An Opening for the Left?

But the peace process with the FARC and the general de-escalation of the conflict has also made it possible for the Left to advance in ways that were once unthinkable. The Patriotic Union party, after some initial electoral success, was virtually wiped out through a campaign of assassination by paramilitaries and state forces. Colombia still remains the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists. Left-wing groups have often been discredited by spurious associations with the FARC.

But Gustavo Petro is currently polling strongly and may well make the second round of voting — itself a historic achievement for a left-wing candidate, in what may well be the most right-wing nation in Latin America. Once Uribe’s staunchest opponent in Congress, he uncovered systematic collusion between politicians and paramilitaries, leading to the imprisonment of dozens of representatives. He then served as mayor of Bogotá from 2011–2015 before launching his bid for the presidency.

But Petro is a divisive figure. Many of his opponents, hoping to capitalize on the massive unpopularity of the FARC, make much of his past as an M-19 guerrilla, ignoring the many differences between the two groups as well as M-19’s successful demobilization in 1991. His term as mayor of Bogotá was fraught with difficulties, including illegitimate efforts to remove him from office. This would prove problematic were he to win: following elections in March, the largest party in Congress is Democratic Center, which would seek to undermine him at every step. (FARC, competing in electoral politics for the first time since the collapse of the Patriotic Union, polled very poorly, winning only 30,000 votes nationwide).

Despite his increased popularity, it is hard to see Petro winning. For large sectors of the Colombian electorate anyone on the Left is viewed with suspicion. An ongoing influx of Venezuelan refugees also provides fodder for his enemies who claim a socialist president would bring about an economic collapse.

Colombian polls are also notoriously unreliable, meaning it is difficult to predict which two candidates will reach the second round of voting. In addition to Duque and Petro, centrist ex-governor of Medellín Sergio Fajardo and right-wing Germán Vargas Lleras are polling well, while chief peace negotiator Humberto De La Calle trails behind them. Vargas Lleras has attempted to eat into Duque’s vote by posing as an opponent of the peace deal, despite having served as vice-president while it was negotiated.

Events in the country are also moving fast, making it even harder to predict the result. Two events have shaken the peace process. On March 26, two Ecuadorian journalists and their driver were kidnapped by FARC dissidents near the border with Colombia, a region noted for drug trafficking and political violence). They were later murdered, provoking outrage in both countries. Many Colombians are questioning the value of the peace deal more than ever, seeing that the government has failed to bring peace to many regions of the country.

Then on April 9, Jesús Santrich, a major figure in the FARC who had been one of their chief negotiators in Havana, was arrested in Bogotá on charges of drug trafficking and collusion with the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel. The arrest was carried out on the instructions of the DEA and Santrich may face extradition to the United States. The FARC have claimed that the move was politically motivated and called the future of the peace process into question, although they appear to have moderated their rhetoric following a meeting with President Juan Manuel Santos. It is hard to tell what impact this will have on the election — some will see it as evidence the FARC are still engaged in illegal activity; others as proof that the country has not been “surrendered to the FARC” as those on the Right often claim.

Although the peace deal is backed by the UN and legally enshrined in a way that should technically make it impossible to alter, a victory for Duque (or, depending on his real intentions, Vargas Lleras) could massively undermine its implementation. All of its provisions for land redistribution and aid to the rural areas most affected by conflict could remain unenforced and social leaders may be afforded even less protection than they are now. (Santos has often seemed willing to stand by as trade unionists and others are murdered).

A victory for Petro, Fajardo or De La Calle would help to safeguard the accord but any of them would still face the familiar problem that has so often blocked implementation: congressional gridlock. With a large Democratic Center bloc in Congress, any pro-peace president will face enormous difficulties in carrying out reform. Some of the more progressive parts of the deal might be discarded to appease the far-right. This would undermine any efforts towards a lasting peace, because the same factors that led to the creation of the FARC — massive inequality and rural poverty — would remain. (The idea that drug trafficking is the root cause of the war, common on the Colombian right and abroad, is a myth that ignores the real origins of the conflict, which long predate the war on drugs).

The peace deal is a truly historic moment for Colombia, but there is still all too great a chance that it will fail like so many previous efforts to end conflict in the country. Although this opportunity may falter, it must not be allowed to slip away. The next president of Colombia, whether Petro or another candidate, must be willing to tackle the country’s massive inequality and confront the cozy oligarchy that has long dominated its politics. A peace process that stops short of this is unlikely to hold for very long.