Alvaro Uribe Velez And Colombia
By David A.G. Fischer
01 July, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Since President Alvaro Uribe
Velez came to power in 2002, Colombia has experienced some positive
changes. Security has been heightened which now facilitates freedom
to travel the countryside without fear of being kidnapped or murdered.
This can be credited to the national police force and the Colombian
military's strategic positioning throughout cities and the byways
that connect them. As far as security is concerned, Uribe has managed
to succeed where his predecessors have failed. This makes the president
a fairly popular leader among middle and upper-class citizens.
President Uribe heads a democratic government that is structured in similar fashion to that of the United States. It has executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Elections for the presidency are held every four years under the Colombian Constitution of 1991 which used to maintain a single-term limitation of power that had been in place for more than 120 years. But during Uribe's first term in office, he managed to convince the Congress to support an amendment that overturned the inconvenient restriction on re-election.
In the middle of his second consecutive term, the president is looking to overturn the constitutional law once again. Supporters of Uribe see no problem with him running for a third consecutive term. His critics, however, are up in arms. Regardless, fractions from both sides believe that he will be successful in manipulating conditions to his favor and thereby maintain his authoritarian rule over the country.
Touted as one of the strongest democracies in Latin America, the country also functions analogous to the United States with a predominant two-party system. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are the two most represented parties in the Congress, which consists of a Chamber of Representatives and a Senate.
While the president is traditionally elected from one of these two dominant party affiliations, legislative and other executive positions are held by representatives from multiple parties. Some of these parties are the United National Social Party, the Radical Change Party, the Alternative Democratic Pole and the Social Indigenous Alliance. Perhaps even more democratic than the United States, as far as party representation goes, the Colombian political system is characterized by a variety of voices from various parties – to a limited extent, that is.
There are limitations to representation in Colombia's political landscape. A prime example is the Patriotic Union which was founded in 1985 and represented mainly by supporters of the FARC guerrilla group and other members of the Colombian Communist Party. The party experienced some mixed success during its early years by seeing mayors and Senate members elected in a few regions.
But by 1988, the party conceded that in just three years, more than 500 party members had been assassinated by drug lords, the country's paramilitary group (AUC) or the country's military. Media reports during those years confirm that concession as accurate. After nearly two decades of struggle and human sacrifice to get their feet in the political door, by 2002 the UP no longer had any representation in government. It seems that the entrenched right-wing government and its associates will not tolerate too much vocalization from the left.
As for Uribe and his constitutionally manipulated, two consecutive terms in office, many point to the overwhelming support that he has in the country. A closer look at the elections of 2002, which brought him to the position as head of state, and his re-election victory in 2006 that preserved his power, demonstrate only a partial truth to that claim of overwhelming support.
According to Wikipedia and other sources, President Uribe of the Colombian Liberal Party won the Election of 2002 with 53% of the vote, while his nearest opponent took 31% of the vote. Certainly, this constitutes a mandate in any democratic election. However, those numbers are deceptive since voter turnout was only 46%. In a country with more than 40 million people, and over 24 million registered voters, this hardly constitutes a majority. Absenteeism in voting is normally a sign of public apathy toward a country's political system.
The following Presidential Elections of 2006 witnessed an apparent rise in popularity with Uribe taking 62% of the vote, while his nearest opponent from the left managed to get away with 22%. In these elections, voter turnout was down to 45% of the eligible populace which exceeded 26 million voters. Accounting for these numbers, less than 28% of eligible voters cast their ballots for Uribe. That translates to roughly one-quarter of the voting public in support of President Uribe. In this light, neither Uribe's entry to office, nor his re-election thereof, can be considered a mandate from the public.
Today, reports show that up to 80% of Colombians are in favor of Uribe. But who are these Colombians being polled? Since more than 50% of the population lives in poverty, chances are their voices aren't being taken into account. The fact of the matter is, those 80% of Colombians are sampled from the middle and upper-classes, with access to telephones, Internet and a mailing address.
Colombia has one of the most radically disproportionate concentrations of wealth in Latin America. While the majority of Colombians are classified as impoverished, it is doubtful that safe travel is important to them. It takes money to travel, and when a family is struggling to keep food on the table, chances are travel plans don't reach the top of their priority list. Keeping this in mind, it is important to consider the inconsistencies in approval ratings and election mandates.
While the Colombian government does espouse some democratic characteristics, like any democratic institution of contemporary times, its strength is only as strong as the rule of law which upholds it. As such, repeatedly changing the Constitution in favor of additional terms parallels authoritarian rule more than democratic governance.
David A.G. Fischer is a high school English teacher
for 7-12th graders, and a lifetime student who acts as a free-lance
writer. He has just recently began pursuing publication of his papers.
The topics on which he writes are often political, at times needing
to be toned down of cynicism toward corrupt governments, its leaders
and their propaganda machines. He holds a B.S. in Environmental Studies
/ B.A. in Spanish from the University of Nebraska, and a few upper-level
political science/sociology classes on Latin America. Exposure to
excessive negative information regarding Colombia and its conflict
drove the author to culturally immerse himself in the country of ill-famed
reputation to validate the illegitimacy of the U.S. media and academic
system. After spending nearly three years living in Bogota, he has
traveled throughout the country while always finding locals with whom
to converse. He has discovered that while the conflict is very real,
media spin on international news is even easier to manipulate than
back home in Omaha. He is now producing articles that contradict the
country's stereotypes, while wanting to make his words available to
those readers with open minds and a curiosity for a dose of reality.
