Jorge Gaitan addresses a crowd of supporters shortly before his assassination in Bogota in 1948.

In context: Jorge Eliécer Gaitán

Historian Arnovy Fajardo Barragán talks to us about the significance of April 9 and Jorge Eliécer Gaitán

Bogotá Post: What is the importance of Gaitán nowadays?

Arnovy Fajardo: In my opinion, right now the importance of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán is more symbolic than political or ideological. It is meaningful that April 9, the date of his assassination, was chosen as the day to pay tribute to him and to all the victims of the various forms of violence that Colombia has suffered over more than 50 years. It should be remembered that his murder happened amidst a very tense political climate, one that he himself was able to condemn in the renowned ‘March of Silence’ two months before his death, and in which he delivered his memorable ‘Prayer for Peace’ speech.

However, there is no political party or movement that completely brings together his ideas, beyond certain stock phrases and cliches. The Liberal Party has claimed him as theirs, and various leftist groups have tried to take him in and use him according to their own political or ideological interests. But in truth, I think no one today has thoroughly studied his political aims.

BP: What did Gaitán stand for and what is his legacy?

AF: Gaitán has always been seen as a popular leader – he is the leader par excellence in Colombia. That is the legacy that has transcended. He has been remembered as a leader who gave a voice to people who previously did not have one, because of manipulation by the oligarchs who simply silenced them with violence.

This puts Gaitán on a par with Jaime Garzón, Luis Carlos Galán, and the leaders of the Patriotic Union, Jaime Pardo Leal and Bernardo Jaramillo Ossa. What these characters have in common is a solid intellectual education, a strong critical attitude towards the problems that have plagued the country and a charismatic personality that allowed them to reach ordinary people.

Nevertheless, his ideals were more complex. Researchers, such as Daniel Pécaut, Herbert W. Braun and John Green, to name a few, that have analyzed his speeches, point out that Gaitán oscillated between moderate democratic positions and a populist discourse that was detached from traditional political parties. Despite his influence he could not create a mass movement and for this reason he fell in 1948.

Despite this ambivalence, Gaitán’s ideals were focused on reconciliation between the “two Colombias,” which he spoke about in a famous speech in 1946. “The national country,” made up of peasants, workers and small plot holders: a poor country, poorly educated and hungry, which needs the dignity of better social conditions, but also has the duty to cultivate its own virtues.

The other country of which he spoke was the “political country,” that of a ruling political and economic class which acted only in defence and preservation of its own interests. Gaitán condemned the actions of that “political country,” also called an “oligarchy,” pointing out that it was not exclusively liberal or exclusively conservative. Gaitán proposed that a ruling class should be based on merit, and be conscious of people’s needs, so that it ruled for the benefit of everyone.

BP: What do you think Gaitán means for this country?

AF: To tell the truth, I don’t know how to answer this question. The meaning of Gaitán, beyond the image as a popular leader who tragically fell to the bullets of the oligarchy’s dark forces, to summarize what people think about his murder, has faded.

Even his portrait on the 1,000 peso note, the lowest denomination, is being left behind. It is a pity that the only image and the only meaning left from Gaitán is that of one more victim of the violence in the country.

In this way, his role is being deleted and ignored. As an intellectual, he was one of the first to carefully study the emergence of socialist ideas in Colombia; as a criminal lawyer, the same day of his death, he had his last triumph as a defence lawyer; as a statesman, he held various public positions. I fear that the same thing could happen to Gaitán as to Don Antonio Nariño, an Independence hero. Who remembers him apart from the occasional historian? It would be a shame if Gaitán meets the same fate and is forgotten.

BP: If Gaitán were alive today, what do you think he would say about the current political climate and the peace process?

AF: I think he would be concerned to see oligarchs playing with people’s interests in such important areas as work, health and education, which for him were key. I think it would also bother him to see a political class up to their necks in corruption. As for the peace process, I think that he would be concerned about the people who are using [the peace talks] as a vehicle for their own interests. He used to say that hunger had no political color, and I’m sure that he would say that peace doesn’t have it either, and therefore could not be reduced to just an agreement between two sectors sitting and negotiating.

Arnovy Fajardo Barragán is a historian at the Universidad Nacional, and a professor of History at the Universidad Externado and the Corporación Unificada de Educación Superior.

Non-profits get nod for work in poor communities

As part of the ‘World Arts and Culture Summit for Peace’, the Goethe Institute and the Bogota Department of Sports and Recreation awarded a number of prizes to non-profits that help vulnerable communities through art and culture.

Twelve organisations were presented with awards at an event which took place on Saturday, April 11 at the Virgilio Barco library. The gathering aimed at recognising these groups for the work they did in 2014.

The first-place award went to the organisers of the alternative film festival known as Ojo al Sanchocho – which has been taking place in Ciudad Bolivar since 2008, a press release stated. The group offers young people the chance to learn about audiovisual equipment.

Second-place went to a group called Arquitectura Expandida, which empowers communities to transform their physical and cultural spaces with their own hands.

The first-place winners have already travelled to Germany and France to promote their work and share their experiences there.

By Luisa León