Determinants of Colombian attitudes toward the peace process

Liendo, Nicolás Alejandro; Braithwaite, Jessica Maves

doi:10.1177/0738894218787783

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 The analysis also shows that other factors had an impact on support for the peace agreement. First, and in line with previous findings (Fergusson and Molina 2016;Liendo and Braithwaite 2018;Weintraub et al 2015), municipalities with higher levels of support for Santos in the 2014 presidential elections were more prone to vote yes in the referendum (p < 0.01). This was to be expected, as both the 2014 elections and the 2016 referendum were marked by a strong cleavage over the peace process, with Santos as the "pro-peace" candidate.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…For example, analyzing the 2014 presidential elections, Weintraub et al (2015) found that Juan Manuel Santos-the pro-peace candidate-performed well in communities with moderate levels of violence but poorly in communities with very high and low levels. Relying on 2014 AmericasBarometer survey data, which included a question about support for the then-ongoing peace process, Liendo and Braithwaite (2018) found that existing political preferences overwhelmingly drove attitudes toward the peace process with the FARC, not experiences of violence (see also Brodzinsky 2016).…”

Section: Exposure To Violence and Attitudes Toward Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who Shot the Bullets? Exposure to Violence and Attitudes Toward Peace: Evidence from the 2016 Colombian Referendum

Seguer¹,

Masullo²

2020

Lat Am Polit Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does exposure to violence affect attitudes toward peace? Civilians living in war zones see peace agreements as an opportunity to improve their security prospects. However, in multiparty conflicts, this does not automatically translate into support for peace. Support hinges on the interplay between which faction has victimized civilians in the past and which faction is sitting at the negotiation table. If civilians have been victimized by the group that is involved in the peace agreement, they will be likely to support peace. On the contrary, if they have been victimized by another faction, they will be likely to refrain from supporting peace if they believe that this can trigger retaliatory violence against them. This article explores this argument empirically in the context of the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC; both quantitative and qualitative data yield support to the study’s theoretical expectations.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Exposure To Violence and Attitudes Toward Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Who Shot the Bullets? Exposure to Violence and Attitudes Toward Peace: Evidence from the 2016 Colombian Referendum

Seguer¹,

Masullo²

2020

Lat Am Polit Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, it should not pass without comment that studies that analyze the results of the plebiscite in relation to geography show that the 'No' vote was predominant in medium-sized cities and in "the popular classes of major cities". Rural and border areas, which were the hardest hit by armed conflict, voted mostly in favor of the agreements (Basset 2018, p. 245;Liendo and Braithwaite 2018;Jiménez 2016). Though this fact cannot fully account for the phenomenon these authors have identified, it should be noted that it is precisely the 'popular classes' in large cities where the Pentecostal megachurches who led the opposition to the agreements have flourished.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pentecostals, Gender Ideology and the Peace Plebiscite: Colombia 2016

Beltrán

Creely

2018

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of the Pentecostal Evangelical movement in the success of the ‘No’ campaign in the Colombian peace plebiscite of 2 October 2016, where Colombians voted to reject the peace agreement which had been reached between the Colombian government and the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC). It discusses the reasons that motivated large sectors of the Evangelical electorate to oppose the agreement, paying particular attention to the success of the argument that the agreement was contaminated with what Pentecostals termed ‘gender ideology.’ In terms of methodology, the article draws on a variety of sources, including interviews, field observation and written sources both scholarly and popular, including press and Internet articles. We track how ‘gender’ comes to be shorthand for the host of social ills with which it was associated during the debates around the Colombian peace plebiscite through use of the term ‘gender ideology’. We posit that it is the links between ‘gender’ modernity, colonialism and the development industry, its academic, value-neutral quality and its status as an isolated technical term that allow ‘gender’ to become a proxy for a wide range of social dissatisfactions. We conclude that the success of the ‘No’ campaign was possible due to the convergence of several sectors of society, particularly between the political right and a social movement which, inspired by religious values, opposed the recognition of LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex) rights and the use of the term ‘gender’ in the agreements.

show abstract

“…Despite these results, recent research on the Colombian case showed that attitudes towards the peace process are not strongly correlated with conflict experiences (Hazlett and Parente, 2020;Liendo and Braithwaite, 2018), and that there are no differences in attitudes towards transitional justice mechanisms between victims and non-victims (Nussio et al, 2015). These counterintuitive findings may indicate that in a long-term civil conflict, the victims versus non-victims divide may be blurred.…”

Section: How War and Political Experiences Shape Citizens' Attitudes mentioning

confidence: 92%

Between Conflict and Politics: Understanding Popular Support for the FARC’s Political Involvement

Sánchez

Plata-Caviedes

2020

Journal of Politics in Latin America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political participation of former combatants is a central component of peace agreements. Similarly, people’s acceptance of political parties derived from such agreements is a crucial element towards peace building. Considering the peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC), we ask “What factors shape popular support for the FARC’s political involvement?” We argue that attitudes towards the political integration of the former guerrilla are influenced by conflict experiences and partisan identities. Relying on survey data, our results indicate that conflict experiences and political identities alone are not correlated with attitudes towards the political integration of former insurgents. However, public support for former combatants having a political party is associated with conflict experiences only for those who feel close to parties that took a hawkish stance towards the agreement.

show abstract

Determinants of Colombian attitudes toward the peace process

Cited by 32 publications

References 28 publications

Who Shot the Bullets? Exposure to Violence and Attitudes Toward Peace: Evidence from the 2016 Colombian Referendum

Who Shot the Bullets? Exposure to Violence and Attitudes Toward Peace: Evidence from the 2016 Colombian Referendum

Pentecostals, Gender Ideology and the Peace Plebiscite: Colombia 2016

Between Conflict and Politics: Understanding Popular Support for the FARC’s Political Involvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About