Colombia’s Neoliberal Regime of Governance: Securitization by Dispossession

Abstract

In contrast with many of the countries in the Latin American Region, contemporary Colombia has not abandoned its neoliberal premises. As such, the case of Colombia provides a useful corrective to the idea that all of Latin America is turning to the left, and indicates the complexity of current trends in the hemisphere. At the same time, Alvaro Uribe has not continued with neoliberalism in the same manner as his predecessors; as both critics and followers admit, he has transformed the way Colombians are governed with important consequences for the future, not all of which are positive. In the first place, he has transformed the perceived relationship between the economy and politics. Contrary to the belief that changes in the prevailing economic model are necessary to solve the structural conditions of poverty and inequality, Uribe has advanced the idea that conflict was the direct cause, not the consequence, of lack of economic progress. Secondly, Uribe has transformed the dynamic of conflict between the state, guerrilla forces and the paramilitary. After several failed negotiations with guerrilla organizations, he promised a military victory over the guerrilla and a negotiation with the paramilitary. I contend that during Uribe's presidency there has been a transformation in the regime of governance with the state's emphasis on security as the objective of government and the road to economic prosperity. Under this rationality, the government selectively combines freedom with coercion and inclusion with exclusion. While a selected group of citizens see their rights and freedoms guaranteed, others are deprived of their property, means of subsistence and even the right to life. The paramilitary, multinationals and big landowners belong to the first group, while Indigenous groups, Afro-Colombians, peasants, trade unionists and women are over-represented in the second. The regime of governance selectively extends the liberal component of right to protection, as compared to social and economic rights. I characterize this strategy as "securitization by dispossession" where security for some means dispossession for many. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript