Will It Help?

Peace accord supporters march down Carrera Septima.

Lots of activities these days pushing for the peace agreement recently signed by the government and FARC guerrillas, but narrowly rejected by voters. 

Many of these demonstrators took a SI victory for granted, I suspect, and neglected to vote. If they'd only shown this same enthusiasm on Oct. 2, most likely the accord would have been approved. 

I'm not sure how much this enthusiasm in the streets will push forward the talks going on now between Pres. Santos and ex-presidents Uribe and Pastrana, who opposed the agreement. But, if they do reach an agreement, then perhaps this energy will contribute to its realization.

On Plaza Bolivar, activists have been camping out for the last week in support of the accord.

'Not one step back.'

Listing names of victims of rights violations.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

What's REALLY Important Here!

Men watch today's football along Jimenez Avenue in central Bogota.

Colombians - particularly male ones - turned out in droves today to watch the World Cup qualifying match. Colombian tied Uruguay 2 - 2.

If only people had shown half of this passion for the referendum on the peace agreement with the FARC, which happened to be the most important event in Colombia's recent history. Then, abstention wouldn't have been so high, and perhaps SI would have won.

A friend was just telling us about his trip to the Pacific Coast region, one of the areas hit hardest by Colombia's violence. In some places, he said, the threat of violence has lifted, and the people, most of them indigenous, turned to constructive projects. He described a fundamental change, which hopefully will last, despite the agreement's narrow loss at the polls. The politicians are still talking.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Poverty and Peace

Impoverished Colombians are much more likely to have suffered from Colombia's conflict. So, why

did they vote against the peace accord - at least in Bogotá?

Take a look at Bogotá's voting results, as published in El Tiempo. While Usaquen, Chapinero and Teusaquillo all voted SI, while majorities in the poor neighborhoods of Bosa, USME and Ciudad Bolivar, voted NO. On the other hand, many other poor rural areas of the country, such as Chocó, Putumayo and La Guajira, voted heavily SI.

On the one hand, you might expect that victims of violence, such as the tens of thousands of displaced people living in these poor areas, would vote SI to end the conflict. El Tiempo, however, hypothesizes that impoverished Colombians object to the guerrillas, who may have victimized them, receiving government stipends and other support, as agreed to in the peace accord.

Poverty has undoubtedly fueled Colombia's conflict. It may also be blocking an agreement.

Update: Multiple news reports say that evangelical churches, which tend to be strongest in poor neighborhoods, came out strong for the No vote, which might explain both the No winning in poor neighborhoods and the higher turnout there. However, the connection between the peace deal and evangelical issues - mostly LGBT rights - is pretty tenuous.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

A Conspiracy?

The 'NO' was a blow to Pres. Santos, to liberals, to the FARC and to Colombia's international allies.

It couldn't lose, but it did.

But perhap the group which comes out looking worst in the vote's wake were the pollsters. Polls published in the weeks before the vote consistently showed the peace deal being approved by more than 60% of Colombian voters. In fact, the NO won, albeit by a sliver.

How is this possible? Abstention was high, so perhaps many SI voters, overconfident of victory, just stayed home. Or, maybe the pollsters didn't do their job identifying which eligible voters were actually likely to go to the polls.

But the most intriguing theory suggests conspiracy. Media, business and government all wanted desperately for this to pass. Some campaign experts belief that many voters want to be on the winning side. So, by making people believe that the deal was a sure winner, perhaps that would make the victory come true. Did these groups team up to fake, manipulate or release polls only if they showed SI winning?

If so, things didn't work out that way.

Even the New York Times seemed to take a SI victory for granted.

VOX has this interesting analysis about why the pollsters misread the vote so badly, and why NO won. All the propaganda made NO voters ashamed to tell pollsters their position, and the victorious signing ceremony, with Timochenko's prominent participation, may have generated a popular rejection. I also suspect that the signing ceremony's air of victory and fait accompli made many SI supporters overconfident, and so they didn't bother to vote.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Can Opposites Meet?

On Monday, a woman reads a newspaper
headlining the NO vote.

Should FARC leaders do prison time for their crimes?

Should land be redistributed to landless farmers?

Should ex-FARC leaders guilty of serious crimes be eligible for public office?

Unless the FARC guerrillas and ex-Pres. Uribe's supporters can agree on these issues, a lasting peace deal appears impossible.

Sunday's vote, in which Colombians rejected the deal by a tiny margin and with high abstention, left Pres. Santos severely weakened, and ex-Pres. Alvaro Uribe, who led the opposition to the deal, strengthened. Any new deal will have to satisfy the Uribistas. But Uribe made his reputation killing FARC guerrillas during his presidency from 2002 to 2010, and the FARC murdered his father. Uribe does not seem likely to compromise.

FARC leaders have said they won't return to war.

The FARC, on ther other hand, have insisted they are unwilling to go to prison, despite the
innumerable murders, kidnappings, recruitment of children and forced displacements they have committed. And Santos has also said this is not an option.

Uribe also comes from a family of landowners, who aren't likely to look kindly on others losing their land to campesinos, even tho Santos insists that owners' rights will be respected. Unequal distribution of land and resources has often been called the root cause of Colombia's conflicts, so leaving this unfixed might plunge Colombia into more conflict.

A demonstration Wednesday in favor of the peace agreement.

It's clear that FARC leaders' first priority in the negotiations was protecting their own freedom and comfort during the post-conflict period. Will they make concessions on those points at the behest of their sworn enemy? The FARC guerrillas have already vowed not to accept changes in the peace agreement.

Colombia's stability depends on whether these two enemies can find common ground - and quickly. Guerrilla leaders say they won't return to war. Nevertheless, while politicians talk, thousands of armed FARC guerrillas are sitting in jungle camps, growing frustrated and restless. What will they live off of, if they can no longer traffick drugs and extort ranchers?

