Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)

In the decades from 1982 to 2002 Colombia had been consolidating itself as a democratic state. However, during this time period the paramilitaries brought about one of the most severe rounds of homicidal violence in the country. In the face of this undoubted reality, several hypothesis are put forwa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gutiérrez Sanín, Francisco
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: 2012
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4809133
Source:Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, ISSN 0124-0579, Vol. 14, Nº. 1, 2012, pags. 97-134
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
id
dialnet-ar-18-ART0000684731
record_format
dialnet
institution
Dialnet
collection
Dialnet AR
source
Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, ISSN 0124-0579, Vol. 14, Nº. 1, 2012, pags. 97-134
language
Spanish
topic
political system
élites vulnerables
democracia
privatización de la seguridad
sistema político
vulnerable elites
democracy
privatization of security
elites vulneráveis
democracia
privatização da segurança
sistema político
spellingShingle
political system
élites vulnerables
democracia
privatización de la seguridad
sistema político
vulnerable elites
democracy
privatization of security
elites vulneráveis
democracia
privatização da segurança
sistema político
Gutiérrez Sanín, Francisco
Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
description
In the decades from 1982 to 2002 Colombia had been consolidating itself as a democratic state. However, during this time period the paramilitaries brought about one of the most severe rounds of homicidal violence in the country. In the face of this undoubted reality, several hypothesis are put forward to explain this paradox: a) Colombia is not a democracy, but a terrorist regime that wipes out the opposition in order to maintain a top-down system of exclusions; b) The Colombian institutions are yet another victim of the paramilitary violence; and c) the paramilitary phenomenon is due to the insurgency of local and regional elites against peace processes promoted from the top. The first two are clearly questionable. The third is insufficient in terms of identifying the role of decision-makers at the central level, both in the government and in the political system, in the evolution and surge of the paramilitary phenomenon. This article evaluates the three hypotheses and analyzes, based on official documents and press reports from the time, the scope of paramilitary activity in the years between 1982-2002, from the perspective of the role played by Colombian democracy and its institutions, since — contrary to the official discourse of the governments, that for over 30 years have claimed that they have suffered the penetration and aggression of the paramilitaries hand in hand with “bad apples” or “isolated cases”— the paramilitary phenomenon in Colombia in this time period enjoyed a special status that was publicly promoted by centrist politicians, in a matter-of-fact and conciliatory manner, prompted by the pressures of key sectors of the political system and the country’s vulnerable elites.
format
Article
author
Gutiérrez Sanín, Francisco
author_facet
Gutiérrez Sanín, Francisco
author_sort
Gutiérrez Sanín, Francisco
title
Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
title_short
Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
title_full
Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
title_fullStr
Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
title_full_unstemmed
Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
title_sort
una relación especial: privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)
publishDate
2012
url
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4809133
_version_
1709713470365106176
spelling
dialnet-ar-18-ART00006847312018-03-21Una relación especial: Privatización de la seguridad, élites vulnerables y sistema político (1982-2002)Gutiérrez Sanín, Franciscopolitical systemélites vulnerablesdemocraciaprivatización de la seguridadsistema políticovulnerable elitesdemocracyprivatization of securityelites vulneráveisdemocraciaprivatização da segurançasistema políticoIn the decades from 1982 to 2002 Colombia had been consolidating itself as a democratic state. However, during this time period the paramilitaries brought about one of the most severe rounds of homicidal violence in the country. In the face of this undoubted reality, several hypothesis are put forward to explain this paradox: a) Colombia is not a democracy, but a terrorist regime that wipes out the opposition in order to maintain a top-down system of exclusions; b) The Colombian institutions