Colombians have been expressing their discontent with the policies and disposition of their government in a nationwide strike since April 28th.  The overwhelmingly peaceful protests, which have occurred in all major cities and roughly half of the municipal towns in the country, have been met with excessive force and violence by the police and military, and more worrying still, by unidentified civilian actors in several instances. Thus far, with protests still continuing, there have been more than 40 protestors and 1 police officer killed. In addition to these tragic deaths, there have also been multiple complaints of sexual violence, arbritrary detentions and physical assaults registered against members of the public forces. The catalyst for the national strike was a much criticised tax reform proposed by the government of president Ivan Duque and finance minister Alberto Carrasquillo. That proposal has been (temporarily) shelved with Carrasquillo offering his resignation, yet protests have continued and evolved into widespread rejection of the government, its policies and indeed its posture towards long marginalised sections of society. It is important to note that despite the initial call for a strike being announced by trade unions in response to the tax reform, Afro-Colombians, indigenous communities and the student population have become the face of this movement which is increasingly appearing as a clarion call for a more pluralistic vision of Colombia.

What has been most jarring about events has been the extent and excess of the response from security forces to the protests. There have been cases of businesses being vandalised and looted throughout the strike but authorities themselves have stated that the protests have been peaceful overall. So why have the military been called in? Why are live rounds seemingly being used? Why have there been Black Hawk helicopters hovering over residential areas dropping tear gas (at the very least) on Colombian citizens? Why are we seeing more and more attacks on protestors from armed civilians? The government position has been that all use of force has been in response to shots being fired or other violent acts by urban branches of left-wing guerrilla groups in cities such as Cali, which have seen the worst of the violence. Given the proximity of Cali to several war-torn regions in the south and south-west of the country, such a claim must be taken seriously, especially given the history of this type of infiltration in public protest groups by illegal groups such as the (now defunct) FARC and the (still active) ELN. However, if there are active guerrilla cells within the movement, why have they been so ineffective? One police officer murdered does not seem indicative of an active and ongoing urban conflict involving well trained and well armed guerrilla fighters. In contrast, the number of civilian deaths clearly warrants a closer inspection. Outspoken former president Alvaro Uribe sparked outrage and intrigue via a series of tweets in the early days of the strike which seemed to be openly justifying the use of lethal force on behalf of public forces to protect private businesses as well as referring the “Dissipated Molecular Revolution”, a theory emanating from extreme-right circles in Pinochet era Chile and mainly associated with a Neo-Nazi Chilean ideologue, Alexis Lopez. Curiously Lopez, whose perspectives are said to have influenced the brutal crackdown on anti-government protests in Chile in 2019, was invited to give a workshop at a military school in Bogotá back in February. In addition to calls for a crackdown on protests from the police and military, Uribe and other public figures also appeared to promote the establishment of armed community resistance to protestors, an incredibly provocative and dangerous call given the chilling history of paramilitary violence in Colombia. Such incendiary language cannot be excused, particularly given the carnage and horror experienced by protesters over the past week.

Another public figure who seemingly echoed Uribe’s calls for an armed civilian response to the overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement was Pereira mayor Carlos Maya. Maya has been subsequently criticized for his posture following a fatal shooting of peaceful protestors at an aqueduct in the city on Wednesday night which left one protestor dead, and another, Lucas Villa, fighting for his life having been shot several times by passengers in an unmarked car. Villa, a 37 year old protestor of seemingly boundless energy and positivity, had been filmed dancing in the street and shaking the hands of police forces at a march earlier in the day. He has since become a rallying symbol for the protest. Authorities, for their part, point to unacceptable damage to public and private property and attacks on members of the public force as justification for their methods. It must be pointed out however, that in addition to the claims of infiltration of marches on behalf of illegal groups, there are frequent claims that marches are infiltrated by the public forces themselves, intent on agitating as a means of justifying a heavy handed response. Such claims appear valid given instances that have happened: a truck carrying civilians firing on protestors was traced to the police force in Cali on Friday and other videos have been available suggesting agitation is indeed occurring. Such a situation raises serious question marks over the many alleged cases of peaceful protestors being attacked by “third parties” in Cali over the past number of days. On Sunday evening, reports emerged of armed attacks on members of the indigenous guard (an unarmed guard representing and protecting indigenous communities). Colombia’s only indigenous senator, Feliciano Valencia, reported that civilians, supported by members of the public forces had fired on indigenous guard members who were protecting a barricade blocking traffic. These attacks involving members of the public appear to be increasing over the course of the strike, and have likely been influenced by the incendiary language of notable public figures. The involvement of indigenous communities and their subsequent targeting (another of Uribe’s tweets caused uproar when it suggested a car carrying the Nasa indigenous flag belonged to the ELN guerrilla group. Vice-president Marta Lucia Ramirez has been criticised today for inferring that illegal money is supporting the indigenous protests) are sadly not a surprise keeping in mind the many infringements of indigenous rights and their continued stigmatization among certain sectors. Indigenous grievances are extremely pertinent to understanding much of the anger towards the government by not just indigenous communities but other sectors of society, and perhaps in particular, the student sector. Indeed, many of these issues represent a broad spectrum of the underlying factors regarding the existing unrest in Colombia. 

Understanding indigenous grievances goes a long way when it comes to understanding both the Colombian conflict and indeed the current unrest in the sense that the issue of land; who owns it and how it is used; is critical to both. There are almost 2 million indigenous people in Colombia, representing around 4.4% of the population. However, indigenous territory, according to the hugely progressive constitution of 1991, accounts for almost a third of the national territory. Generally speaking, this territory is situated far from the political and economic centre of the country, and in areas where there is and has been an absence of state institutions. Despite the assurances of indigenous autonomy in the constitution, and the ratification of subsequent safeguards such as the bill of indigenous rights, this autonomy is often overridden in pursuit of economic gain, and indigenous perspectives are seldom taken into serious consideration when development plans are drawn up. Indeed many of these plans involve extractive practices or large-scale agriculture which are contrary to indigenous beliefs and damaging for the environment. In addition to this, the absence of the state in these regions allows the presence of illegal armed groups who wish to profit from drug trafficking and illegal mining practices in indigenous territories. Worse still, these co-existing legal and illegal economic interests often appear to work in tandem; for example, the Wayuu indigenous community in the desert peninsula of La Guajira have suffered violence and displacement to allow for large-scale open pit coal mining, principally for the Swiss based multinational Cerrejon, on their lands. Communities there have long fought legal battles over the effects of these mining practices on the community and the environment. Representatives have been threatened and killed by illegal groups who operate in this territory in response. Many of the indigenous communities currently protesting in Cali (the Minga indigenous protests joined forces with the national strike) hail from the nearby department of Cauca, which has suffered disproportionate levels of violence throughout the armed conflict. The 2016 peace deal which led to the demobilisation of FARC fighters brought hope of a better, more inclusive future. However, the government of Juan Manuel Santos failed to establish an effective state presence in the areas vacated by the FARC, allowing a plethora of neo-paramilitary and dissident guerrilla groups to establish themselves in a strategic region rich in natural resources and fertile for illegal crops. Such a scenario was repeated in various regions and sub-regions throughout the country. The situation has only deteriorated during the mandate of current president Ivan Duque, whose political party made little secret of their plans to “tear the peace agreement to shreds”. By and large, they have been true to their word with constant attacks on the transitory peace tribunals established to shed light on, and bring justice for the victims of, the conflict. In addition there has been little support for many of the key pacts of the agreement such as regional development plans aimed at helping war-torn areas such as Cauca, or the voluntary crop substitution programs aimed at tackling the issue of illegal crops. In contrast, the current government has pursued controversial measures such as the aerial spraying of crops with pesticides that pose serious health and environmental hazards and also pushed for other controversial practices such as the introduction of fracking in the country. Such moves are vehemently opposed by indigenous communities as well as several other sectors of society. If these grievances were not sufficient cause for protest, indigenous leaders have been murdered with alarming regularity as part of a larger pattern of violence towards community leaders and human rights defenders in the country. Since 2016, there have been over 1,000 such leaders murdered throughout the country, with indigenous leaders representing around a quarter of this figure. Afro-Colombian communities in Cauca and elsewhere in the country (particularly in the department of Choco on the Pacific coast), as well as campesino rural communities, face similar challenges, threats and violence. These sectors have also been present in the marches. This grave situation highlights that these protests go well beyond the proposed tax reform. It is notable that these sectors by and large expressed strong support for the peace agreement in the controversial plebiscite of 2016. The urban centres that were by and large removed from the worst of the conflict narrowly rejected the agreement. The current protests therefore must be seen as a cry for attention and assistance in response to the critical human rights situation faced by many throughout the country. Many of those currently critical of the protests appear completely ambivalent to this daily reality within the safety of their urban and privileged bubbles. However, it appears that their children are not.

