Search

¿Por qué grupos como el M-19, el Ejército Popular de Liberación (EPL), el Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (PRT) y la CRS decidieron negociar un acuerdo de paz mientras que las FARC-EP y el ELN se negaron a hacerlo? Basado en un análisis histórico del comportamiento político de estos grupos, se argumenta en este ensayo que la disposición a negociar depende, al menos en parte, del carácter “extremista” o “moderado” de los beligerantes, el cual varía en función de la relación de fuerza entre “duros” y “suaves” (distribución de recursos políticos, financieros, y estratégicos) dentro de cada actor colectivo. Se identifican además cuatro decisiones estratégicas: el reconocimiento del adversario, la aceptación del principio de negociación, el llamado a la definición de reglas de definición y el envío de señales costosas a favor de la paz, que permiten distinguir un extremista de un moderado en un contexto de conflicto armado interno. El uso de la violencia como herramienta política no es necesariamente un indicador de extremismo. Why did certain Colombian armed groups such as the M-19, the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), the Workers’ Revolutionary Party (PRT) and the Socialist Renovation Current (CRS) decide to sign a peace agreement while others, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) refused to do so? Based on a historical analysis of the political behavior of these armed groups, this essay shows that willingness to negotiate depends, at least partly, on the belligerents’ extremism or moderation, which varies as a function of the balance of power between ‘hardliners’ and ‘softliners’ (distribution of political, economic, and strategic resources) within each collective actor. The essay identifies four strategic choices: recognition of the adversary, acceptance of negotiation as a valid political tool for conflict resolution, calls for defining the rules of peace negotiations, and sending costly signals in favor of peace, which help to distinguish a moderate from an extremist. The essay concludes that the use of political violence is not necessarily an indicator of extremism.

The country’s preeminent public intellectual says anti-Americanism has run its course in the Islamic republic. Hardliners will try to roll back any openings, but in the long run, the country will find itself in a better place politically, economically and socially.

The thesis wil focus on the classical transitology, especially the authors Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan. This theory will be applied on the events and ideas of Prague spring 1968, while the presumption is that these events exactly met the basic condition that an ending regime should start the democratization with certain liberalization. The thesis will analyze and characterize this liberalization in three partially overlapping fields: 1. civic freedom and legality 2. political sphere 3. economics. Considering these factors, the cleavage between the elites of the communist party on reforms and hardliners, will be analyzed. Other points of the analysis include the international context in the Soviet bloc, public support of the reforms in Czechoslovakia, solid institutional organization of the regime and the lack of radical opposition. The aim of the thesis is to analyze and perhaps even vindicate the hypothesis that if there hadn't been the military intervention in August the whole process would have had the best premises to transform into ideal democratization on the border between pact and reform.

¿Por qué grupos como el M-19, el Ejército Popular de Liberación (EPL), el Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (PRT) y la CRS decidieron negociar un acuerdo de paz mientras que las FARC-EP y el ELN se negaron a hacerlo? Basado en un análisis histórico del comportamiento político de estos grupos, se argumenta en este ensayo que la disposición a negociar depende, al menos en parte, del carácter "extremista" o "moderado" de los beligerantes, el cual varía en función de la relación de fuerza entre "duros" y "suaves" (distribución de recursos políticos, financieros, y estratégicos) dentro de cada actor colectivo. Se identifican además cuatro decisiones estratégicas: el reconocimiento del adversario, la aceptación del principio de negociación, el llamado a la definición de reglas de definición y el envío de señales costosas a favor de la paz, que permiten distinguir un extremista de un moderado en un contexto de conflicto armado interno. El uso de la violencia como herramienta política no es necesariamente un indicador de extremismo. Why did certain Colombian armed groups such as the M-19, the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), the Workers' Revolutionary Party (PRT) and the Socialist Renovation Current (CRS) decide to sign a peace agreement while others, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) refused to do so? Based on a historical analysis of the political behavior of these armed groups, this essay shows that willingness to negotiate depends, at least partly, on the belligerents' extremism or modera-tion, which varies as a function of the balance of power between 'hardliners' and 'softlin-ers' (distribution of political, economic, and strategic resources) within each collective actor. The essay identifies four strategic choices: recognition of the adversary, acceptance of negotiation as a valid political tool for conflict resolution, calls for defining the rules of peace negotiations, and sending costly signals in favor of peace, which help to distinguish a moderate from an extremist. The essay concludes that the use of political violence is not necessarily an indicator of extremism.