et spes Numeral 71
[5] ELN (1965) Op. Cit
[6] Ó Loingsigh, G. (12/06/2016) El Paro Agrario y La Paz.
[7] Revista Raya (01/10/2024) "Estamos frente a una plataforma socio estatal de exterminio impune". María Fernanda Padilla Quevedo.
⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.
When the FARC were founded, they launched their agrarian programme, which more than a programme was a list of short but accurate demands aimed at the peasants. They reaffirmed their agrarian programme and updated it at their eight conference in 1983. The programme could be criticised but not their audacity. Without any equivocation they proclaimed:
First: We counterpose the deceitful agrarian policy of the oligarchy with an effective Revolutionary Agrarian Policy that makes a radical change in the social structure of the Colombian countryside giving land totally free to the peasants that work it or want to work it, though the confiscation of large estates to the benefit of all workers.
The Revolutionary Agrarian Policy will provide those peasant beneficiaries with the technical aid and infrastructure, tools and animals for the proper economic exploitation of the land. The Revolutionary Agrarian Policy is the essential condition necessary to raise the material and cultural level of life of all the peasantry, freeing them from unemployment, hunger, illiteracy, endemic diseases that limit their ability to work; in order to cast away the obstacles of latifundia and to promote the agricultural and industrial development of the country. The Revolutionary Agrarian Policy will confiscate the land occupied by north American imperialist companies, (bold not in original) regardless of title deed and no matter the activity they carry out.[1]
Free land, the confiscation of large estates and imperialist companies, are terms that we have not heard much for a long time. Obviously the FARC did not manage to negotiate that programme, nor did they try. When they reached the negotiating table, they hadn’t the strength required to demand even a minimum part of that. It is understandable that a defeated force didn’t manage to impose its agrarian programme. But that is not the problem. The problem is that they completely abandoned the political demands of that document. They no longer argue in favour of expropriating anyone’s land. Of course, the FARC or the Comunes (Commoners) Party as it styles itself nowadays is not going to ask for the rich’s lands to be expropriated and if it disappears from the debating agenda, less so. However, it is a simple and necessary demand.
When the FARC and the ELN rose up in arms in 1964, the Colombian bourgeoisie held five million hectares in farms larger than 500 hectares and now according to a report from Oxfam:
…1% of the UPA (Agricultural Production Units) amass 73,78% of the productive land of the country. This figure does not include indigenous lands. If we look at the UPAs over 2,000 hectares in size, we find that they “represent 0.1 percent of the total (2,362 holdings); on average they are 17,195 hectares in size and occupy almost 60 percent of the total area included in the census (40.6 million hectares, or 58.72 percent).[2]
The demand for confiscations is more necessary now than ever. That they couldn’t negotiate that with the state is no reason to stop demanding it. But the FARC has now adjusted to centre of power and the capitalist rules of the game. It is worth saying that they are not alone in that, many peasant organisations have also sidelined the demand and now talk of an agrarian reform led by the market etc. or projects financed by foreign aid.
For its part the ELN had a similar formulation to the FARC in the Programmatic Principles of the ELN:
2. An authentic agrarian revolution that contemplates the elimination of the large estates, minifundia and the monoculture; that carries out a fair and technical distribution of the land to the peasants that work it, gives loans, implements, fertilizer, seeds and working tools to the farmers, promotes the mechanization and use of technology in agriculture, the creation of proper distribution bodies that eliminate intermediaries, speculators and hoarders, ensure medical care and education for peasants as well as the development of irrigation systems, electrification, proper housing and roads. All large estates belonging to landlords will be confiscated (bold not in original) and those properties which benefit the national economy will be respected, the creation of productive coops, distribution and consumption, state farms, agricultural planning will be promoted, seeking diversity in the crops and the development of cattle farming.[3]
They made this declaration in their early years (1965), but it is still valid, except for the last point on the development of cattle farming. Once again, it is worth pointing out that the ELN is not going to negotiate the expropriation of large estates, they are not in a position to demand that, but they can and should keep the idea alive as a political idea, unless they like many peasant organisations, President Petro, the Historic Pact and the countries that act as guarantors in the process with them consider it to be unfashionable.
