This post is also available in: Português Español
The race to succeed Alvaro Uribe is making news in Washington. At least among a limited but very interested group of decision makers and policy analysts, there is growing curiosity about what is shaping up as a fascinating presidential election. Colombia, the country of surprises and paradoxes, is once again drawing attention.
Since 2002, of course, Uribe has been the main point of reference about Colombia in Washington. Views about him are sharply divided. Uribe is widely credited with bringing the country back from the edge of the abyss and enabling the government to reassert its authority. That is a considerable achievement. But many also believe he is an authoritarian whose appetite for power was stopped only by a Constitutional Court ruling.
Perhaps the most important message to convey in Washington is that, no matter who is elected as Colombia’s next president – and it seems increasingly clear that the choice will come down to either Juan Manuel Santos or Antanus Mockus – there will be broad continuity in key security and economic policies.
Though Santos is not as well-known in Washington as Uribe, he is certainly more familiar than Mockus, who is virtually unknown. Santos has a proven track record in critical areas of government, having served as minister of trade, finance and defense.
For Santos, being so closely tied to Uribe has some advantages as well as liabilities in Washington. His experience in dealing with the FARC is widely recognized. Santos’s superior representation in the Colombian Congress also strengthens his case that he is in a better position than Mockus to maintain governability and “get things done.”
At the same time, the criticisms that have been leveled against Uribe could affect Santos. He could suffer from the sense of “Uribe fatigue” that can be seen in some quarters of Washington. If elected, his challenge will be to reap the benefits and minimize the costs of his association with Uribe. Some key Democrats in Congress are particularly concerned about the various controversies involving the Uribe government, especially the very troubling “false positives” scandal. Despite his attempts to address and correct the problems, some in Washington will therefore view Santos with suspicion on these matters.
Mockus, in contrast, will be seen as a fresh start and a real break with Uribe (though the fact that he has not been anti-Uribe will be encouraging to many in Washington). The successful governance of Bogota and Medellin has gotten a lot of attention in the US media, which should boost the image of the Mockus-Fajardo ticket. Mockus’s occasionally eccentric behavior will be considered along with the fiscal discipline he practiced as Bogota’s mayor. Though his lack of national experience might be of some concern, his pledge to be tough with the FARC and firm and prudent with Hugo Chavez will be reassuring.
The prospects for Colombia’s agenda in Washington – the pending free trade deal and the anti-drug aid package – will depend more on changes in the US economy and politics than on the result of this crucial presidential race. But that agenda will be strengthened by the growing perception that Colombia’s election features two credible candidates who promise a measure of both change and continuity that inspires confidence.
