Skip to main content
Publication languages:
Podcast PRIF TALK:

Filter posts by language:

Figure 1: What could a De la Espriella presidency mean for peacebuilding?

Written on .

Figure 1. What could a De la Espriella presidency mean for peacebuilding? The 2016 Peace Agreement and the broader peacebuilding agenda could be affected by the president-elect's militarized security-first agenda. Policy shift 1: Rural reform undermined Forced coca eradication instead of cooperative substitution of illicit crops. Resources and political attention shift toward security operations and territorial control. Likely consequences for peacebuilding: Land access, rural development and institutional presence in marginalized areas lose priority and implementation momentum. Illicit crop substitution programs and alternative livelihoods are weakened. Moderate scenario (more likely short term): Rural reform remains formally on the agenda but loses political visibility. Budgets and administrative capacity are reoriented toward security. Business-oriented approach to rural development undermines past reform efforts and increases territorial disparities. Programs to address alternative substitution are scaled back. Adverse scenario (more likely long term): Rural reform is effectively deprioritized. Land redistribution and rural development are treated as secondary or discretionary. Alternative development is abandoned, while territorial state presence becomes primarily military, allowing illicit economies to persist. Return to large-scale, forced coca eradication, including through aerial spraying with pesticides, undermines the promise of cooperative substitution and causes serious social, economic, health and environmental harm to rural populations. What is ultimately at risk? The structural transformation of the countryside, a core pillar of the Agreement and a key driver for addressing the roots of conflict. Policy shift 2: Transitional justice threatened Less political support and institutional independence for key justice institutions. Likely consequences for peacebuilding: Trust in the justice system erodes among victims, appearing parties, and conflict-affected communities. Legitimacy and capacity of transitional justice institutions are weakened. Moderate scenario (more likely short term): The JEP remains in place but faces political interference and restrictions that weaken its autonomy. Budgets and institutional support are reduced. Implementations of sentences and measures faces delays. Adverse scenario (more likely long term): Official elimination or the facto shutdown of the JEP. Suspension of JEP sentences and measures. Loss of independence and politicalization of justice institutions. Victims’ access to truth, justice and reparation is severely undermined. What is ultimately at risk? Accountability, truth, and reconciliation. Weakening the JEP can deepen impunity, polarization, and create legal uncertainty. Policy shift 3: Reincorporation at risk Trust in the state’s commitment declines among ex-combatants and benefited communities. Likely consequences for peacebuilding: Legitimacy and capacity of reincorporation and transition institutions are eroded. Risks of disengagement and new cycles of violence increase. Moderate scenario (more likely short term): DDR programs and the ARN remain in place but receive less political backing and visibility. Budgets and institutional support are reduced. Implementation faces delays and greater obstacles. Adverse scenario (more likely long term): Government weakens or closes the ARN and does not renew the UN Verification Mission mandate. Support for socioeconomic projects and security guarantees shrinks. Risks of disengagement or recruitment among ex-combatants increase. What is ultimately at risk? Sustainability of the reincorporation process and community trust. Loss of confidence can increase risks of disengagement, recruitment or targeted violence. Policy shift 4: Negotiation channels closed Negotiations is ruled out as a policy instrument toward armed groups. Likely consequences for peacebuilding: Opportunities for de-escalation, humanitarian agreements and conflict management are reduced. Reliance on military responses increases. Moderate scenario (more likely short term): Ongoing dialogues are reduced or put on hold. Government prioritzes military and law enforcement strategies. Limited ad hoc contacts may continue in exceptional cases. Adverse scenario (more likely long term): All dialogue processes are terminated. Armed actors respond with greater violence and adaption. Conflict escalation becomes more likely in several territories. What is ultimately at risk? Channels for conflict management and peace negotiation. Harder confrontation risks more violence and weaker state legitimacy in the long run. Note: Scenarios are illustrative, not predictive. Their likelihood will depend on political choices, institutional checks and balances, societal mobilization, and the response of international actors. Source: authors’ own elaboration.