Catholicism and Conflict in Colombia: Liberation theology and the ELN

 

In light of recent events there has been increased scholarly attention and general interest in the religion-violence relationship. Notwithstanding, a quick look at history reveals that religion and violence have mingled for millennia. An array of religiously identified groups have taken up arms in the name of a divine cause of some sort. In many ways, these groups have been movements. These movements have certain objectives that are set in religious frameworks and promote the attainment of these objectives through violent measures. Though they have been many, these movements do not simply materialize out of  ‘thin air’. They are formed and supported by people for some reason or another and in all of them God somehow fits into the equation. With that said, the question that remains to be asked is: Why do people start, ‘sign up’ for, and support these movements? This question is extremely broad and this dissertation will not attempt to answer it. It does however set the tone for what this dissertation will attempt to answer. That question is, “How salient is the liberation theology movement in the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) today?” This dissertation will explore this question using the McAdam political process model of social movements and argue that liberation theology is perhaps quite salient in the ELN.

 

Latin American Catholic intellectuals developed liberation theology in the late 1950s early 1960s. Later, at the1968 Latin American Bishops’ conference in Colombia, the Catholic Church sanctioned it as a reforming model for addressing longstanding issues of widespread poverty in that region of the world. Liberation theology could be seen as religion’s role in a broad Leftist-leaning intellectual trend throughout Latin America. Furthermore, it was a prominent role in this trend, as the population of Latin America is both poor and believing. As this trend was highly influenced by Leftist thought, it was characterized by the questioning of the legitimacy of existing social structures. Liberation theology declares that it is the religious duty of able Latin American Christians to emancipate the believing-peasant class majority from poverty by way of ‘raising their consciousness’. This will in turn lead to a toppling of existing oppressive structures. Because this theology is highly normative, and became widely accepted, it has turned into a movement. Unlike traditional Marxist movements however, the ultimate objective of liberation theology is not framed as the achievement of a classless society but instead a ‘Kingdom of God’ on earth where all are free from the bondages of oppression. For most, this would be accomplished by peaceful means, for others, including the ELN; this would be accomplished by violent means.

The ELN guerrilla insurgent group emerged in Colombia in 1964, eight years after La Violencia (1948-1958), a civil war between extreme right and left wing parties that left around 200,000 dead. At their inception, the ELN were influenced by the liberation theology message and the successes of a Leftist guerrilla revolution in Cuba. As the movement ideologically embraces the liberation theology message, ELN ranks and leadership positions have been home to priests and laymen inspired by the message’s manifestation as an armed rebel movement. Today, fallen combatants, particularly former priests, are revered by current ELN leaders as martyrs and prophets. Moreover, between 1973 and 1998 a former priest was the ELN’s ideological and political leader.

Despite a skewed general perception of the ELN, and some convincing scholarly opposition both of the ELN’s motives and the general salience of the liberation theology movement in Latin America today, this dissertation argues that liberation theology may remain quite salient in the ELN. Furthermore, that the importance of liberation theology for the ELN is conceivably ‘genuine’. Based on the ELN documents that I have obtained and translated, their history of leadership, social relations, and past ELN objectives in negotiations, it appears that the power of liberation theology has been, and continues to be, a dominant motivating factor for both attracting/retaining recruits, and obtaining structural support from the people of Colombia. Moreover, evidence acquired at this stage in my research seems to suggest that the social movement theory developed by Doug McAdams[1] may provide a clearer framework for the explanation of the emergence and sustainability of the ELN as a violent religiously identified social movement.

An operationalized study of this topic is a worthwhile endeavour for two reasons: 1) academic literature on RMT and violent religious social movements, particularly the guerrilla sort, is very underdeveloped, deeming a study of this sort a worthy addition to the existing body of knowledge; and 2) the findings of this sort of research could be utilized by those on the opposite end of the negotiating table with the ELN, as a resource to better understand the group which for close to twenty years has been in a dispersed series of peace talks with the Colombian government.