In reality it is a timid demand, formulated at a time when neither the FARC nor the ELN spoke that much about socialism. It is a democratic demand, bourgeois. So much so that around the same time, even the Catholic Church supported some version of an agrarian reform. It defended private property but also public property and an agrarian reform, though with compensation. The Catholic pope Giovanni Battista Montini, alias Paul VI, in Gaudium et Spes argued in favour of good salaries for rural workers, education, aid and stated that:
In many underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates which are only slightly cultivated or lie completely idle for the sake of profit, while the majority of the people either are without land or have only very small fields, and, on the other hand, it is evidently urgent to increase the productivity of the fields… therefore, reforms are necessary… insufficiently cultivated estates should be distributed to those who can make these lands fruitful.[4]
So, if the Catholic Church can demand it, why are the guerrillas and the social organisations now so timid? The agrarian reform was not the only historic demand of the ELN nor the social movement. They had many demands around education and health and despite the passage of time (60 years) there demands on those issues continue to be valid. Their point six on health does not require any changes or updating and it is more daring and ideal that than the attempts at change by Petro that are in reality cosmetic. It says a lot of the Colombian state that a guerrilla group made demands 60 years ago that are still valid. On industry point three states:
3. Economic- industrial development through the protection of national industry, the promotion of medium industry, the confiscation of the assets of the imperialists and oligarch traitors to the homeland, the small industrialists and merchants who are not speculators will be protected. Through scientific planning the diversification of industry will be sought and the development of an industrial economy based on our own resources guaranteeing the full use of our workforce. The effective nationalization of the subsoil and its exploitation to the benefit of the national economy. The elaboration of plans for electrification, irrigation and the harnessing of the hydraulic resources of the country.[5]
The subsoil now belongs to the nation, but it is exploited to benefit foreign companies. When Camilo Torres was a leader of the United Front before joining the ranks of the ELN he made a similar proposal and placed a condition on the exploitation by any private company that the state’s participation not be less than 70%. Who asks for that nowadays?
 |
| Photo: Gearóid Ó Loingsigh, Catatumbo |
It seems anachronistic to cite texts from 60 years ago to talk of problems today and even more so to talk of a talks process between the last insurgency left and the Colombian state. It even seems anachronistic to ask that these be the current demands of the ELN and also the social movements. The social movements stopped arguing years ago for the nationalization or confiscation of the assets of large or foreign companies. It is true, they Seem anachronistic, but they are not. First, we should be clear as to why they seem to be before arguing they are still valid.
- First: the social organisations in Colombia suffered many defeats, most of them at the point of a gun or chainsaw and countless murders of its leaders.
- Second: these organisations, partly in response to that, softened their positions under pressure from the EU, the USA and our dear intellectuals and the functionaries in social organisations.
- Third: those social organisations now partly depend on foreign aid funding and they have to soften their position in order to receive funds, though not all of them have done this. Some resist, but very few.
It is in this context that the Artetas of the world, the NGO functionaries and intellectuals come along. They are all right, the world has changed, but that doesn’t mean that what the world needs has changed. It changes, demands and analysis are updated, but in the fundamentals little has changed. But they are right about how anachronistic these demands seem. But there is an explanation.
They, in particular the intellectuals, used to produce analysis, books and articles that dissected the national reality and made proposals according to the needs of the peasants and workers as they saw them. Some of them were close to, or sympathisers of one or other insurgent group. But not anymore. They are sympathisers of the centre of power and their bank balance. If public discourse in Colombia has changed, it is because they no longer produce what they used to. It is anachronistic because they changed their discourse, they ceased to place their intellect at the service of the workers and peasants, but rather at the service of their own economy, writing what the centre of power wants to hear. When drunk in bars they like to sing La Lora Proletaria, sober in cafés they like to quote Marx, Camilo and Che “be realistic, demand the impossible”, but the only impossible thing they demand now is their salaries, which are impossible for the overwhelming majority of the Colombian population. They are part of the reason why necessary discourses seem out of date.
