Authoritarian Thinking in Contemporary Colombian Society

 One of the key features of Colombia’s development over the years is the lack of personal security that the local population has experienced for many decades. Apprehension, fear for one’s life and life of one’s friends and family, instability and social inequality have been shaping the local mindset for a long time. Populism and caudilism (cult of the leader), typical phenomena in the historical development of the continent, have gained prominence in the 21st century Colombia. In order to determine the characteristic features of anti-democratic regimes the author analyzes earlier works on authoritarian systems, the instruments they employ to assert dominance and the  psychology of the masses that submit to authoritarian leadership. The article  addresses the causes behind authoritarian features in the psychology of Colombian society that have certain influence on local politics and trends in the country’s development. The author introduces a hypothesis that individual mindset and crowd psychology are somewhat important in this regard since Colombian political system as such is rather consistent in demanding strict compliance with procedures and principles of democracy. Therefore, a pattern of submission to authoritative figures stands out among the reasons that encourage a significant part of the Colombian society to give up their freedom. For nearly twenty years Álvaro Uribe has been an authoritarian leader who meets expectations of a large part of the society and whose dominance in the country’s politics (uribism) has not been noticeably affected by his questionable reputation tainted with suspicion of corruption and complicity in grave crimes. Official statistics demonstrating his popularity, his protégé’s victory in the 2018 presidential election and the cult of Uribe’s personality indicate the stability of his key role in Colombian  politics. However, the analysis of mainstream and alternative media, which play an increasingly visible role in Colombian society, the protest movements in late 2019 and early 2020, the growing importance of social media in the society and Colombia’s experience in protecting the system of checks and balances shows that the psychological need for submission to a caudillo,  such as Uribe, is less manifested or completely absent among the wider  population, especially among the young who tend to orient themselves towards other values.  

1. Martynov, K. (2012). ‘From Slacktivism to the Republic: why Internet Revolution is Becoming a Reality’, Logos, (2), Pp. 19-27 (In Russian).

2. Adorno, T. W. (1976) Studien zum autoritären charakter. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Russ.ed.: (2020) Issledovanie avtoritarnogo kharaktera. Moscow: Serebrianye niti Publ.).

3. Fromm, E. (1941) Escape from Freedom. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. (Russ.ed.: (2019) Begstvo ot svobody. Moscow: AST Publ.).

4. Kozyrev, G. I. (2018) ‘Image of enemy as factor of political regime legitimation’, Sociological Studies, (1), pp. 52–58. doi: 10.7868/S0132162518010063. (In Russian).

5. Yakovlev, P. and Yakovleva, N. (2020) ‘Protest Potential of the Latin America: Regional Aspect of Global Phenomenon’, World Economy and International Relations, 64(7), pp. 89–99. doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-7-89-99. (In Russian).

6. Gamboa, L. (2017) ‘Opposition at the Margins: Strategies against the Erosion of Democracy in Colombia and Venezuela’, Comparative Politics, 49(4), pp. 457–477. doi: 10.5129/001041517821273044.

7. Dabaghyan, E. (2020) ‘The Phenomenon of Caudilism: The Venezuelan Dimension’, Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, (1), pp. 213–240. doi: 10.31857/S013038640008195-2. (In Russian).

8. Casullo, M. E. (2019) ¿Por qué funciona el populísmo? el discurso que sabe construir explicaciones convincentes de un mundo en crisis. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

9. Ivkina, L. A. (2018) ‘TheHistory of Colombia in the Writings of Russian Researchers: Formation and Basic Directions (1940-ies-2017)’, Latin American Historical Almanac, (20), pp. 237–266. doi: 10.32608/2305-8773-2018-20-1-237-264. (In Russian).

10. Chambers, P. A. (2017) ‘Resisting Neoliberalism in Colombia: The Role of Human Rights’, Latin American Perspectives, 44(5), pp. 127–144. doi: 10.1177/0094582X17699914.

11. Iwanowsky, Z. (2011) ‘Colombia: from democratic security to democratic prosperity?’, Latinskaia Amerika (5), pp. 18–38. (In Russian).

12. Iwanowski, Z. (2020) ‘Colombia: Peace Process and Challenges in the Post-Conflict Period’, World Economy and International Relations, 64(1), pp. 110–118. doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-1-110-118. (In Russian).

13. Kajsiu, B. (2019) ‘The Colombian Right: the political ideology and mobilization of Uribismo’, Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes, 44(2), pp. 204–224. doi: 10.1080/08263663.2019.1581495.

14. Congote Ochoa, B. (2003) ‘Cultura autoritaria, impermeabilidad política y “cultura de la violencia”. El caso de Colombia’, Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, 5(2), pp. 276–307