Friedenskurven mit Abelard: nicht widersprüchlich, sondern unstrategisch

Eleven members of the Special Transitional Circumscriptions for Peace (Citrep), created under the 2016 Peace Agreement, have publicly endorsed President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella and his vision for the “Patria Milagro” project. The move has generated controversy, with critics questioning how representatives of peace mechanisms can support a political figure who has shown little interest in implementing the peace agreement itself. However, the content of their statement does not directly challenge the terms of the agreement or its underlying principles. The Citrep representatives, elected to give voice to historically marginalized regions affected by conflict, poverty, and weak institutions, emphasized in their communication that they expect the new government to prioritize policies that address structural inequalities and deliver tangible benefits to these communities. They called for investment in social programs, infrastructure, public services, and institutional capacity, key elements outlined in the Peace Agreement’s territorial development initiatives known as Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (Pdet). This stance reflects a broader demand for accountability from the state, particularly in areas long neglected by national authorities. The representatives argue that the peace process must translate into real change, rather than remain symbolic or confined to bureaucratic procedures. Their message underscores the tension between political pragmatism and the ethical obligations of peace actors, especially when the leadership they support appears indifferent to the very goals the peace mechanism was designed to achieve. De la Espriella, however, has made clear his preference for governing through direct engagement with local leaders such as mayors and governors, bypassing congressional mediation. This approach suggests he views the legislature as less central to his governance strategy, which could explain his limited involvement with the peace process. His criticism of the Justice and Peace Court (JEP) further complicates his relationship with the peace framework, as the court plays a key role in addressing historical grievances and ensuring transitional justice. In this context, the endorsement by the Citrep representatives seems more like a strategic attempt to influence the incoming administration than a genuine alignment with the peace agenda. Yet, given De la Espriella's stated intentions, the effectiveness of such outreach remains uncertain. If anything, the silence from the president-elect so far indicates a lack of immediate response or engagement with the concerns raised by the peace delegates. The situation highlights the challenges faced by peace actors in navigating complex political landscapes where the implementation of agreements often takes a backseat to electoral and administrative priorities. It also raises questions about the role of representative bodies established under the peace accord, whether they can exert meaningful pressure on policymakers or if their voices will continue to be sidelined in favor of more conventional political strategies. As the new government prepares to take office, the actions of the Citrep representatives may serve as a test case for how peace-oriented groups can engage with power structures that appear reluctant to embrace the full scope of the peace process. Whether their efforts will lead to tangible outcomes or merely generate noise remains to be seen. For now, the president-elect’s continued silence suggests that the path forward will require more than symbolic gestures.