 

Resource Movement Theory and the ELN

RMT generally emphasises the importance of ‘social capital’ in establishing sustainable networks to support insurgent movements. Furthermore, this theoretical approach posits that movement participants are rational actors. RMT is quite different than other substantial literature in social movement theory (SMT) that indicates social movements are spontaneous products of mass hysteria (Morris, 2000). Instead, RMT emphasizes that social movements are made possible through a variety of organized informal and formal networks. In addition, ‘its central contention is that while grievances are ubiquitous, movements are not’ (Wiktorowicz, 2003).

Christian Smith’s book on SMT and liberation theology, in which he finds liberation theology to be quite powerful in shaping the broader character of Latin American liberation movements (Smith, 1991), provides a framework for which my research will be executed. Though he primarily looks at liberation theology manifested in its more peaceful forms, Smith provides a foundation upon which I can work. He has shown that the liberation movement is in fact very significant in the manifestation and sustainment of a variety of Latin American social movements.

My research analyzes the ELN as a social movement and the liberation theology movement as a significant contributing factor to the existence of the ELN. Furthermore, I take a more holistic approach than Smith whereby I look at liberation theology and the liberation theology movement as one and the same. This is done in light the notion that liberation theology (as an idea) is latently normative, and consequently, any physical implementation of liberation theology becomes part of the liberation theology movement (the idea manifested). This differs from Smith’s work, as he views the liberation theology movement as a social movement significantly influenced by liberation theology. In other words, he posits liberation theology as one of three structural factors contributing to the liberation movement.[2] Nonetheless, we both analyze movements influenced by the same concept but with differing nuances in our definition of that concept. Additionally, owing to the topical and regional similarity of our projects, I will utilize the same methodology as Smith.

The model he uses is the Doug McAdam’s political process model of social movements (McAdam, 1983). It has been considered by scholars to be the ‘dominant synthetic model of social movements’ (Morris, 2000). My methodology will follow McAdam’s model closely. As previously indicated, it will also make use of some of the ways in which Smith analyzes the factors used to apply the McAdam model.

McAdam’s model stresses the importance of the existence of three structural factors as necessities for social movements to materialize and sustain. The first is the level of indigenous organization, or organizational ‘readiness’ within the aggrieved population. The second is a structure of expanding political opportunities available to insurgent groups, and the third is a cultural framing, or as Smith refers to it, ‘the insurgent consciousness’. The level of indigenous organization is important, as the resources provided by social links are crucial to the survival of any movement in the face of a more powerful institutional opposition. These resources are the mobilizing structures, formal and informal, in which people mobilize and participate in collective action. A structure of expanding political opportunities is also important, as there must be a viable opening in the political arena that movement entrepreneurs can fill. The element of cultural framing is the third structural necessity. This element can be defined as ideas, belief systems, rituals, oratory, and grievance interpretations within the context of where a movement takes place. It is argued by McAdam that people need to feel both aggrieved and optimistic: aggrieved about some aspect of their lives and optimistic that acting collectively is the means by which grievances will be dealt with. Again, Smith has referred to this third element as ‘the insurgent consciousness’.

McAdam indicates that the three structural factors mentioned are necessary but not sufficient prerequisites for insurgent movements. They are instead seen as the necessary prerequisites for the process of tactical interaction. Tactical interaction is defined as the process in which insurgents and their opponents both tactically innovate and tactically adapt. Tactical innovation is described as the ability of insurgent groups to devise tactics by which they can somehow effectively oppose a larger institutionalized opponent. Tactical adaptation describes the insurgent opponent’s ability to develop new tactics to offset the insurgency’s tactical innovations. McAdam describes this process of tactical interaction as similar to a game of chess, whereby insurgents and their opponents attempt to ‘offset the moves of the other’. Tactical interaction is what insurgent movements seek. If there is an interaction between the insurgency and its opponent then it means that the opponent has responded to an insurgent tactical innovation with a tactical adaptation. A process of tactical interaction reveals that a movement has been, to a degree, successful. This is by virtue of the fact that a response to insurgent moves by an opponent indicates that insurgents have a degree of leverage in the political sphere as they have influenced the action of the larger institutional opponent. Furthermore, tactical innovations only become ‘potent’ when there is expanding political opportunities. Tactical interaction is largely what determines ‘the pace and outcome of insurgency movements’.

 

In essence, the McAdams model applied to the ELN at its inception looks as follows:

Necessary Structural Prerequisites

1)    Indigenous structure: the embedded Catholic church in Colombia

2)    Expanding political opportunities: a) Inability of Colombian government to provide social services, security etc. b) a successful Cuban Revolution

3)    Insurgent consciousness: the development of liberation theology and its ability to provide an awareness of collective grievance

 

The Resulting Social Movement

By way of liberation theology, there was a collective grievance among many within the imbedded Catholic Church in Colombia regarding 1) the emancipation of the poor in that country; and 2) a replacement of the existing political structure. Furthermore, in light of the inability of the Colombian government to provide social services, security, etc. to the poor, a political opportunity existed to do so. A violent insurgent group (the ELN) that identified with the collective desire of the religious group, and was also inspired by a successful violent Cuban Revolution, has filled this political opportunity. Moreover, many within the group expressing a collective grievance had the desire to support the ELN and also had the structural strength to do so.

 

Tactical Interaction

The process of tactical interaction was defined previously and will be demonstrated in the dissertation by examining and explaining various critical innovations and adaptations. Doing so in this proposal stage of research is not necessary and I am not prepared to do so at this point. However, it is important to note that the tactical interaction process will be important in explaining why the ELN has sustained as a movement. Moreover, how they have managed to maintain links to the necessary structural factors for support of their movement, what the relationship with the structural factors has been over time, and how some structural changes have occurred in the process of tactical interaction.

 

Research Method

In similarity to other recent work scholarly work done using SMT to examine violent religiously identified groups (Wiktorowicz et al, 2003), my method of research will be investigative and discursive.[3] While remaining within the parameters of my methodological approach, I will substantiate my argument by adequately explaining the three structural prerequisites presented as at the essence of the ELN when viewed as a violent social movement. In addition, as these factors are dynamic, they will be fluidly integrated into the ensuing examination of the process of tactical interaction that has taken place. To be reflexive, I engage other theoretical approaches and conflicting scholarly research with my argument.

I expect at this stage in my research there are enough available historical documents, policy drafts, and field research projects that have been done to in order to fulfil the requirements for examining the salience of liberation theology in the ELN using the McAdam model. Furthermore, I have translated recent ELN produced documents that clearly elucidate liberation theology. These documents will be valuable in substantiating my argument as well. It is also my plan to do some of my own field research in June/July. I have contacted the International Crisis Group field office in Bogotá, Colombia and have arranged to meet with a researcher there. This researcher, who is a former University of Kent-Brussels student, will meet with me upon my arrival and assist me with suggestions in conducting my fieldwork. It is my desire to obtain a more bona fide sense of what is happening on the ground prior to submission.

Dissertation Outline

I.               Introduction (2-3 pages)

II.             Perspectives on Violent Insurgency and Social Movements (8-10 pages)

1)    A look at the greed arguments (Collier et al)

2)    Review of empirical work (Fearon & Latin, 2003; Reagan & Norton, 2005)

3)    Briefly look at (Juergensmeyer, 2003) and ‘cosmic war’

4)    A revision of some conventional works (Skocpol, 1994)

5)    Summarizing the McAdam model and displaying its effectiveness for examining the ELN

While the engaging these theoretical approaches, it is in this chapter that I plan to construct the foundation for examining the ELN as a violent religiously identified social movement that can be properly identified utilizing the McAdam model.

III.       The Context in which the ELN has existed (8-10 pages)

1)    The imbedded Catholic Church

2)    La Violencia (1948-1958)

3)    Grievances in Colombia

4)    The intellectual movement manifested: liberation theology

5)    A violent Revolution in Cuba

6)    Medellín (1968)

7)    The beginnings of the ELN

8)    Base Christian Communities (BEC)

9)    Vatican response

With a particular focus on religion in Colombia, in this chapter I plan to provide the reader with an understanding of the context in which this social movement has arisen and been supported. The three structures that McAdam identifies as necessary prerequisites will be identified while engaging conflicting scholarly evidence with my own findings.

III.           Tactical Interaction (8-10 pages)

1)    Changing leadership and changing alliances in the ELN

2)    Alteration of militaristic doctrine: Colombian government and the ELN

3)    Changing fronts

4)    Extortion, kidnapping, and cocaine

5)    The rise and fall of the paramilitaries

6)    Shifts in public opinion

Within the framework of McAdam’s process of tactical interaction, this chapter will describe the dynamic strategies employed by both the ELN and the Colombian government, or as McAdam would say, the institutional opponent and the insurgency. Moreover, it will include further insight into what the role of the necessary structural factors for support of the ELN has been.

IV.          Rhetoric and fieldwork (5-7 pages)

1)    Translated ELN documents

2)    Fieldwork: interviews etc.

This shorter chapter should substantiate the relevance or irrelevance of scholarly theorization and exogenously conducted policy analysis. This chapter will be my attempt at portraying a bona fide explanation of the salience of liberation theology within the ELN. I plan, as Smith did, to incorporate personal interviews and primary source observations in my utilization of the McAdam model.

V.             Conclusion (2-3 pages)

1)    Hypothesis proven?

2)    Added value and future research

As it is the conclusion, this chapter will serve as a culmination of my main findings in the body chapters. Only upon the completion of my fieldwork will I be entirely conclusive in stating whether or not liberation theology is currently salient in the ELN. Either way, the added value of this research will be that it will contribute to the existing work on RMT and violent religiously identified social movements, which is an underdeveloped area of research. If I find my hypothesis to be correct using the McAdam model, then I will make suggestions as to what types of empirical research might be done to substantiate it.

 

A Preliminary Bibliography

Doug McAdam, “Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency”,

            American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6, December 1983 (pp. 735-754).

Ian Beckett, “Guerrilla Warfare: Insurgency and Counter-insurgency Since 1945”, in

            Colin McInnes and G.D. Sheffield, eds., Warfare in the Twentieth Century: Theory and Practice, Unwin Hyman 1988, (pp. 194-212).

Alberto Bolívar, “Latin America’s Terrorist and Insurgent Groups: History and Status”, Strategos Institute, Lima, Peru, May 2006 (pp. 1-19).

Lawrence Boudon, “Guerrillas and the State: The Role of the State in the Colombian Peace Process”, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, May 1996 (pp. 279-297).

Virginia M. Bouvier, “Colombia: Building Peace in a time of War”, United States Institute of Press, 2006, (pp. 1-34).

Paul Collier, “Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and their Implications for Policy”, Department of Economics, Oxford University, April 2006 (pp. 1-26).

“Colombia: Moving Forward with the ELN?”, ICG Latin America Briefing No. 16, Bogotá/Brussels, 11 October 2007 (pp.1-19).

“Colombia: The Prospects for Peace with the ELN”, ICG Latin America Report No. 2, Bogotá/Brussels, 4 October 2002 (pp.1-42).

“Colombia’s New Armed Groups”, ICG Latin American Report N. 20, Bogotá/Brussels, 10 May 2007, (pp. 1-33).

Christian Davenport et al, “APSA Taskforce on Political Violence”, Draft No. 2, 28 October 2006, (pp. 1-19).

Carol Ann Drogus, “Review: The Rise and Decline of Liberation Theology: Churches, Faith, and Political Change in Latin America”, Comparative Politics, Vol. 27, No. 4, July, 1995 (pp. 465-477).

“ELN Statement of Revolutionary Goals”, The Center for International Policy’s Colombia Project, 22 June 2001, available at (http://ciponline.org/colombia/elngoals.htm), accessed on 9 March 2008.

James D. Fearon; David D. Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War”,

         The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 1, February 2003 (pp. 75-90).

Manzar Foroohar, “Liberation Theology: The Response of Latin American Catholics to Socioeconomic Problems”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3, Religion, Resistance, Revolution, Summer, 1986 (pp. 37-58).

Gustavo Gutiérrez; trans. by Fred Murphy, “Search for Identity”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 3, Five Hundred Years of Colonization: Struggles for Emancipation and Identity, Summer, 1992 (pp. 61-6).

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “The Situation and Tasks of Liberation Theology Today”, in Opting for Margins, edited by: Joerg Rieger, Chapter 4, Oxford University Press (2003).

Ernesto “Che” Guevara, “Guerrilla Warfare”, Trans. and published by: BN Publishing, USA, 2007, (pp. 5-105).

“Group Profile: National Liberation Army (ELN)”, MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, 29 January 2008, available at (http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=21811), accessed on 11 March 2008.

Stephanie Hanson, “FARC, ELN: Colombia’s Left-Wing Guerrillas”, Council on Foreign Relations, 11 March 2008, available at (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9272/), accessed on 13 March 2008.

Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Foreign Affairs,  Vol. 72, Iss. 3, Summer 1993, (pp. 22-49).

Mark Juergensmeyer, “Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence”, Berkeley : University of California Press (2000).

Stathis Kalyvas, “The Ontology of Political Violence,” Perspectives on Politics,

Vol. 1, No. 3, 2003, (pp. 475-94).

Gary Leech, “The successes and Failures of President Uribe”, 28 November 2005, available at (http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia222.htm), accesed on 8 Marh 2008.

Michael Löwy; Claudia Pompan, “Marxism and Christianity in Latin America”,

            Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 4, The Struggle for Popular Participation, Autumn, 1993 (pp. 28-42).

Phillip McLean, “Colombia-Thinking Clearly about the Conflict”, Center For Strategic and International Studies, Policy Papers on the Americas, Vol. 13, Study 7, October 2002 (pp. 1-12).

Aldon Morris, “Reflections on Social Movement Theory: Criticisms and Proposals”

         Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 3, May 2000, (pp. 445-454).

Tom Moylan, “Denunciation/Annunciation: The Radical Methodology of Liberation Theology”, Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter, 1991-1992, (pp. 33-64).

Florence Passy; Marco Giugni, “Social Networks and Individual Perceptions: Explaining Differential Participation in Social Movements”, Sociological Forum, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2001, (pp. 123-153).

“Peace on the Table”, The Center for International Policy’s Colombia Project, 22 February 2001, available at (http://ciponline.org/colombia/pot-eln.htm), accessed on 9 March 2008.

Dr. J. Peter Pham, “Foreign Terrorist Organization: Policy Briefing Book, Ejército de Liberación Nacional”, 7 November 2006, available at (http://www.jmu.edu/writeon/documents/2007/Morin.pdf), accessed on 1 March 2008.

Kwok Pui-lan, “Liberation Theology in the Twenty-First Century”, in Opting for Margins, edited by: Joerg Rieger, Chapter 3, Oxford University Press (2003).

Patrick M. Regan and Daniel Norton, Greed, Grievance, and Mobilization in Civil Wars, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 49, No. 3, June 2005, (pp. 319-336).

Simon Romero, “Cuba, a Rebel Group’s Birthplace, Becomes a Refuge”, The New York Times, 9 September 2007, available at (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/americas/09havana.html?pagewanted=print) accessed on 11 March 2008.

Ander Rudqvist, “ELN and the Current Peace Talks in Colombia”, The Collegium for Development Studies Uppsala University, February 2006 (pp. 1-18).

