Massive violence exerted by paramilitary groups has been a gruesome feature of Colombia's protracted armed conflict. Particularly in the past 30 years, paramilitary atrocities have critically affected small farmers, human rights defenders, community and labour leaders, and leftist intellectuals and politicians. But who and what are the paramilitaries and how did they emerge as key players in the armed conflict? Which sectors of Colombian society are supporting them? Why has the state not confronted them or, worse, has acted in collusion with them? Was the demobilisation of the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) some ten years ago a farce, leading to the transformation of the paramilitary groups but not to their extinction? These and other related questions have exercised and tormented many minds in the past decades, both in Colombia and abroad. But finding cogent and persuasive answers remains work in progress.
In Paramilitarism and Neoliberalism, Jasmin Hristov seeks to contribute to the debate by employing a ‘Marxist political economy perspective to explore the role of violence in processes of capital accumulation, dispossession and the exacerbation of social inequalities’ (p. 1). Her central claim is that in Colombia (and other parts of Latin America and the Caribbean) ‘paramilitarism’ forms the economic and political foundation for these violent processes. ‘While multiple forms of and motives for violence are present in Colombian society, it is possible to discern one pervasive and persistent kind of violence capable of reproducing itself […] It rests upon the fusion of economic and political power, is spearheaded and organised by considerable sections of the Colombian capitalist classes, and is facilitated through the support of various state institutions. The phenomenon of paramilitarism is the very embodiment of this kind of violence’ (p. 1).
This is an interesting proposition worthy of serious examination. Colombia's paramilitaries have an infamous history of close cooperation and entanglement with parts of the country's political, economic and military elites, and much of the violence these groups have exerted over the years has been a function of illegal-criminal wealth acquisition. However, I am not convinced that the book does justice to the complexities of the involved issues and that it overall helps generate a better understanding of the political economy of war and peace in Colombia. In what follows I will succinctly discuss what I see as some of the more striking weaknesses of Hristov's work in relation to (1) the approach; (2) the material on Colombia that is brought to the page; and (3) a few additional issues that put the scholarly value of the book in question.
Approach: I share Hristov's view that applying a political economy lens is useful to gain a better understanding of a complex, ‘multidimensional’ phenomenon such as ‘paramilitarism’. I also agree that ‘political Marxism’, as she calls it, could offer insights, but only if it is used opportunely as a heuristic tool and not as a dogmatic straitjacket. In this regard, I feel that the author missed out on an opportunity to put a Marxist perspective in fruitful conversation with other relevant political economy approaches, such as the emerging debate about political settlements but also some of the more recent literatures on institutions and (hybrid) political orders. Failing to engage with theoretical pluralism leaves Hristov ill-prepared to tackle the big questions about the chameleonic nature of the Colombian state and its dynamic and evolving relationship with the country's fragmented political, economic and military elites as well as a broad array of illegal armed groups, including numerous different paramilitary and criminal organisations (a single ‘paramilitary’ does not exist) as well as the insurgent FARC and ELN. The book is characterised by an almost total lack of granular analysis of these actors and relationships. Instead they are portrayed as more or less monolithic entities with apparently static identities that are not subject to change over time. Nothing could be further from reality.
Material on Colombia: The more useful parts of the book are those where Hristov conceptualises ‘paramilitarism’. However, her critique of the extant analyses strikes me as quite schematic and the presented discussion does not refer to important works like those of Claudia López, Fernán González, Mauricio García, Rodrigo Uprimny and Gustavo Duncan. It is also silent on the extensive and highly relevant work of the National Centre of Historical Memory (CNMH, in Spanish). In many other parts of the book, the author seems to be content to reproduce material of questionable quality without subjecting her sources to critical scrutiny and trying to substantiate her claims. In even more parts, such as those dealing with the demobilisation of the AUC and the emergence of new illegal armed groups, the transitional justice framework, the construction of historical memory and the current peace talks between the government and FARC, the account is arguably entirely off the mark. In effect, one does wonder at times what kind of grounded exposure Hristov has had in Colombia and whether she has actually done the requisite in-country fieldwork. Judging by the information on primary sources contained in the book, it cannot have been much. Only three interviews are listed.
Additional issues: Considering the very real and very serious impact of paramilitary violence and oppression on the lives of so many people in Colombia, I feel Hristov goes too far by exhibiting a tendency to stylise herself as a victim of ‘tactics used by those in support of the status quo […], all of which are aimed at discrediting, dismissing, delegitimising and ultimately silencing those of us who seek political and economic transformation’ (p. xviii). Who does she mean by ‘us’? Does she have in mind the millions of victims of violence and human rights violations in Colombia or does she refer to some other, far less concrete subject? Does the author really think that she represents anybody in Colombia and that she commands some kind of legitimacy that would allow her to exclaim ‘ni perdón, ni olvido’ [neither forgiving nor forgetting]’ (p. v) in the book's dedication?
