Un pedacito de tierra : a spatial analysis of the political agency of internally displaced persons in El Oasis, Medellin

(1)

Graduate School of Social Sciences

MSc International Development Studies 2015-‐16

Title: Un Pedacito de Tierra: A Spatial Analysis of the Political Agency of

Internally Displaced Persons in El Oasis, Medellín.

Name: Adam James Moore

Email: adamjamesoore8@gmail.com

Date: 24

TH

_{June
2016}

UVA ID: 11126884

Word Count: 22,875

Course: Research Project IDS -‐ Field Work and Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. R.K. Jaffe

Professor of Cities, Politics and Culture

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

University of Amsterdam

Netherlands

(2)

Un Pedacito de Tierra:

A Spatial Analysis of the Political Agency of

Internally Displaced Persons in El Oasis,

Medellín.

(“Moravia – territory of struggle and popular resistance. El Oasis resists with dignity”).

Adam James Moore

(3)

Image 1: The main pathway between houses in El Oasis.

Image 2: Tiers of housing in El Oasis.

(4)

Abstract

Forced displacement has been the unrelenting weapon of Colombia’s armed conflict(s) across the last century. Millions of Colombians have fled their homes in the countryside, seeking refuge in Colombia’s urban centres. However, intra-‐urban displacement is on the rise and internally displaced persons (IDPs) remain exposed to subsequent displacements and cycles of violence in the city. The theoretical debate surrounding IDPs is characterised by two major flaws. Firstly, IDP debate has become ‘depoliticised’ in its detachment from the political roots that both perpetuate, and fail to prevent, further displacement. Secondly, there is a significant lack in knowledge regarding IDPs’ urban experiences due to the logistical ‘inconveniences’ they pose to researchers and development practitioners in challenging urban environments. This research aims to redress these two flaws through a spatial analysis of political agency that re-‐politicises IDP debate and ties this into experiences of their urban environment. Based upon semi-‐structured interviews and participant observations of IDPs living in the informal settlement of El Oasis, Medellín, this research examines the factors that both limit and facilitate IDPs’ political agency in the city. Findings reveal an oppressive urban environment in which IDP’s political agency is conditioned by their experiences with regular (the state) and irregular governance actors (los combos

– criminal gangs), who shape their scope for action and define the urban landscape. It

concludes that ending cycles of mobility and maintaining recognition, as ‘IDPs’, are critical to the possibility of exercising political agency. Crucially, this research makes a call for more innovative approaches to IDPs in urban areas to unlock new perspectives on the city that can bring IDPs into renewed avenues of urban development debate, embedded in their political realties.

(5)

Acknowledgements

There are many people who I would like to thank for making the completion of my thesis possible. Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Rivke Jaffe, for the time and care that she dedicated to guiding me through the thesis writing process. Her detailed feedback and words of advice were incredibly valuable to the development of my thesis, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with her.

Secondly, I would like to thank my local supervisor, Ivan Chaparro, who put time aside to come to Medellín and introduce me to the community of El Oasis, despite his very busy schedule in Bogotá. I would also like to thank him for editing the documentary that formed part of research, as well as assisting to integrate my research into a project that he had carried out previously.

Thirdly, I would like to say thank you to the audio and visual team from Moravia: Sergio Andrés Ruiz Hoyos (Pino), Johan Esneider Gutiérrez Pastrana; Isaac PL and Camilla Franco, for their hard work and support in filming the documentary in El Oasis. More importantly, though, I would like to thank these same people for integrating me in Moravia, sharing its history and making my time spent in Medellín a special one. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have made such good friends.

Fourthly, I would like to thank José García Jiménez for the meticulous attention and generous time invested in assisting me with my interview transcriptions. I could not have completed them to such a high standard without his help. The Spanish subtleties, that I would have missed, contributed significantly to the accuracy of my data.

Finally, I would like to say a special thank-‐you to the residents of El Oasis for their assistance in carrying out my interviews; guiding me round the neighbourhood; sharing their stories; assisting with the filming of the documentary; and making me feel welcome.

(6)

2.2. IDPs: A Unique Category of Concern? 18 2.2.1. The Depoliticisation of IDPs in Colombia 21 2.2.2 Revitalising Approaches to IDPs in Urban Settings 23 2.3. Political Agency: Political Subject, Political Action & Polis 25 2.3.1 IDPs as Political Subjects 26 2.3.2 Political Action: Regular and Irregular Governance Actors 27 2.3.3. The Polis: Spatiality and Sets of Relations 29 2.3.4. Theoretical Framework Summary 31 2.4. Operationalisation of Research Questions and Sub-‐Questions 32

3. Methodology 34 3.1. Introduction 34 3.2. Medellín: A Two-‐sided Miracle 34 3.2.1. Moravia: A Home to the Displaced 37 3.2.2. El Oasis: Urban Renovation Meets Displacement 39 3.3. Research Design & Epistemology 41 3.4. Data collection 42 3.4.1. Semi-‐structured Interviews 42

(7)

3.4.2. Participant Observations 43 3.4.3. Action-‐based Documentary 44 3.5. Sampling 45 3.6. Data-‐analysis 45 3.7. Ethical Reflections 46 3.8. Limitations of Research 47

4. The City and its Limits 49

4.2. “We no Longer Form Part of the Displaced” 50 4.3. Invisible Borders & Intra-‐urban Displacement 54

4.4. Chapter Summary 59

5. ‘El Oasis Resists with Dignity’: Possibilities for Political Agency 61

5.2. El Oasis: Forced Evictions & Spatially Embedded Relations 62 5.3. “The Guys from Upstairs” 66

5.4. “We are not Invaders” 70

5.5. Chapter Summary 72

6. Conclusion 74 6.1. Answers to Research Questions 74 6.2. Theoretical Reflections and Further Research 75 6.3. Implications for Policy and Practice 77

7. References 80 8. Appendix 89 8.1. Interview Guide 89

(8)

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

BACRIM: Emerging Criminal Gangs (Bandas Criminales Emergentes)

CDMC: Moravia Cultural Centre (Centro Cultural de Moravia)

CNMH: National Centre of Historic Memory (Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica).

CODHES: Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (Consultoria para los

Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento).

ESMAD: Mobile Riot Squad (Escuadrón Móvil Antidisturbios)

FARC: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias

de Colombia).

IASC: Inter Agency Standing Committee.

IDMC: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.

IDP(s): Internally Displaced Person(s).

OCHA: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

(9)

List of Maps and Photographs:

Image 1: The main pathway between houses in El Oasis.

Image 2: Tiers of housing in El Oasis.

Image 3: ‘El Morro’ in Moravia, Medellín.

Image 4: A message carved into one of the steps that leads up to the top of El Morro:

“We are the people that made the neighbourhood”.

Map 1: Emotional Cartography of Moravia (the two prominent red dots indicating

high level of discomfort are situated in the small sector of El Oasis). Source: Resoundcity TransLab.

Image 5: View of the construction of the Madre Laura Bridge from El Oasis.

Image 6: The empty space in El Oasis, where 38 houses were demolished.

Image 7: Mobile phone footage of clashes with ESMAD on the day of the forced

evictions in El Oasis

Image 8: Mobile phone footage of clashes with ESMAD on the day of the forced

evictions in El Oasis.

Image 9: Graffiti on a ruin of a house on the opposite side of El Morro to the gardens:

“Decent housing is made by hand and without permission. The popular union is indispensable to defend the territory”.

(10)

1. Introduction

1.1. Background to the Study

The number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Colombia is estimated to be 6,270,000 in a population of 48,229,000 (IDMC, 2015). To put this figure into perspective, this positions Colombia above South Sudan and below Syria as the country with the second highest number of IDPs in the world. Despite the optimism surrounding the on going peace process between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Havana, approximately 300,000 people continue to flee their homes each year (IDMC, 2014).

Historically, the forced displacement of the rural population to Colombia’s urban centres underpins these dramatic statistics. Military confrontations between the Colombian military and various armed groups, as well as direct threats, have driven a large percentage of the Colombian population from territorially disputed rural regions to seek refuge in the city. Although this remains the dominant trajectory of displacement, intra-‐urban displacement is also on the rise (IDMC, 2014). The demobilisation of the paramilitaries in 2005 gave rise to multiple splinter groups (broadly categorised by the Colombian government as ‘criminal-‐bands’ or ‘BACRIM’) that deploy the same strategies as their predecessors: forced displacement and suppression of the civilian population to assert territorial control in economically strategic areas through violence (Nuevo Arco Iris, 2013). As a result, IDPs continue to suffer subsequent displacements by BACRIM in urban neighbourhoods, as well as in rural areas.

BACRIM are also responsible for systematic threats against community leaders and human rights workers, meaning that reclaiming land and returning home are rarely feasible options for IDPs (Human Rights Watch, 2013). In 2012, these groups were responsible for 43 per cent of all displacements, with the military forces and guerrilla groups involved in the remainder of cases (CODHES, 2013). In 2015 alone, these groups also killed 63 activists (Somosdefensores, 2015). However, Colombia has a

(11)

deplorable penal record against perpetrators of displacement, meaning that these groups are rarely brought to justice. Complicating the political geography of displacement further, the state categorises the activities of BACRIM under common crime, rather than armed groups (CODHES, 2013). This reduces the force of the institutional response, meaning that their governance influence in urban neighbourhoods is either significantly miscalculated or deliberately underplayed. As of 2013, people displaced by BACRIM have been eligible to register their displacement (O’Neil McCleskey, 2013). Though a step in a positive direction, this has, again, done little to address the structural causes of displacement through justice and prevention.

Thus, cities not only bear the geographical brunt of displacement, but also perpetuate mobility cycles for IDPs seeking stability and refuge. Alongside insecurity, IDPs endure difficult living conditions and face multiple urban challenges: low levels of education, non-‐transferable rural livelihood skills, asset depletion, emotional trauma, loss of social networks and discrimination within the community mean that IDPs struggle to meet their basic needs, integrate and achieve socioeconomic stability (Carillo, 2009). At the same time, these global cities are dynamic centres of urban development. Medellín, in particular, is internationally renowned for its miraculous urban turn-‐around and commitment to social urbanism over the past decade. Its transformatory fairytale spans the terror-‐stricken days of Pablo Escobar and the infamous Medellín cartel to the world’s most innovative city 2013, bathed in eternal spring (The Economist, 2014). This narrative obscures the lived realities of IDPs, whose urban storylines continue to be shaped by violence, uncertainty and insecurity.

Theoretical debate surrounding IDPs in Colombia is characterised by two major flaws. Firstly, in deliberating technical solutions, rather than structural ones, the issue of displacement has become a largely ‘depoliticised’ issue in Colombia (Fadnes & Horst, 2009). This has shaped a humanitarian response that does little to address the structural causes of displacement or attain ‘durable solutions’ for IDPs. This disconnects IDPs from the political roots of their displacement and mainstreams them into the broader category of ‘victims’ (Rajaram, 2002). Although humanitarian crisis wears the face of displacement in Colombia, it is only symptomatic of a much deeper political history of displacement that spans a bloody century. Adding to this, although non-‐state actors are widely recognised as perpetrators of displacement, they are

(12)

seldom the focus of analytical attention as urban governance actors in the lives of IDPs. This depoliticises the debate even further.

Secondly, there is a significant lack of theoretical attention paid to IDPs in urban contexts. Due to the fragmentation of IDPs in urban areas, they are often victims of “institutional convenience”, meaning that they receive inadequate attention due to the difficulty in distinguishing them from the broader urban population and addressing their specific needs (Dolan, Refstie & Okello, 2009; Ibánez & Velasquez, 2009). This has led some theorists to raise questions over the existence of ‘IDP’ as an analytical category in urban settings (Hathaway, 2007). However, given the protraction of displacement in Colombia, there is a striking lack of theoretical attempts to revitalise IDP debate through a more innovative assessment of their relationship to the city.

In order to address these two flaws, I reject the notion that IDPs do not form a unique analytical category of concern. Rather, I assert the importance of re-‐politicising their existence to rekindle analysis, as well as bringing them into more innovative avenues of theoretical discussion that examine their relationship to the city more closely. To do this, I apply a relational theorisation of political agency to IDPs from human geography that draws these two issues together. The application of this framework facilitates a spatial analysis of political agency that binds an assessment of IDPs as political subjects to the lived experiences of their physical environment. This spatial dimension provides a critical intersection at which to view the influence of state and non-‐state actors on the ability of IDPs to exercise political agency within urban areas. I assert that a more nuanced theoretical understanding of IDPs’ political agency in urban areas holds the potential to re-‐politicise the plight of IDPs and contribute to fresh perspectives on an oppressive urban environment that can be used to draw IDPs into urban development debate.

With the UN Habitat III conference, taking place in October 2016 to promote a ‘New Urban Agenda’ intent on harnessing the transformatory power of urbanisation to drive inclusive development, these kinds of perspectives are incredibly important (Habitat III, 2016). According to the agenda, success is dependent upon establishing the commitment of state authorities in challenging drivers of exclusion and including the voices of socially excluded groups in urban development (Habitat III, 2015). However, as I will demonstrate in Medellín, non-‐state armed actors exert competing

(13)

authority over marginal urban neighbourhoods, and state-‐actors, themselves, often exacerbate exclusion. Thus, the inclusion of diverse perspectives of excluded urban groups, such as IDPs in Colombia, is essential in order to ground urban development discussion in the lived experiences of complex political realities that drive urban exclusion. I posit that gaining IDPs’ perspectives on their urban environment is an essential starting point to move IDPs debate forward. This research intends to be a step in the right direction.

1.2 Historical Context: Displacement as a ‘Politics of Eviction’

To begin to understand the nature, complexity and severity of displacement in Colombia, it must be considered alongside the subject of territorial disputes, “the central social conflict of Colombian history” (Valencia-‐Villa, 2010, p. 18, 19). Beyond a collateral consequence of war, displacement has been deployed as a tool to facilitate the appropriation of land of the rural population, establishing pathways for the accumulation of capital by powerful elites and armed groups. At the core of displacement is the landownership of economically or geo-‐politically strategic regions (Ruiz, 2011). Cycles of displacement, violence and the appropriation of land, thus, characterise Colombia’s repetitive history. The relationship between these three factors comprise a “politics of eviction” that goes back centuries, causing thousands of Colombians to leave their homes each year; they rarely return home (Molano, 2000, p.149).

The legacy of Colombia’s territorial disputes have their roots in the ‘anti-‐ruralism’ and ‘hyper-‐urbanism’ mentality that underpinned the colonial maneuvers of the Spanish conquest in Latin America (Mendieta, 2011). A combination of untamable jungle, menacing heat and challenging transport-‐links initiated the tendency of the colonial administration to establish cities on the coast as centres of political and legal power, leaving vast expanses of rural areas to the diminishing Indian population. This disinterest in the countryside, apart from as a source of natural resource extraction, used to build the grand spires of Spain, shaped the preceding administrations of the independent nations, who proved “relatively ineffective at imposing political sovereignty over territorially unified geographies’ (Mendieta, 2011, p.169). Territory and sovereignty have suffered a troubled relationship in Colombia ever since. The vast mountain ranges, bio-‐diverse forests and flowing rivers that colour the resource-‐rich

(14)

Colombian countryside have painted the backdrop to conflict, bloodshed and displacement in unconsolidated rural territory.

The locus of political power in Colombia’s urban centres has concentrated itself, historically, amongst a rigid Criolla (Creole) elite. The Liberal Party candidate of

Mestizo (mixed) descent, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, was the first real challenger to this; a

revered populist that championed the cause of labour and the campesino population, he was duly assassinated on 9th_{April
1948.
This
event
triggered
a
bloody
period
of}

political unrest, between Liberal and Conservative supporters, known as la Víolencia, quenched temporarily (and mainly in urban centres) by a bipartisan agreement called the National Front, which cemented the political oligarchy further in 1958 (CNMH, 2015). However, the violence continued in the countryside and ‘civil patrols’ were deployed to displace or kill local liberal leaders and quell subversive elements, especially in resource rich regions, where dispossession and appropriation of land became rife. These ‘civil patrols’ marked the beginning of paramilitarism in Colombia (HRW, 1996).

This oppressive political landscape spawned the rise of the FARC in 1966, and an enduring armed resistance against the state, intent on forging “a path outside of the system to provide a true leftist alternative to the Colombian state” (Lee, 2012, p.29). The FARC gained support in many rural regions, where the state had failed to implement land reform, reduce poverty or provide basic services. However, it wasn’t until the 1980’s that the growth of the FARC really accelerated with the funding of narcotrafficking and other criminal enterprises, but at the cost of their ideological legitimacy. This, alongside violent clashes with the military, aggravated levels of displacement of campesinos from lucrative drug corridors and other strategic areas (Ibañez, 2008).

The most severe period of displacement, though, fell between the late 1990s and early 2000s with the upsurge of paramilitarism. 3,087,173 people were driven from their homes in the space of seven years, in a period also referred to as “the great forced exodus of contemporary Colombia” (CNMH, 2015, p.83). Most of the displaced sought refuge in Colombia’s urban centres.

(15)

Paramilitarism in Colombia is a multi-‐dimensional phenomenon that has ultimately served to consolidate power of the political and economic elites at the expense of the masses. A high number of different paramilitary groups have been operating in Colombia over the past decades, but share in common “the embodiment of the use of violence for purposes of capital accumulation through its two basic functions: to dispossess and to suppress” (Hristov, 2010, p.43). Forced displacement is deployed as a strategic weapon to accumulate resource rich territory, whilst the voices of the aggrieved are silenced via the violent targeting of human rights advocates, trade unionists and indigenous leaders, who threaten the advancement of their interests; the enemies of capital.

Paramilitary groups are tightly linked to business, wealthy landowners, narcotrafficking and, significantly, the state itself. Hristov (2010) describes this relationship as ‘dialectical’; paramilitary groups operate outside of the state apparatus but in line with certain agendas that deliver mutual economic benefits. This offers one explanation for Colombia’s deplorable penal record in bringing perpetrators of displacement to justice and the failure to protect displaced claimants of land restitution from exposure to further violence. Colombia’s legal recognition of displaced person’s rights does not guarantee protection of access to reclaimed land (Cotula & Vermeulen, 2010). Complicating the situation further is the state’s role in the legalisation of dispossession. Knowingly or unknowingly, notaries and public officials have collaborated in the transfer of illegal property rights from displaced persons to their perpetrators in authorising land titles of paramilitary run agri-‐ business and other commercial enterprises operating on stolen land (Grajales, 2015). This, alongside fears of violent reprisals on return, explains why very few IDPs return home or reclaim their land. Thus, “people are not ‘displaced’. They are banished, evicted, forced to flee and hide” in Colombia’s urban centres (Molano, 2000).

For the majority of the displaced, tough urban realities quickly accrue permanence. Loss of assets, unemployment, non-‐transferrable agricultural skills and insufficient access to public services mean that urban poverty is one of displacement’s unforgiving legacies (Carillo, 2009). The other is the psychological trauma inflicted on the displaced. These scarring experiences are carried forward into unfamiliar urban areas, negatively affecting the abilities of the displaced to navigate new social systems and reconstruct their lives in the city (Alcala, 2008). At times, IDPs suffer social

(16)

stigmatisation on arrival in a new neighbourhood, which exacerbates a sense of vulnerability and deters them from pursuing their financial rights in an already impoverished urban community (Ibanez & Velasquez, 2009). To add to the depth of the problem, social marginalization is coupled with spatial marginalisation, whereby IDPs have little financial choice but to populate the urban periphery, often in informal settlements that lack basic services, access to employment and safety (De Geoffroy, 2010).

Most significantly for present purposes, however, the informal settlements, which IDPs are economically pushed into populating are often controlled or contested by BACRIM. The lack of public investment in the development of state infrastructure and security in such areas enable these groups to gain power over urban territory (Granada, 2003). This allows different BACRIM groups to exploit this space by offering forms of assistance to citizens, especially in relation to security, in exchange for use of the land and control over the territory (Atehortúa Arredondo, 2009). However, this ‘assistance’ exists in parallel to the continuation of threats and violence. Displacement also remains a key strategy in the battle for urban territory between competing BACRIM groups, resulting in secondary or tertiary displacements; even years after initial displacement took place. IDPs living in informal settlements in marginal urban areas are disproportionately affected, caught in contemporary cycles of a historical politics of eviction that has spread to the city.

(17)

1.3 Research Questions and Sub-‐Questions

Main Question:

What factors constrain the political agency of IDPs in urban areas, and what possibilities remain for them to exercise this agency?

Sub-‐questions:

What is the role of spatiality in both limiting and enhancing the political agency of IDPs?

How do IDPs’ perceptions of, and engagement with, formal and irregular governance actors influence their political agency?

My main research question consists of two parts. The first part focuses on the factors that constrain or limit IDPs’ political agency in urban areas, and the second focuses on the possibilities that still remain to exercise political agency. To answer both parts of my main question, I divide my data-‐analysis into two chapters. The first data-‐analysis chapter, ‘The City and its Limits’ discusses the factors that constrain IDPs’ political agency in urban areas: negative perceptions of state authorities, fronteras invisibles and intra-‐urban displacement. The second data-‐analysis chapter, ‘El Oasis Resists with Dignity: Possibilities for Political Agency’, discusses the possibilities that remain for IDPs to exercise political agency: spatially embedded relationships in El Oasis, irregular governance actors and resistance of the state. Thus, my two sub-‐questions inform analysis throughout these two chapters, rather than being addressed independently.

(18)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Introduction

Firstly, this chapter outlines the development of the IDP debate in order to theorise IDPs as a unique analytical category of concern. More specifically, it identifies two significant flaws that characterise current IDP debate with respect to the Colombian case: depoliticisation of displacement and the lack of innovative theoretical approaches to IDPs in complex urban contexts. Secondly, I apply a theorisation of political agency from human geography to the specific case of IDPs in Colombia in order to address both these flaws. This theorisation facilitates the re-‐politicisation of IDPs as political subjects and a spatial examination of their possibilities to exercise political agency in the city.

2.2. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs): a unique category of concern?

Despite the fact that internal displacement has been a reality since the formation of nation states and the carving up of international borders, it did not receive significant international attention or scholarly interest until the end of the Cold War, when a proliferation of internal conflicts resulted in the dramatic upsurge of displacement within national borders on an unprecedented scale (Shawcross, 2000; Kälin, 2014). In response, the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) set out

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which defines internally displaced

persons as follows, and provides the theoretical lens for this research:

“Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violation of human rights or natural or human-‐made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border”. (OCHA, 1998, p.7).

(19)

Unlike refugees, IDPs have not left their country of origin and, therefore, remain under national jurisdiction as the responsibility of national authorities (Kälin, 2014). This means that they are unable to obtain legal status and protection under the refugee convention (Brun, 2003). At the international level, scholarly debates surrounding the definition of an IDP have pivoted upon whether it forms, or should be considered, a distinct category of concern as compared with other marginalised groups in society. With particular reference to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Feller (2005) asserts that, in times of violence and conflict, it is not only extremely difficult to distinguish IDPs from the wider population, but it is also questionable to prioritise such a group, when the population at large is at great risk in exposure to violence, trauma and insecurity. Similarly, questions have been posed as to why IDPs should be treated as a distinct category of concern from other internal human rights victims who have not been displaced (Hathaway, 2007). Thus, for some, the IDP category is redundant and should be treated as any other victim of human rights violations.

However, the protracted nature of displacement has invigorated discussion further. With particular reference to IDPs who populate urban areas, scholars raise some important practical and ethical questions regarding how to address the specific needs of IDPs living within an already impoverished urban environment (Haysom, 2013; Mooney, 2005). Living in urban areas, rather than refugee camps, IDPs pose serious problems to both humanitarian and development practitioners. They are hard to distinguish from the urban population and, become, considerably, fragmented in difficult-‐to-‐navigate urban environments. Due to these problems, IDPs often fall victim to “institutional inconvenience” in urban areas, meaning their problems are too logistically challenging to address (Dolan, Refstie & Okello, 2009). Such concerns are valid, yet by regarding IDPs as part of a wider group of people in need, they risk being “mainstreamed into oblivion” alongside “affected communities” or “vulnerable groups” (Ferris, 2015). This is not to say that the needs of IDPs should be prioritised over other vulnerable groups, but rather, their displacement-‐specific needs must be adequately addressed. Therefore, other scholars and members of the international community counter such perspectives, placing an emphasis on the unique nature of suffering caused by displacement itself and the subsequent discrimination suffered in host communities. Thus, the plight of IDPs is specific in nature and must be approached accordingly (Kälin, 2006). This perspective provides a theoretical foundation for this research.

(20)

Such a stance is also supported by a recent paradigmatic shift in IDP debates towards the need to achieve ‘durable solutions’ for IDPs, and a move away from questioning the very existence of the IDP category itself (IASC, 2010).

Discussions surrounding durable solutions mainly address the following questions: when has displacement ended? When has a durable solution been found? Under what conditions should IDPs no longer be considered under this category? The present IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons lays out the concept of a durable solution as follows:

“A durable solution is achieved when internally displaced persons no longer have any specific assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement and can enjoy their human rights without discrimination on account of their displacement” (IASC, 2010, p.5).

The guidance on how to achieve this is broad, but falls under three general categories: sustainable integration at the place of origin; sustainable local integration in areas where internally displaced persons take refuge; sustainable integration in another part of the country (IASC, 2010, p.5). The achievement of these relies on the successful intersection of development agencies, human rights workers, peace building and humanitarian assistance. It follows that primary responsibility at this intersection needs to be assumed by national authorities. However, it is here where ‘durable-‐solutions’ debate begins to face political obstacles that deprive the ‘durable-‐ solutions’ framework of feasible application. Therefore, certain scholars argue that the specific political contexts, which protract displacement and hinder the achievement of ‘durable-‐solutions’ for IDPs must become the very basis of further IDP debate. Kuwali (2013), for instance, argues that, although comprehensive, the durable solutions approach for IDPs is, “largely reactive and does not focus on eradicating the root causes of displacement” (Kuwali, 2013, p.284). His work asserts the importance of re-‐embedding IDP debate in political realities to develop long-‐term strategies that also address structural causes, rather than short-‐term symptoms. In accordance, I assert that to move forward, IDP debate cannot afford to situate itself at a distance from the specific political contexts that perpetuate protracted displacement. The

(21)

central problem is not whether IDPs form a unique analytical category of concern, but rather, the debate surrounding them is too often removed from its political roots; progress suffers as a result of the depoliticisation of displacement.

