118
REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL CHANGE IN COLOMBIA
he sustained into his first term as president (Hylton, 2006: 93; Murillo and Avirama, 2004: 103; see also 113, 204n.4; Scott, 2003: 71–2). The CONVIVIRs were finally “outlawed in 1999 after many of them were implicated in human rights abuses, including massacres of civilians” (Leech, 2002a: 26; see also Murillo and Avirama, 2004: 103, 204n.4). However, what eventually arose from the ashes of the CONVIVIRs was what had been predicted by its original opponents; the inclusion of the civilian forces into paramilitary organizations (Sánchez, 2003: 22; Crandall, 2002: 97n.78). While some saw the elimination of the CONVIVIR as a progressive move to restrict paramilitarism, in reality the “cooperatives” inflated the existing paramilitary networks throughout the country (see Simons, 2004: 316; Restrepo M., 2003: 103). The networks did not evaporate but were “instrumental in the accelerated growth” of the country’s largest paramilitary organization during the 1990s – the AUC (Murillo and Avirama, 2004: 103–4; see also Sweig and McCarthy, 2005: 19). Colombian sociologist Fernando Cubides (2003: 131) revealed how the CONVIVIR “became semi clandestine, and, according to various sources and the declarations of some of their leaders, put themselves at the disposition of the paramilitaries.” While the AUC witnessed growth outside the formation of the CONVIVIRs, once it was outlawed paramilitary membership saw a significant influx (Hylton, 2006: 93). In short, “when the Constitutional Court banned the Convivirs for numerous massacres of unarmed civilians, their foot soldiers simply passed into the ranks of the AUC” (Hylton, 2006: 95; see also Holmes, 2003: 90; Leech, 2002a: 26). By relinquishing its “formal” involvement with the CONVIVIR and not ensuring its disintegration, the state facilitated aggressions against suspected guerrilla supporters via civil society (Brittain, 2006d).10 The justification behind institutionally validating paramilitarism was to defend the conventional economic and political stability of a select minority. The result, however, has been an offensive mechanism that propagates far-right conservatism. Rather than rectifying the reasons for antagonism to the dominant class, the state – assisted by Washington – put its energy into counterinsurgency in an attempt to decimate resistance (Ampuero and Brittain, 2005). As this account emphasizes the state’s link to “regulating” paramilitarism, it is important to detail where the ideology and persona of contemporary Colombian paramilitarism came from. THE CASTAÑO CONNECTION As the FARC-EP increased its presence in the country by the mid-1970s, so too did it adopt the practice of “retention.” This is regularly referred to as kidnapping, but in fact the practice of retention is quite complex, with a clear class target and political motive. First the guerrillas collect intelligence on persons whom they view as representing the interests of the dominant class.11 This usually includes right-wing ideologues, members of the political elite, those
