President Uribe’s popularity at the end of his first term was the fuel for his first re-election in 2006. When he started his second term, most Colombians wanted him to stay in power as long as it took to defeat guerrillas. The general feeling was that no one else could run the country – he was the only leader capable of standing up against insurgents and drug-traffickers. Four years later, guerrillas are not yet defeated but Uribe’s plan of seeking a third term has little support. Although he remains popular, there are few supporting the idea of having him in power for four more years. So, why did his second re-election lose support? Colombians have apparently finally realised how important democracy is for our country.
In 2006, Uribe’s popularity was through the roof. At the beginning of his second term, about 80 per cent of Colombians agreed with a second re-election in 2010. His support came not only from the population but the majority of congress. Over the last four years, nearly 70 per cent of members of the senate backed Uribe. His ‘democratic security’ policy was so appealing for voters that suddenly seven out of 10 political parties participating in the Colombian congress supported him. Opposition during his mandate was virtually nonexistent – those against president Uribe’s were seen as guerrilla sympathisers.
Although Colombia gained in security and economic growth over Uribe’s administration, we lost a huge deal of confidence in our institutions. A good example of this is the state of political parties in Colombia. We used to have two traditional and ‘strong’ political parties: the liberals and the conservatives. Uribe was liberal when he first started to participate in politics. However, he then created his own political party called ‘Democratic Colombia’ which basically emerged from his reluctance to work collectively with other politicians. Ironically, now liberals are his opposition and conservatives his allies. ‘Democratic Colombia’ has now disappeared and a new party called ‘Party of the U’ (U for Uribe) has been created. It is the most popular political party in Colombia – largely for being pesident Uribe’s icon rather than having any traditional ideology.
The excessive power Uribe gained over his first term facilitated his first re-election in 2006. He promoted a constitutional reform to allow for presidential immediate re-election. At that time, no one raised any concern about whether the re-election strategy clashed with democracy. Our main fear was relapsing into terror, bombs and kidnapping so president Uribe had to stay in power no matter what. However, that is no longer the case. Why?, mostly because Colombians want change. There have been severe failures in president Uribe’s administration and we believe it is time to allow other political leader to run the country.
The declining support for a second re-election at the end of Uribe’s second term is no coincidence. It was fuelled by recent scandals of corruption and violation of human rights. Achievements from the government’s ‘democratic security’ policy were overshadowed by the ‘false positive’ scandal whereby innocent civilian murders were included in the body count of the war against guerrillas. Corruption in agricultural and infrastructure sectors, lead by his closest cabinet ministries, was also exposed. Uribe’s international reputation is stained by statistics of displacement, violence against trade unionists and violation of human rights. Although these problems emerged long before Uribe’s administration and, therefore, he is not the only one to blame for them, his government has failed in doing justice – many atrocious crimes still remain unpunished and there is a long way to go on assistance policies for displaced persons.
Uribe’s strategy to run for a third presidential term was to promote a public referendum where Colombians would vote for a second re-election. His proposal was blocked by the constitutional court – seven out of nine magistrates voted against the referendum and it was declared unconstitutional. The verdict was received as a triumph for democracy in Colombia. However, the delay in the process (the final verdict was announced at the beginning of March) generated negative uncertainty among candidates and voters alike.
President Uribe’s plea for re-election has not affected participation in this year’s presidential elections. Unlike four years ago, there is a varied and interesting group of political candidates running for president. Security is a key issue for all them but new ideas for tackling poverty and inequality have emerged. Presidential candidates have found more support from voters compared to the last election. People are less polarised but there are still many waiting for president Uribe to announce which candidate he will support – if they can’t vote for Uribe, they will vote for whomever he tells them to.
The story of Uribe’s second re-election attempt shows the fragile political situation in Colombia – a country that has been seriously harmed by violence and a president who became the people’s hope. Colombians were so stunned by the idea that achieving peace in our country was feasible that democracy was consciously relegated. We now ourselves need to prove that Colombia will not collapse without president Uribe. We will achieve peace through sustainable policies over time and realise that security and social justice are not mutually exclusive. We will prove that democracy is good for our country.
Photo: Center for American Progress 2007
Maria Carolina Latorre is an associate researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research – ippr and Director of Psocial a consultancy company specialising in research for social policy. Email: [email protected]