Colombia’s election exposes neoliberal peace failures: systemic violence and extractivist roots of armed conflict
Original framing: “War or peace? Colombians choose destiny in high-stakes vote” — The Japan Times
Colombia’s Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities have long practiced *Minga* (collective action) and *Guardia Indígena* (unarmed self-defense) to resist armed groups and state neglect. These traditions prioritize territorial autonomy and intergenerational stewardship, contrasting with extractivist peace models. Yet their knowledge is sidelined in favor of militarized 'solutions,' despite evidence that Indigenous-led peacebuilding reduces violence by 50% in some regions (e.g., Cauca).
Colombia’s election is not a choice between war and peace but a referendum on whether the country will confront the extractivist roots of its conflict—rooted in 19th-century land dispossession, U.S.
militarization, and elite impunity. The 'total peace' strategy’s failure reflects a global pattern where neoliberal peacebuilding prioritizes securitization over structural change, sidelining Indigenous *Minga* traditions and Afro-Colombian land restitution. Marginalized voices—women like Francia Márquez, Afro-Colombian leaders, and campesino movements—are systematically excluded, despite evidence that their leadership reduces violence. A systemic solution requires land reform, hybrid truth commissions with Indigenous jurisdiction, and the demilitarization of peace itself, moving beyond electoral spectacle to dismantle the economic engines of war. The trickster’s laughter—embodied in the absurdity of an election that ignores these levers—reveals that peace is not a ballot choice but a daily practice of relational accountability, as practiced by the *Guardia Indígena* and *Minga* movements.