are yet another victim of the paramilitary violence; and c) the paramilitary phenomenon is due to the insurgency of local and regional elites against peace processes promoted from the top. The first two are clearly questionable. The third is insufficient in terms of identifying the role of decision-makers at the central level, both in the government and in the political system, in the evolution and surge of the paramilitary phenomenon. This article evaluates the three hypotheses and analyzes, based on official documents and press reports from the time, the scope of paramilitary activity in the years between 1982-2002, from the perspective of the role played by Colombian democracy and its institutions, since — contrary to the official discourse of the governments, that for over 30 years have claimed that they have suffered the penetration and aggression of the paramilitaries hand in hand with “bad apples” or “isolated cases”— the paramilitary phenomenon in Colombia in this time period enjoyed a special status that was publicly promoted by centrist politicians, in a matter-of-fact and conciliatory manner, prompted by the pressures of key sectors of the political system and the country’s vulnerable elites.En las décadas comprendidas entre 1982 y 2002, Colombia ya se afirmaba como un Estado democrático. Sin embargo, en este período el paramilitarismo agenció uno de los más agudos niveles de violencia homicida en el país. Ante esta realidad incuestionable, surgen planteamientos que intentan explicar esta paradoja: a) Colombia no es una democracia: es un régimen terrorista que acaba con la oposición para mantener un sistema de exclusiones desde arriba; b) las instituciones colombianas han sido una víctima más de la violencia paramilitar; y c) el paramilitarismo obedece a la insurgencia de élites locales y regionales contra procesos de paz impulsados desde arriba. Las dos primeras, claramente cuestionables. La última, todavía insuficiente a la hora de identificar el papel de los tomadores de decisiones a nivel central, tanto en el Estado como en el sistema político, en el despliegue y auge del fenómeno paramilitar.Este artículo evalúa estas tres afirmaciones y analiza, con base en documentos oficiales e informes de prensa de la época, los alcances del paramilitarismo en las décadas comprendidas entre 1982 y 2002, al tenor del papel desempeñado por la democracia colombiana y sus instituciones, pues –alcontrario del discurso oficial de los gobiernos, quienes por más de treinta años han afirmado haber sufrido la penetración y agresión del paramilitarismo de la mano de “manzanas podridas” o “casos aislados”– el fenómeno paramilitar en Colombia durante el período estudiado disfrutó de un estatus especial agenciado públicamente por políticos centristas, prosaicos y conciliadores apuntalados en las presiones de sectoresclave del sistema político y de las élites vulnerables del país.Nas décadas compreendidas entre 1982-2002, a Colômbia já se afirmava como um estado democrático. No entanto, neste período o paramilitarismo agenciou um dos mais agudos níveis de violência homicida no país. Ante esta realidade inquestionável, surgem enfoques que tentam explicar o paradoxo: a) a Colômbia não é uma democracia: é um regime terrorista que acaba com a oposição para manter um sistema de exclusões desde arriba; b) as instituições colombianas têm sido uma vítima mais da violência paramilitar; c) o paramilitarismo obedece à insurgência de elites locais e regionais contra processos de paz impulsionados desde arriba. As duas primeiras, claramente questionáveis. A ultima ainda insuficiente na hora de identificar o papel dos tomadores de decisões no nível central, tanto no Estado quanto no sistema político, na dispersão e auge do fenômeno paramilitar. Este artigo avalia estas três afirmações e analisa, com base em documentos oficiais e informes de prensa da época, os alcances do paramilitarismo nas décadas compreendidas entre 1982 e 2002, de acordó com o papel desempenhado pela democracia colombiana e suas instituições, pois, ao contrario do discurso oficial dos governos, os quais por mais de trinta anos têm afirmado ter sofrido a penetração e agressão do paramilitarismo da mão de “maças podres” ou “casos isolados”, o fenômeno paramilitar na Colômbia durante o período estudado desfrutou de um status especial agenciado publicamente por políticos, prosaicos e conciliadores escorados nas pressões de setores chave do sistema político e das elites vulneráveis do país.2012text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4809133(Revista) ISSN 0124-0579Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, ISSN 0124-0579, Vol. 14, Nº. 1, 2012, pags. 97-134spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI