ANOTHER SEAT AT THE TABLE
Plaza de Bolívar, Bogotá. October 11, 2016. The names of the victims of Colombia’s fifty-year civil war were written down on rectangular pieces and sewn together in one day to cover Bogotá’s main square. This symbolic action by Colombian artist Doris Salcedo was meant to support President Juan Manuel Santos’ intention to renegotiate the peace agreement as soon as possible after it was rejected in the plebiscite. On white fabric, the names of the victims were written down using ash as ink so that as an action of mourning the attendees could help sewing together the pieces until it was possible to cover the whole plaza. By the late afternoon, the images of Plaza de Bolivar wrapped in an immaculate white flag took over the social media. Those pictures seemed such a potent visual metaphor for Colombians’ desire for peace that no media wanted to talk about how the people who had been camping there before — also supporting the peace — and other civil organizations that had planned activities in the square that day were literally kicked out by force, or the fact that this white flag was protected by a fence.
When the results of the referendum went public, many activities had taken place to encourage the renegotiation process and put pressure on the Colombian government, the supporters of the No campaign and the FARC-EP. The first and most spontaneous action was made by a group of activists that since that Sunday had decided to occupy the main square of Bogotá to show the support and concern of different civil society groups about the renegotiation of the peace agreement. Unfortunately, when the results were announced, the outcome was capitalized by Colombia’s most radical right-wing party, Centro Democrático, and its leader, ex-president Álvaro Uribe, who claimed victory in spite of everyone recognizing that the mechanism behind the No result was much more complex. For example, Juan Manuel Santos’ tax reform was launched almost at the same time as the Yes campaign, so it was easy for the opposition to claim that the reform was meant to collect money to pay for the peace.
Since the afternoon of October 2, when the peace agreement with the FARC was rejected by 50.21 percent of the voters, many analysts have tried to explain the results. Some experts believe that, like in Brexit, for many Colombians the referendum was not about the peace agreements but about Juan Manuel Santos’ government. Weeks before the final document was disclosed, Bogotá’s cabbies went on strike. They wanted the government to ban Uber, and they proclaimed that their union would promote the No otherwise. It was clear by then that the end of the war was understood as a personal accomplishment, one by president Santos.
The No campaign was financed by powerful economic groups, those that have benefited from death squads — paramilitary forces — and displacement. This campaign based on lies and disinformation was allowed by the Santos government, which was very confident because of the 10-point lead of that most polls gave to the Yes. Nobody thought that a decisive factor for the negative outcome would be the Christian sects that promoted the No in poor and marginalized communities, organizations which had filled the vacuum left by the Colombian State apparatus. When the No campaign won, it was clear that the Centro Democrático Party had not even read the document of the agreement, and consequently they did not have any proposal to renegotiate its terms.
In last two weeks, Colombians who wanted to see the end of this war, especially the victims, who overwhelmingly voted Yes, have waited patiently for the Centro Democrático to read the document and come up with some kind of proposal. Uribe wanted to build something similar to the pact among the elites that resulted in the alternation of power for almost twenty years known as the National Front; the new name for this cynical idea is “National Pact.” It is clear that the other site in the table represents the missing piece of the puzzle for the construction of a real peace: the paramilitary forces. Therefore, the system that is going to be set up to judge war crimes is as important for them as land reform. As it happened in the short story by Tolstoy — “How much land does a man require?” — Colombia´s tragic history is a result of the struggle over land.
While everyone in high spheres seems to be more concentrated on the Nobel reception ceremony than the real terms for the renegotiation, time is passing and the countdown to the end of the ceasefire — January 1 — continues. Although this peace was and continues to be arranged from above, the active participation of different civil society groups shows how much Colombians want to see the end of the conflict. Unfortunately, we feel that the negotiation has abandoned democratic channels and that it is being taken care of behind closed doors. Today Colombian´s dream for peace is a giant white flag surrounded by fences.
