|
|
CULTURE, MEDIA, POLITICS AND WAR
By Guillermo González Uribe
This is an analysis of the national crisis facing Colombia. Its objective is to seek solutions by analyzing the roles played by the media, the business sector and the actors in the war. This text was written by the author for presentation at a conference, "Culture Declares Peace in Colombia."
Is war the cause of our national crisis? Or is the war a consequence of structural problems facing the country? An appropriate beginning for a reflection on this theme is a paragraph from the essay, "Culture for the Construction of Peace," which Colombia's Minister of culture sent to a gathering in Santa Cruz of Mompox. It says: "Local and regional cultures are threatened more by globalization and by the expansion of capital than by national phenomena like drug trafficking and the armed conflict." Like any comment taken out of context, risk exists that its meaning can be manipulated. This phrase, however, is useful as an illustration of something repeated by analysts and leaders: our country's problem is the armed conflict in itself, that our problems have their origins in war. These analysts leave out the very roots of the conflict. What is certain is that we can only solve the conflict in our country by tackling its deepest roots. In large part, the role of culture in the present moment is to eviscerate the origins of war, because in order to overcome war, we must understand where it comes from, and what are its causes, consequences and antecedent conditions.
Media and War
The orientation, content and images present in Colombia's media have represented the most backward looking sectors of society. There are exceptions to the rule, however: the magazine Alternativa at the end of the 1970s; the newspaper El Espectador in the 1980s; the magazine Cambio in the 1990s; columnists from certain publications and newspapers; a television or radio program here and there; brave reporters and journalists from different regions who have risked their lives to ethically and professionally carry out their work. It is also important to note a recent lead editorial in the newspaper El Tiempo. But a majority of the journalists, columnists and directors are primarily linked to defending the status quo in such a way that, consciously or unconsciously, they do not fulfill a dynamic role, nor do they take risks to promote change or democratic reforms.
There is another factor related to this inertia of journalism in Colombia: every day the media become more and more enslaved to the demands of advertising and ratings. Submissively and willfully producing content that is superficial or banal, the media have, in an Olympic fashion, left aside the work of investigation, reflection, observation, follow up of processes, and creative management of language.
At a time when Colombia's diverse cultures need more than ever to deeply understand themselves and to exist in inter-relationship with other cultures, the media document, for the most part, is frivolous and lacks transcendent character. When it becomes a priority to identify the origins, roots, causes and consequences of conflicts, the media pass over these stigmatizing, condemning or lauding, showing only outlines, half truths, voices that speak in monotone and that misrepresent. The media depict an isolated and fragmented war. These depictions lead to passivity and inaction. The media reproduce schemas that portray dead-end situations, intransigence and hate. The television newscasts are packed more with action than information: explosions and sounds of bullets, some of which are montages created by the media on the heels of the events of war, and black bags that contain human corpses. But they do not tell us who these people are, what they did, why they were killed. Following the reproduction of these images and sounds that are manipulated to have an impact and not to guide the public, we see soccer balls, and eventually, tits and asses. This is what a newscast looks like in Colombia today, as we begin the 21st century, a newscast in a country semi-destroyed by a war that has extended throughout the country, with the exception of exclusive zones of major cities. A Salvadoran diplomat once said that those who clamor for war from Bogotá, raising a glass of whiskey, do not really know what war is: they have not seen their barrios aerially bombarded, their shopping malls destroyed, their schools razed.
Possible Ways Out
The situation is reminiscent of Dante. At the same time, there are those who believe that this crisis, one of the most severe right now in the world, could also generate new solutions. The situation could become something like a laboratory of ideas, of experiments and proposals which contribute to finding solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time: to the crisis of democracy, political parties and the legitimacy of our leaders; to corruption; to the most diverse forms of terrorism, led by both the state and its adversaries; to the ways in which we can interact with the omnipresent power of the United States and consolidating blocs, such as the European Union.
The most positive scenario for the country, its inhabitants and its media would be to create a realization that, with war, almost all of us lose, and with peace, we all win. War is only convenient for those who reap direct benefit from it. In relation to culture, media and war, the most desirable scenario is one that involves media outlets which are critical, active, profound, and aesthetic; participative media whose daily task is to present the voices of diverse communities and different points of view. In this way, the media would contribute to the formation of active citizens who are interested in the country and in their communities; participants who are analytical, creative and constructive for their own benefit, but also for the common good. We would have citizens and media that, if united, could form ethical policies. Together with communities, organized groups, and armed actors, they could make the necessary agreements and carry out reforms so that education and wealth would benefit the majority of Colombians. Only in this way can we build the foundation for the balanced development of our country.
Although this situation would be difficult to achieve, we must insist on creating it. Too often we find that the interests of each particular sector prevail over the general interest of society. Altruism and socially committed work lose more and more ground every day, in this era of accelerated privatization and slashing of social and cultural programs, in which the market and its laws seek to implant themselves as the only norm of behavior.
Arguments outlining social role of the media, the commitment they should have to society in relation to education, culture and the creation of a critical spirit, are only romantic ideas today at which a media director can poke fun receive with a sarcastic smile. In order to not remain stuck in the realm of good intentions, it is necessary to grasp the dynamics of each of the actors in conflict, and that of the media. In this way, we can suggest alternatives revealing benefits that can accrue to specific sectors and others which can serve society as a whole. Let us examine each set of actors.
Owners and Directors
We must show the owners of the media that peace is economically beneficial to them. With peace, production in this country would multiply in all ways. Our country is rich in territory and water; it abounds with natural resources deposited in the soil, the subsoil and the sea. It is populated by imaginative and enterprising people. The country at peace is an ideal scenario for the reactivation of the entire productive apparatus. This process in turn would reactivate advertising revenues, the gasoline of our media companies which today face serious economic problems stemming precisely from the reduction of those revenues, generated by the economic crisis partly rooted in the war.
We must remind the business and industrial sectors that countries with high productivity have large middle classes - i.e., the United States, the countries of the European Union, Japan. The buying power of these middle classes sustains the productive rhythms of industry. But with a population increasingly impoverished, as in the Colombian case, consumption drops progressively and production runs at half the pace, as does the income of business and industry.
It is a clenching truth that a country at war scares away investment, national and international, and that no one can live peacefully in a country at war. Therefore, the business sector in general, and especially the media, would benefit from betting on peace and on the creation of a more egalitarian society where people have more purchasing power and where capital and power are not so concentrated. To achieve this ideal scenario, the most immediate and less costly road is for the owners of the media to open up their pages and airwaves to allow for the democratization of the country. They need to serve as channels for the voices of all of Colombia's diverse cultures, enriching us all in many ways, creatively and productively. The media must focus on investigation, analysis, and the creative use of language. Programs must be created that do not promote passivity but that generate a new dynamism. The media must seek leaders whose voices are betting on this new country, the creation of which is not just around the corner, but which must be constructed, little by little, through the participation of many people.
Conscious of this dynamic, it is important for the media and other entrepreneurs to set standards by designing programs aimed at constructing this new vision of country and not at acquiring the best ratings through vulgarity and oversimplification. In this way their products could be identified with serious proposals; with the spirit of a country dedicated to development and growth.
Journalists
It is important to support journalists' self-esteem and professional development. Frivolous, banal products aimed at consumption are disposable. Perhaps they offer a moment of glory. But true work is worth it: it fills journalists with pride; it is worth taking risks; it brings permanent prestige and stable income; it contributes to professional growth; it is profound; it stems from reflection, observation; it follows origins and roots; and it examines effects, consequences, causes. This work must seek to use innovative language. Presented in this way, this kind of journalism that is investigative, literary, cultural, this journalism that provides background information, this real journalism as some call it, will become attractive to journalists. In turn, producing it will allow them to contribute to the construction of a better, more informed, more active society.
Citizens
Which is better? To be a mere chess piece, moved by the whims of the player, or to be a player who plans and develops the game according to his or her own criteria and knowledge? The choice is between being a citizen and being a consumer. Citizens are educated; they know from whence they came and where they are going. They have the ability to judge information according to their own criterion. They participate in the social life of their communities and countries. They make their voices and opinions heard. They listen, but they also speak and are active. They know where they stand, and from this stance, they make choices for their families and social lives. Consumers, on the other hand, simply listen passively and obey. Citizens must interact and contribute to the media. They must critique the media, and seek to influence media's scope and orientations.
The Armed Actors
The existing system in Colombia is unjust, corrupt, inequitable and exclusive. Nevertheless, the guerrillas have no basis or justification for their actions or their behavior. The guerrillas do not do politics, either because they look at it condescendingly, or because they simply do not know how to do it. The FARC wasted away the opportunity to reveal their capacity to behave as political actors for the three years during which they had national and international media correspondents present in the demilitarized zone. They only carried out denunciations and threats. They lost the chance on Saturdays to broadcast through Señal Colombia their political objectives, and instead they delivered speeches that were impossible to follow, schematic, filled with dogmatic language, ciphered and wizened. The FARC are powerful and at the same time naive: they believe that the balance of power in the world and the attacks that occurred last September in the United States will not affect the internal situation of Colombia. They continue kidnapping. They assassinate. They extort small businesspersons and peasants. They raze villages, doing the most damage to peasants who possess no capital. They blow up bridges, electrical towers, oil pipelines and aqueducts. They set off bombs. They do not know how, or they do not want to carry out politics through other means. If they really seek to have a broader effect, their strength cannot lie only in weapons that back up a set of ideas that they seem to hermetically keep to themselves.
The armed forces should only serve the State. Ideally, in a democratic state, monopoly over armed force must reside in the regular forces, and these forces must act within the parameters of the Constitution and the law, protecting the life and honor of all citizens. If the Colombian army fails to fit within these parameters of conduct, if it supports the activities of the paramilitary groups, it will be impossible for many Colombians to feel the armed forces are truly theirs. Internationally, the reputation of the armed forces will continue to be tarnished.
