For Colombia from the DEA

That Colombia seems like the oldest democracy in Latin America is, in a way, certain, as we have only had two military coups, not simple military uprisings. There was Melo’s uprising, in the 19th century, and Rojas Pinilla’s uprising in the 20th century, supported primarily by civilians.

It is also true that every four years we have elected a president, congress, assemblies, councils and, more recently, mayors and governors.

Almost always, the loser accepts their defeat, except for the mysterious incidents in 1970, origin of the M-19. But democracy does not get worn out by the periodic repetition of elections; instead other elements define it, as in, for example, the United States.

One is the real separation, not merely nominal, of powers. The National Front, conceived to combat liberal-conservative violence — which caused thousands of deaths among the poor — resulted in two really dangerous consequences for democracy: irresponsibility and the belief that political opposition is associated with armed confrontation and, for that reason, it is better to be the “party of power.”

So, the tendency to defect is normal, and people begin to see politics as a circus; a tight rope walker would envy “the expertise” of the great majority of our politicians.

There are no different ideologies, nor borders between good and bad. Everything goes, or doesn’t go, at the same time or at different times.

López Michelsen described situations similar to this, like the beginnings of what would become the liberal revolutionary ovement, in a letter written in 1955 that is included in a recent book by Diana Sofia Giraldo about the great statesman. He complained of a state of “atrophy” similar to the present.

The harmful heritage of the National Front almost took political control, and with it, the great debates. Congress, eager for jobs, turned its back on the executive office. And this, depending on the week, frightened judicial officials, by way of bureaucracy and intimidation, and interfered in their functions.

Judicial power also has been losing autonomy thanks to interference. Independence, ironically, is happy to become dependent on power.

Clearly, without appropriate justice, including minor interests, there is no sustainable democracy.

Judicial impunity is very serious, especially when a perverse system makes it impossible to deduce penal responsibility for high-ranking public officials.

Social immunity and politics also affect the system. There is no social shame for bad conduct, and the guilty brag without being embarrassed at all. The crossing of interests is at every level, including in sectors of those with means.

But how much democracy is really blocked — besides the lack of alternatives for those in power and familiar clans — by the total absence of political responsibility? Critical errors, inefficiency, scarcity of management, indelicacies, abuses and scandals do not make people resign.

Here, they redefine political and penal responsibility. A party leader carries his party to defeat and keeps his position.

The monumental bear that imprisoned Sigifredo Lopez, whose millions in compensation all Colombians will pay for, went on the run, without consequences.

Political leaders that endorse candidates who have questionable pasts because of crime are not sanctioned. Nor are their parties. And they all get away with it!

The United States of America has a lesson to teach us. Ms. Leonhart, director of the Drug Enforcement Administration, left her position because of the scandal with her agents in Colombia with prostitutes that appeared to be paid by drug traffickers and “paramilitaries.”

Personally, she clearly had nothing to do with the shameful acts. But as the perpetrators reported to her, she left.

How many of our elected officials and political directors, old and young, would pass a similar test? Before democracy is unblocked, we must first undergo an unarmed social revolution.