Theda Skocpol, “States & Social Revolutions”, Cambridge University Press (1979), (pp. 1-407).

Theda Skocpol, “Social Revolutions in the Modern World”, Cambridge University Press (1994), (pp. 1-344).

Christian Smith, “The Emergence of Liberation Theology: Radical Religion and Social Movement Theory”, University of Chicago Press (1991), (pp. 1-293).

Mark P. Sullivan, “Latin America: Terrorism Issues”, Congressional Research Service: Report for Congress, Library of Congress, Order Code: RS21049, 16 September 2006.

“Tougher Challenges Ahead for Colombia’s Uribe”, ICG Latin America Briefing No. 11, Bogotá/Brussels, 20 October 2006 (pp.1-19).

Quintan Wiktorowicz, “Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach”, Bloomington: Indiana University Press (2004).

*Translated Documents

All of the following are available at the official ELN website (www.eln-voces.com)

1)    “DESINFORMA, FANATIZA Y REINARAS”

2)    “PUEBLOS HERMANOS”

3)    “NO SI NO HAY VERDAD, NO HABRÁ RECTIFICACIÓN”

4)    “EJÉRCITO DE LIBERACIÓN NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA”

5)   “LAÍN, PROFETA OBRERO Y GUERRILLERO

6)    “EN MEMORIA DE DARÍO DE JESÚS CALLE”

 

Research Challenges:  Scholarly Criticism

There is scepticism about 1) the ELN’s actual ‘grievances’; and 2) the current prominence of liberation theology in Latin America and its ability to serve as a catalyst for social movements. Addressing each of the scepticisms will be crucial in the development of my argument. The following two paragraphs are a briefly explain each scepticism respectively. The first is an applied theoretical critique of the ELN. The second puts forth evidence presented by scholars as to why liberation theology has lost its prominence as a social movement.

To address the first, as grievances are widespread throughout the world, more recent economic work by Paul Collier and others on the centrality of ‘greed’ as opposed to ‘grievance’ being the motivating factor for influencing combatants has been quite convincing in explaining why rebel movements occur in some places and not in others (Collier et al., 2000; Collier, 2006). Using Collier’s approach, the ELN’s grievance claims would be explained as an instrument used to guise truly rationally self-interested behaviour. Instead of fighting for the cause of the poor, as they claim, the ELN is a group ‘conflict entrepreneurs’, capitalizing on viable illicit practices that have been proven to be lucrative in Colombia. The guise of fighting for the emancipation of the poor masses is merely a tool used to avoid being viewed by the masses as merely criminals, which according to Collier, will eventually lead to a group like the ELN’s end.

I turn to the second set of scepticisms put forth. Some scholars have indicated that liberation theology has generally lost its prominence as a powerful Latin American social movement. It is hypothesized that it reached its pinnacle and is now on the decline. They have posited that this is probably a result of four factors: 1) the increasing numbers of converts to Pentecostal forms of Christianity (Drogus, 1995); and 2) the Catholic Church has placed greater emphasis on caring for the poor and human rights etc. (Drogus, 1995); 3) liberation theology’s failure to answer the challenges of post-modernity with its emphasis on a metanarrative of liberation of the poor as well as the significance attached to a universal reality (Pui-Lan, 2003); 4) a shift to a condemnation of liberation theology by high level Vatican officials in the 1980s, particularly the current Pope Benedict XVI, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Löwy, 1993). For these reasons in particular, the liberation movement is no longer viewed as a viable social movement and has begun to dissipate.

            In response to scepticism, I will have to provide hard evidence within my theoretical framework that can address each. This should be possible, and in examining the scepticisms I have begun to devise ways in which each will be addressed. I surmise that I have obtained most of the required empirical and theoretical evidence to do so. The challenge I foresee at this point with addressing them remains to be whether or not I can do so within the parameters of my chosen theoretical-methodological framework.