What attempts have been made to transform security in Medellin, Colombia? What role could civil society play in addressing violence? Security sector transformation should consider the content of the security agenda as well as security structures and actors. Civil society organisations have valuable understanding of local community needs. They could help to revise security goals and introduce a greater focus on human security if better participatory spaces were opened.
In the last 20 years, over 64,000 people have been killed in Medellin. Drug lords infiltrated state security institutions and integrated local gangs into a powerful and sophisticated criminal network. Urban militias then emerged, until expelled from the city in the late 1990s by paramilitary groups and the state security forces. Violence decreased significantly between 2002 and 2008, but gang wars have since re-emerged.
Security reform in Medellin focused on improving urban security governance structures and processes, on demobilising paramilitary forces and on urban regeneration and introduced consideration of prevention. However, such measures did not address underlying structural issues facilitating violence and were unable to address the effects of decades of violence on people’s notions of security, needs and expectations.
- Heavy-handed military responses to violence involved human rights abuses and collaboration with paramilitary forces that helped to consolidate their power.
- Paramilitary DDR did not prevent the consolidation of powerful criminal networks that ex-combatants had been and continued to be involved with. Local institutions and civil spaces were perceived as being co-opted by violent actors, and reintegration benefits were resented.
- Local Government Committees were created to coordinate state intervention and increase community engagement.
- A wider municipal security strategy was recently announced, to: (i) strengthen the security institutions’ reactive capacity, (ii) increase youth access to social, educational and training programmes; and (iii) encourage citizens to mobilise against violence.
- The legal and judicial systems are overwhelmed and security institutions contain worrying levels of corruption.
Civil society involvement in security issues has involved: generating public debate; pressure for transformation from human rights groups; promoting coexistence; and preventing violence and the militarisation of young people. CSOs also help to build public support for state initiatives to reduce violence in the city. However:
- The use of participatory spaces for intelligence gathering by security institutions and the lack of opportunities for public deliberation in times of crises hinder effective CSO contributions.
- A historical focus on militarised and state-centred notions of security makes some civil society actors reluctant to include security in their agendas
- In addition, tense relations with the state and the risk of violent attack from armed gangs discourage CSO involvement in security issues. Similarly, some citizens regard security as the domain of the state and believe participation is too risky.
- Field research found that, while the state focused on monopoly of the use of force and the rule of law, community members saw security as a means to fully exercise their rights as citizens.
- Interviewees valued disincentivising violence and promoting peaceful conflict resolution and found the work of community police officers valuable. They thought that the following principles could inform security provision: holistic protection; respect for human rights; recognising the invisible and addressing complexity (such as living among members of armed groups); and promoting coexistence.
- A group of academics, human rights activists and civil servants are using a human security approach to connect security to their own emancipatory agendas. They have started to develop indicators to monitor the security situation in the city in relation to people’s broader personal, economic, political, environmental, cultural needs.
Civil society actors could promote better understanding of the connections between security, its provision and democracy, the notion of citizenship and peace-building efforts. However, there are still obstacles to civil society’s meaningful engagement in security debates, and participatory spaces tend to close in moments of crises when militaristic approaches to security regain popularity. Civil society actors must be enabled to articulate their voice and exchange ideas with security actors and institutions. Policymakers should note that:
- People’s perceptions of what is or is not acceptable in the pursuit of ‘security’ after prolonged periods of insecurity, is as important as the efficiency of security institutions.
- Violence deepens inequalities and reinforces the exclusion of vulnerable groups, creating different security needs and expectations.