Peace remains frustratingly far away.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

And What Now?

No party here. On Plaza Bolivar, soldiers truck away
decorations intended for a SI victory celebration.

Against most expectations, and a full-press propaganda campaign by the government and major media, Colombians voted to reject the peace accord with the FARC guerrillas.

So, what happens now?

The guerrillas are already half demobilized, and looking forward to a different life.

The guerrilla leaders have gotten used to a comfortable life at the negotiation table in Havana, and don't want to return to jungle.

The government has stopped fighting the guerrillas, and prepared plans and resources for the post-war. Those are suddenly useless.

Only with difficulty can the nation turn back. But how can they go forward with a deal rejected, albeit by a tiny proportion of voters?

People debate the NO vote
on Plaza Bolivar.

But if the Santos government does try advancing with the deal in the face of public rejection, many

This man objected to impunity for
guerrillas and soldiers guilty of
human rights violations..

guerrillas may not cooperate, knowing that if supporters of ex-Pres. Uribe win the next election, they could reject the Santos government's commitments and send the guerrillas to prison.

Renewed negotiations could last years, leaving thousands of armed guerrillas sitting restless in their camps looking for something to do, with no assurance that new negotiations will be more successful. If impunity for crimes committed by the guerrillas and soldiers is why Colombians rejected the current deal, would the two sides ever accept prison terms?

The peace agreement, with its broad impunity, was deeply flawed, but may have been the best one possible.

Someone debating on Plaza Bolivar this evening suggested that the Uribistas, who rejected this peace

Voting in central Bogotá. Most Bogotanos
backed the SI, but not enough.

deal but insist that they really do want peace, should now handle the negotiations with the FARC. But sincere talks between two such fierce enemies are almost unthinkable.

And will the bilateral ceasefire continue?

And what about the ELN guerrillas, who have been talking about entering peace talks? The public's rejection of the FARC deal shatters hopes of negotiations with them. The ELN will now stay in the mountains, kidnapping, murdering and sabotaging infrastructure.

Could Santos launch a new offensive against the same guerrillas with whom he just reached a peace deal? Santo was, after all, minister of defense during Pres. Uribe's successful military offensive against the same guerrillas in the early 2000s. But now the FARC have become his political allies against Uribe. He's unlikely to start killing them.

If one thing is clear, this loss devastates the presidency of Santos, who planned to make peace his legacy and resurrects Uribe, who led a military offensive against the guerrillas.

It seems likely that many Colombians rejected the peace agreement because of the impunity it gave the FARC, who committed innumerable human rights violations.

LGBTI for the SI.

One man, who identified himself as a Christian evangelical, objected to the agreement's 'impunity' for both guerrillas and soldiers. The soldiers guilty of the 'false positive' killings "will walk away laughing," he said.

Jaime, a middle-aged man who owns a pizzeria here in La Candelaria, said he voted No because of the stipends and subsidies guerrillas were to receive. His family, who owned a farm in Antioquia, had been driven off of their land by guerrillas, and relatives murdered, he said.

"Why should I pay those people with my tax money," he said.

But it also exposes lack of confidence in the government, which put all its energy behind the peace accord.

More broadly, this vote, together with Brexit, might indicate a generalized public rejection of establishment opinion - making me more fearful that Donald Trump could be the next U.S. president.

Colombians go to sleep tonight with their future uncertain.

But if something positive came out of this, it's the proof that Colombia has a real democracy in which the population can reject the president's most important policy.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

The Question

On October 2, Colombians will vote up or down on the peace agreement with the FARC guerrillas.

However, the question on the ballot will ask something a bit different.

"Do you support the final agreement to terminate the conflict and build a stable and durable peace?"

Marching for the SI vote on Carrera Septima in Bogotá.

The referendum question doesn't mention the guerrillas, because the government know that would generate lots of public rejection. And, whether the deal will really end the conflict is very dubious. The smaller ELN guerrilla group has not entered negotiations, and a grab-bag of criminal groups and right-wing paramilitaries are still out there, eager to swoop in and occupy the FARC's territories and take over their drug trafficking, illegal mines and other businesses. In fact, El Tiempo reports that the ELN and criminal bands are already moving in.

Colombia, sadly, has structural problems which have scarred its history with violence and won't likely go away thanks to a few signatures and FARC guerrillas' turning in their weapons. The country has huge areas with little government presence and fortunes in illegal money waiting to be scooped up. And its high poverty rate and lack of good jobs - particularly in rural areas - supplies many unemployed young men willing to risk their lives and freedom by joining violent, illegal organizations.

But the government is determined to see the peace deal approved, in part because Pres. Santos' legacy is riding on it. Thus, the 'biased referendum question,' as La Silla Vacia suggests. Most of the rest of the Colombian media, which is cheering for a SI vote, naturally ignores this issue.

La Silla Vacia also points out that the election's rules are tilted in favor of the government and the SI vote. In particular, government resources such as telephones and vehicles can be used to campaign, and since the Santos administration favors the SI, they'll be used mostly that way.

The peace deal also has severe flaws, to which the government and media has given little attention. The most glaring of these are the human rights issues. FARC members who've committed grave crimes will have undergo only a mostly symbolic punishment just as long as they confess their crimes. These people will even be eligible to serve in parliament, where the FARC will have ten guaranteed seats.

Despite the flaws and the biased question, the peace deal may be a good thing for Colombia, if it at least reduces levels of violence. But nobody should expect it to cure all the nation's ills. Colombia still has lots of work to do.

While the biased question may help SI win, it also undermines the referendum's legitimacy and may make the outcome less legitimate in the eyes of Colombians and international observers.



By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours