Colombian left wing

[politicus]

Unlike its neighbours Colombia has a fairly weak left wing. What are IYO the main reasons for this?

Sorry for the spelling error in the poll.

[JulioMadrid]

Uribe has been a "Cacique" for years, and Colombia is USA's friend in South America. However, Santos is becoming a left-winger, I believe. And Mokus had the opportunity to win as a Green alternative (unfortunately, he lost by a wide margin at the end).

FARC is a big factor, too. They may think they're helping the communists or the "real" left or whatever they think they are (just like ETA). But the truth is that they force people to vote for conservative politicians because they are "tougher" with crime.

[Sibboleth]

The key thing to understand is that certain words do not mean the same thing everywhere.

[politicus]

The key thing to understand is that certain words do not mean the same thing everywhere.

You are being very chryptic, which is annoying. Make your point or stay out of the thread.
Left wing is a broad concept, and it varies from country to country, but by any reasonable definition "the left" is weaker in Colombia than in its neighbouring contries, especially Venezuela and Ecuador.
 

[Sibboleth]

You are being very chryptic, which is annoying.

Perhaps, but it's my thing.

Words can be misleading and it's a danger to pretend otherwise (and to pretend that there are universal meanings to anything, especially to political terms), that's all. I think understanding of politics abroad (no matter where abroad is) would be greatly improved if everyone remembered that.

[politicus]

Sure. If I were comparing left wing politics in Europe/ Asia/ US or whatever to the Andean part of South America you would have a point. But I am asking a question about neighbouring countries with  a lot of common cultural and historical background. So I cant see why terminology/linguistics should be the key in this context (or even particularly relevant). Other factors must surely be much more important.

[Vasall des Midas]

The survival of the 19th century parties (with the "Liberals", who also consider themselves "Social Democrats" nowadays, as badly split nowadays as the Peronists in Argentina if not worse, between those who are on the Left and those who are part of the Uribe bloc) and the low scale civil war ongoing effectively uninterrupted since 1946 are not factors found in neighboring countries, really.

[politicus]

The survival of the 19th century parties (with the "Liberals", who also consider themselves "Social Democrats" nowadays, as badly split nowadays as the Peronists in Argentina if not worse, between those who are on the Left and those who are part of the Uribe bloc)

When it comes to party system inertia it is always a matter of cause and effect. Has the Liberals stayed relevant because the Left is weak, or has the existence of a two party system prevented the emergence
of a leftwing party or coalition?

the low scale civil war ongoing effectively uninterrupted since 1946 are not factors found in neighboring countries.

That is the FARC option in the poll and definetly an important factor. It has to some degree tainted the Left as potential traitors (or at least made it possible for right wing media to portray them as such) and made it difficult for a left wing fraction to develop in the armed forces like it did in Venezuela.

[Vasall des Midas]

The survival of the 19th century parties (with the "Liberals", who also consider themselves "Social Democrats" nowadays, as badly split nowadays as the Peronists in Argentina if not worse, between those who are on the Left and those who are part of the Uribe bloc)

When it comes to party system inertia it is always a matter of cause and effect. Has the Liberals stayed relevant because the Left is weak, or has the existence of a two party system prevented the emergence
of a leftwing party or coalition?

Presumably both.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on Colombia, mind. Though bear in mind that the party system was preserved in part by the bizarre (for the modern age) National Front deal, by which between 1958 and 1974 elections were held, but the two main parties alternated in running presidential candidates.
And the [Chavist glasses on]comparatively direct US rule[/glasses off] ever since the 40s, of course.
But basically my hypothesis - and only that, mind - would be that the current Andean Left is a very new development still, that it required both the decay/sellout/whatever of the traditional left and a new willingness by the mainstream right to let rural common people vote freely to emerge, and that all the above mentioned factors are perhaps merely postdating a parallel development in Colombia rather than preventing it.

[Sibboleth]

But I am asking a question about neighbouring countries with  a lot of common cultural and historical background.

That's true, but then Columbian politics (in particular) has always been very strange and the words used to describe political parties, paramilitary organisations and so on often make no sense outside a Columbian context (or something like that).

[Bacon King]

It's been a few years since I've had any class on this topic, but IIRC the Washington Consensus didn't damage Colombian economy or society nearly as much as it did in the rest of the Andes, so the population wasn't nearly as motivated to support the "populist-leftism" that became widespread throughout the region. In addition, in recent years concerns about the FARC and Chavez's militarism have also prevented people like Mockus from being elected.     

[politicus]

It's been a few years since I've had any class on this topic, but IIRC the Washington Consensus didn't damage Colombian economy or society nearly as much as it did in the rest of the Andes, so the population wasn't nearly as motivated to support the "populist-leftism" that became widespread throughout the region. In addition, in recent years concerns about the FARC and Chavez's militarism have also prevented people like Mockus from being elected.      

According to a (ten year old) article by Charles Bergquist from UoWa some reasons are (were):

High relatively stable 20th century growth rate fueled by coffee boom, which was mainly controlled by ordinary coffee farmers not latifundos, which created a large rural middle class.

Avoided most of the debt crisis in the 80s - neo-lib policies came later and was less hard on the poor than in most other Latin American countries.

He says less populism both left and right has been weak as a result of this. Liberalistic economic consensus instead.

But he also states that Colombia's income distribution is among the most unequal in South America only matched by Brazil. So the potential for the Left should be there.

Seems to think the Left uses violence because they are marginalized - which makes sense.

Still the difference to the rest of the continent seems to be getting smaller in the last decade and with the break-up of the Liberals maybe we will see a "normalization". The unequal income distribution should give some potential for this.