The popular movement is not to blame for intellectuals surrendering to capitalism. But it is to blame for not wanting to raise the necessary demands for agrarian reform etc. The ELN is not to blame for intellectuals and many organisations not wanting to demand what is required. But it is to blame when it doesn’t do it either. In the context of the process we don’t know what the ELN’s policies are, which is not the same as what they think they can negotiate, or so we hope. Now they talk of “Earth Democracy” a concept borrowed from Vandana Shiva in India. She has some interesting ideas on ecology, cooperatives and the struggle around seed rights, but it is not an anti-capitalist proposal, more like a longing for a rural peasant society that no longer exists nor can it and it is not clear what the ELN understands by this concept.
So, following the attack, the entire discussion on each side concentrated on the military question and not the political questions. The ELN as a political reference point for Colombian society does not exist, rather it is a reference point on the question of political violence, nothing more. It is up to the ELN to tell us what its proposals and positions are. We know that the FARC defended almost nothing in the negotiations. After they demobilised they defended less. Their passage through Congress stood out for one act, and that was when Julián Gallo saved the life of the extreme right winger Obdulio following his heart attack. A disservice. They will not be remembered for anything else. They are not alone in this. There is not a single example of an armed organisation that demobilised and came out of the peace process defending the same causes it fought for. Not one, anywhere in the world.
So, political positions are not defended at the end of the process, but rather before and during the process. It is not clear what are the programmatic principles of the ELN nowadays, if they have changed or modified them in some way. Of course, the ELN is not going to negotiate an agrarian reform with the state. The state is negotiating with an enemy that is no position to take power, either militarily or politically. The question is what do they defend and what can we expect from them after they sign an agreement. If they go back to the mountains and the war it is even more important to know which banners they raise. They are going to kill people, be killed and end up in prison and in that case, it is even more important to know what their positions are, as despite wanting a more open process and despite the social participation, none of this is clear. The participation of society in the process seems to be a replica of some peasant mobilisations. More than once they mobilized for political demands such as a revision of the free trade agreements and each community ended up negotiating projects.[6] It would seem that in this process with the ELN something similar is unfolding. According to the Jesuit priest Javier Giraldo S.J.:
They made progress on the point of the participation of society and a good document was produced. But I have also been critical of them, given that, instead of bringing people together in an assembly with a shopping list – saying they would like an airport in this part or a road - I have advised them to take up the five basic needs of the people: food, housing, work, health and education and to lay down the challenge to the country for no Colombian to be without any of them. That alone would be enough to achieve a national transformation.[7]
What is being discussed with the state at this time cannot be the end all of their demands. Although their political positions may not be achievable in the war or at the talks, that is no reason to abandon them. Or does the political struggle end once this process is over? It is what happened with the FARC who barely struggle to give first aid in the Congress but don’t have a single position that can be described as even leftwing, not to mention revolutionary. It would be interesting to have clarity about what the ELN defends in terms of ideology and what they propose. This is currently not a central point of the discussions with the ELN. When the attack happened, no one said “there goes the discussion on agrarian reform” or “the debate on natural resources was cut short”. Everyone concentrated on the only point that is part of the public debate; the end or continuation of their armed struggle. After sixty years, that is depressing.
[1] FARC-EP (1993) Programa Agrario de los guerrilleros de las FARC-EP.
[2] Ibíd., P. 15
[3] ELN (1965) Programa de Simacota del ELN
[4] Gaudiem et spes Numeral 71
[5] ELN (1965) Op. Cit
[6] Ó Loingsigh, G. (12/06/2016) El Paro Agrario y La Paz.
[7] Revista Raya (01/10/2024) "Estamos frente a una plataforma socio estatal de exterminio impune". María Fernanda Padilla Quevedo.
This is a killer phrase indicating that peace processes are state strategies for defeating guerrilla bodies.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a single example of an armed organisation that demobilised and came out of the peace process defending the same causes it fought for. Not one, anywhere in the world.