As previously mentioned, the national strike was initially called for by workers unions as a show of opposition to the proposed tax reforms, but it has increasingly evolved into a broader call for the plural political participation which was at the heart of the 2016 peace agreement. It is perhaps fitting that the student and young population of Colombia has played an increasingly active role in proceedings. This is a generation who grew up and came of age with the promise of peace in their country. Their parents and grandparents may have been more cynical given the history of violence and failed peace initiatives in Colombia, yet here was the tantalising prospect of the largest guerrilla force in the hemisphere laying down their arms and pledging to build a brighter future. This hope was dashed with the cynical manipulation of the agreement, led primarily by the party behind the current government and ex-president Alvaro Uribe, leading upto the 2016 plebiscite which saw a narrow rejection of the agreement. This generation of young people then saw the election of a government intent on destroying this peace agreement and the subsequent descent into violence for many of the war-torn regions which had committed to and dreamed of peace. It is a generation aware of the fact that part of this hostility to the agreement is based on a fear of uncomfortable truths, such as the fact that members of the armed forces murdered at least 6,402 of their own innocent citizens in order to present them as war bounties. It is a generation who have heard their government play linguistic games in attempts to downplay the situation in the country; massacres rebranded as collective killings, children recruited by illegal groups labelled as “war machines” and just last week, militarization of cities in response to democratic protests as “military assistance”. They have seen social leaders, human rights defenders, and disarmed ex-combatants murdered with impunity. It is, crucially, a generation with little belief in the discourse and reporting of this situation by a mainstream media incapable of asking the right questions; a generation who trust in the reporting of external sources such as the UN or NGOs such as Temblores or Amnesty International and these sources, in addition to an increasing platform for long marginalized sectors such as the indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities afforded by social media (as an aside, it is worrying and striking to note the targeting of social media and internet connection throughout these protests), hold a mirror up to Colombia and it is not a pretty sight. This is a generation of multi-lingual, educated and critical thinkers, but it is a generation who see better opportunities working outside of a country they love. President Duque has spoken of making Colombia the Silicon Valley of Latin America, yet all that is visible are the limited opportunities and pay that come with staffing call centres. However, this generation is digitally literate. This generation grew up as members of transnational digital communities (based on shared passions for One Direction, K-pop, football and video games among others) and this generation understands communication in the 21st century. They have seen their counterparts throughout the world play active roles in protest via digital activism and understand inherently how this works. Not everyone has been in the streets (parents and young people alike are wary of the very real dangers present) put they have been there (their much maligned screens in hand) in the digital sphere, resharing videos of brutality, amplifying the voices of those protesting and those on the margins, displaying their creativity and humour throughs memes, and most intriguing of all, bringing events in Colombia to the global community by calling on their digital communities to ally themselves with those protesting in Colombia, encouraging international communities to ensure that the government here feels pressure from outside, and calling out notable Colombian figures for their apparent indifference. There are shades of the increased digital activism by young people in relation to climate change. This generation is also aware that they face an uncertain unstable future due to increasing environmental damage and see a government actively pursuing practices which only serve to aggravate these environmental issues. And it is a generation which looks towards their indigenous and Afro-Colombian compatriots and sees communities whose attitude towards nature and how to live amongst it is more aligned to their own. Despite the horror of the past few weeks, it has been as heartening to see this generation give an example to us all as it has to see the solidarity shown by young people with other sectors of society. If this strike is to lead to true change, this activism and solidarity will need to continue and develop with an eye on next year’s presidential elections. Colombia is a country with traditionally low voter turnout, especially among young voters. Should that change, the impact on Colombian politics would be huge.

And so the protests continue, the violence continues and the competing narratives continue. President Duque has held negotiations with politicians from outside the government but has yet to call talks with the very people marching and dying in the streets. The international media continues to report on the various human rights infringements, while the national mainstream media continues to focus disproportionately on damage caused by protestors. In homes throughout the country, a generational battle of wills is being waged between a younger generation who believe in a more inclusive future and their elders scarred by memories of war and suspicious of long marginalised sectors. Being Colombia, there has been art, music and dance but there has also been tears, shock and frustration. Those who only look to the tax reform fail to understand the collective anger felt towards the current government and its policies. For the past few years the slogan “They are killing us” has been used by indigenous, Afro-Colombian and rural communities to refer to the ongoing campaign of violence they face. For the past few weeks, it has become a rallying cry for those being met with terror and brutality in the principal towns and cities of Colombia for the mere act of pursuing their constitutional right. Some of the most important universities in the countries have shared their proposals for how the country should proceed. The proposals refer to an economically and socially inclusive pact for financial development, the right and access to healthcare, a strengthening of the democratic policies established in the 1991 constitution, a thorough implementation of the 2016 peace accords, an adherence to a state of law which respects the right to protest, and the right to access quality education.. With so many examples of excessive use of force over the past 12 days, increased calls for reform of the military and police can also be expected. From what has been written above and what has been proposed from the academic community, it is clear that what is at the heart of this current situation is not simply rejection of the tax reforms, but the battle for a more pluralised, inclusive and socially conscious approach to politics. Given the track record of President Duque and his government for acknowledging errors, accepting criticism and engaging in true dialogue, it seems unlikely any real progress can be made during his mandate. However, the emergence of an increasingly active and engaged citizenry of students and young people offers a tantalizing potential for electoral change next year.