The paramilitaries have grown in an unprecedented way in recent years -- favored by the excesses of the guerrilla groups and supported by the most reactionary sectors of society who disregard the methods they use to perpetuate their existence. They also count on the support of middle ground sectors of the population that consider them as a means of protection in zones subjected to extortion by the guerillas. Powerful groups have given the paramilitaries economic support and have offered communications channels as a means for them to cleanse their image; they do this by representing paramilitary leaders as sensible human beings driven to committing assassinations. We can say that the paramilitaries are the group which has best used the media, and the media has also used them, to justify the unjustifiable: peasant massacres, displacement of thousands and thousands of people, torture techniques through which human beings are chopped up with chainsaws. They have been able to dress all this up inside the country through the silent complicity of the media and of an array of national leaders who consider these groups saviors of their privilege. They forget that the monster often ends up devouring its creators. But repudiation is growing, both inside and outside of the country. If we are going to wager a bet on a country at peace, in which all of us, not just a few of us, can fit in, the paramilitary project must suspend its outrages and resort to peaceful political actions. Of course, we must not forget that even if all the armed actors are covered by a national level amnesty, the International Criminal Court will judge them, depending on the case, for crimes against humanity.
The traditional politicians are largely directly responsible for the actual state of affairs. By not acting as public servants, but rather as agents of their own privileges or of those who finance their privilege, they have allowed a limited few to benefit from the riches of our country and they have allowed the crisis to sweep into all arenas of national life. They pull the strings of power, aided by the finances of the public treasury and of powerful economic groups - legal or illegal - which support them. One group of them, which understands the magnitude of the crisis, is attempting to establish a new order, going against those who are still tied to the old practices of clientelismo, or political patronage.
Drug trafficking and the United States
We must mention two other actors that participate in the conflict: drug trafficking and the United States. The activities of these two actors are directly linked. U.S. citizens are the biggest consumers of cocaine on the planet; Colombia is the number one producer of cocaine; drug trafficking is the major source of financing for the war in Colombia; and the United States is contributing thousands and thousands of dollars making Colombia's war more and more pronounced. Meanwhile, we do not hear about U.S. narcotics ringleaders incarcerated in the United States, where most of the illegal funds from drug trafficking repose. These monies grease up the banking system and an economy showing signs of recession. The economy would probably decline drastically without what it reaps from the illegal drug trade. These are two actors in the conflict that are difficult to manage, but they are the ones most prominently responsible for financing the war.
Epilogue
Culture, media and war: the task of culture, of researchers and creative individuals, is to analyze, to bring light, to open up horizons, to contribute to educating citizens, and to stress that peace does not mean the absence of conflict, but efforts rather toward a non-violent and negotiated solution to these conflicts, a solution based precisely on the active participation of citizens.
We must be aware that Colombia is living through the worst moment of crisis that it has lived in a long time. Neither arrogance of power or a series of threats will bring us out of this grave crisis. We will only be able to get out of it if we are able to put ourselves in the shoes of our fellow human beings. We must focus on generosity, remaining conscious that we can only live better if those around us can live better, too. We must let go of hate, exclusion and resentment. Each one of us must give in a little. The guerrilla groups must realize that in the world in which we live, it is not possible to achieve power through arms. The guerrilla groups must correct their attitudes and take on the challenges of doing politics. We must all then - civil society, armed actors, business and political leaders - work jointly to build a kinder country. Entrepreneurs and leaders must reflect on reality and act in a way that is oriented toward redistributing wealth to create more humane companies, with better conditions for their workers. This will improve what is produced and allow it to be exchanged at more reasonable prices. The banks must control themselves, or be controlled, allowing for profit but not usury. Rather than stealing from the State, politicians and technocrats must put the state at the service of everyone. They must make it work to benefit everyone, not just themselves and their allies.
We need to revolutionize our minds and our actions. This must be a non-violent revolution that makes a better life possible not only for the powerful who today live outside of the country, or inside surrounded by bars and bodyguards, with fear always looking them over the shoulder. It must also make a better life possible for the most downtrodden so that they will not have to resort to crime. The only other path is for everyone to retrench in his or her positions, refusing to give in. This will lead us to a war of slaughter among siblings with unfathomable consequences for all.
Gullermo González Uribe was born in Bogota, Colombia. He holds a degree in Social Communication with a specialization in public opinion, and he has pursued postgraduate studies in Cultural Management at the University of Barcelona. He is one of the most experienced journalists in editorial coordination and cultural media management, and is in charge of the management of, among others, the "Magazín Dominical" of the Espectador and the magazine "Gaceta de Colcultura". He founded and is currently the director of the magazine Revista Número, and is the President of the Association of Colombian Cultural Magazines (ARCCA).
|
|
