Carta dirigida a los autores del libro "why nations fail"

Carta dirigida a los autores del libro "why nations fail"

Ibague, Colombia, December 2, 2012

To: Dr. DARON ACEMOGLU

 Dr. JAMES A. ROBINSON    

 

MIT Department of Economics & Harvard University Department of Government

Cambridge, MA

Dear Mssrs:

Let me first congratulate you for your book “why nations fail”. It is a great contribution to Economics and Political Science as it solves the puzzle of why some nations enjoy high living standards while others suffer from poverty and violence. The “inclusive” versus “extractive” nature of economic and political institutions as the basis for prosperity and poverty respectively is a compelling argument supported by empirical evidence that will endure the test of time.

However, as a Colombian citizen I would like to point out that your depiction of the case in my country is incomplete and can lead to the wrong conclusions: It true that the lack of government control over many areas of the country led to the formation of extractive economic institutions exercised first by the FARC guerrillas and then, following the iron law of oligarchy, by the paramilitary in those areas where they defeated the FARC. It is also a fact that a large number of congressmen were elected with the help of the paramilitary. Where I believe that there is a misconception is in the role that former president Alvaro Uribe played in all this.

When president Uribe came to power, large parts of the country had the kind of extractive economic institutions that you describe in your book, either exercised by the FARC guerrillas or the paramilitary. The democratically elected mayors of three hundred municipalities were displaced from their offices by the violent forces and concentrated in Bogota and other capitals of the country, leaving their territories in a lawless situation. Mr. Uribe embarked the country in a policy of “democratic security” in order to restore law and order in those territories, while passing a law in congress called “peace and justice”, to incentivize the demobilization of all illegal forces by reducing the term in prison to a maximum of eight years, provided that they tell the truth about their crimes and associates and repair their victims. This special jurisdiction was not created only for the paramilitary as you state in the book, it was also geared toward the demobilization of the FARC and other guerrilla groups. In fact, 18,000 guerrillas took advantage of it and ceased their criminal activities. Due to the fierce persecution that the security forces had over the paramilitary under Mr. Uribe´s presidency, they chose to give up their weapons and surrender to the newly created law. As a result, the leaders of this organization went to prison serving the reduced sentence of eight years stipulated in the law. However, as evidence was mounting on the fact that they continued their criminal activity from jail, President Uribe decided to extradite all thirteen of them to the United States. Although some of the thirty thousand paramilitary resumed their criminal activity, and were then subject to persecution from security forces, it is incorrect to state as you do in the book that “demobilization did not mean the end of paramilitarism, simply its institutionalization in large parts of Colombia”. The fact is that the kingpins of the paramilitary are serving large sentences in the USA thanks to the zero tolerance with crime policy that Mr Uribe exercised. The extradition of the paramilitary bosses to the US was a valuable piece of information that did not make it to the book.

As a result of the “peace and justice” law, the Supreme Court started to bring to justice congressmen that were allegedly tied to the paramilitary, resulting in the imprisonment of many of them. These congressmen were first elected before the 2002 election and the vast majority of them were not supporters of mister Uribe in his election for president in 2002. In fact, Mr Uribe did not win in the areas most heavily controlled by the paramilitary, as his opponent did.

Suggesting that Mr. Uribe came to presidency thanks to the paramilitary groups, and then as president governed in their favor, is just a historical error. At the end of Mr Uribe’s eight years term in 2010, and after he had observed the ruling of the constitutional court that he could not run again for president, thirteen million Colombians had left extreme poverty and the middle class had doubled according to World Bank figures. Additionally, all forms of crime such as kidnappings, extortions and murders had significantly reduced and displacement of peasants was a thing of the past, and all town mayors in Colombia were in their respective towns fulfilling their constitutional duties. The ruling of president Uribe did not solve all the country's problems, but it did extend the reach of democracy to restore the kind of inclusive political and economic institutions that you referrred to in your book.

I would respectfully ask you revise the Colombian case so that a more realistic view is depicted in future editions. “Why nations fail” is a great book that is likely to become a classic, which is why it is so important that it does not contradict the judgment of history in the case of Colombia.

             

Very respectfully yours,

Francisco Mejia

@FcoMejiaSendoya

Unidad Popular Uribista