2.2.1. The Depoliticisation of IDPs in Colombia

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Colombia currently has 6,270,000 IDPs in a population of 48,229,000 (IDMC, 2015). Despite such a colossal figure, accumulated over decades, it wasn’t until 1997 that a definition for ‘IDP’ was passed in the Colombian Congress:

“A displaced person is someone who has been forced to migrate within the national territory, abandoning his/her place of residence or daily economic activities, because his/her life, physical integrity, security or personal liberty has been violated or directly threatened, within the following situations: the internal armed conflict, disturbances and internal tensions, general violence, massive human rights violations, infractions on International Humanitarian Law, or other circumstances arising from the prior situations that can alter or disturb public order.” (Law 387, Title 1, Article 1, 1997).

Colombia’s legislation is largely modelled on the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which were developed at a similar time. However, in contrast to the international level, certain legal entitlements for IDPs do exist at the national level. Beyond the definition, it guarantees access to humanitarian aid and pledges the commitment of the state to protect human rights, stabilise IDPs economically, and facilitate return or resettlement, as well as prevent further displacement (Zea, 2011). In theory, Law 387 is one of the most progressive of its kind in the world. In reality, the implementation gap is vast and the UN’s conviction regarding the strength of Colombia’s legal scholarship and political institutions is rather superficial and incredibly misleading.

(22)

Certain scholars state that the magnitude of the implementation gap is not merely indicative of bureaucratic error, but is, in fact, representative of the depoliticisation of displacement in Colombia. According to the Fadnes and Horst (2009), this takes place through three principal practices that treat the conditions of the displaced as problems that require technical rather than structural or political solutions:

“Depoliticizing practices include a focus on humanitarian aid rather than prevention of displacement and durable solutions for the displaced, a governmental perspective that only acknowledges certain causes for displacement while denying others, and an invisibility of the displaced in the public debate on the Colombian conflict” (Fadnes & Horst, 2009, p.112).

Firstly, conceived as mere receivers of aid, IDPs are disconnected from the political roots of displacement and mainstreamed into the broader category of victims (Rajaram, 2002). This kind of symptomatic response remakes IDPs as a humanitarian, rather than political category, which offers little scope to attain ‘durable-‐solutions’ solutions to displacement.

Secondly, since the ceremonial disbanding of the paramilitaries in 2005 and the subsequent emergence of multiple splinter groups, categorised as BACRIM, many cases of displacement go unrecognised. Although, this is improving and people displaced by BACRIM are now able to register their displacement, the lack of state protection from reprisals poses a strong deterrent (O’Neil McCleskey, 2013). The government classifies the illicit activities of BACRIM as common crime, including incidents of forced displacement. These mean that these incidents are not dealt with as the actions of armed groups, which would warrant a strong military response, rather than local police (CODHES, 2013). It also means that theorising IDPs in Colombia demands moving beyond only those recognised by Law 387 in order to accommodate for unregistered IDPs by the Colombian state. Other groups such as human rights organisations recognise BACRIM as neo-‐paramilitary cartels, equally as organised and influential as their predecessors (Nuevo Arco Iris, 2013). In many cases, the same members simply reform different groups who compete for control over illicit activities in Colombia and reign through violence against the civilian population. Furthermore, it is important not to forget that the government itself is

(23)

often a source of displacement. In 2012, the public authorities were responsible for 42% of displacements (CODHES, 2013).

Thirdly, groups of IDPs that seek to reclaim land or engage with the political question of displacement are regularly exposed to threats and violence. Colombia’s record of impunity is atrocious and the government fails to guarantee protection to groups of IDPs that suffer violent reprisals in claiming their legal entitlements (HRW, 2013). This significantly discourages IDPs from participation in the political sphere, and negatively impacts their ability to claim their rights.

These three principal practices contribute to the depoliticisation of displacement in Colombia. This research seeks to re-‐politicise IDPs by re-‐embedding theoretical debate in the political context that shapes IDPs lived experiences in Colombia. Through a theorisation of political agency in the following section, I deploy a framework to facilitate the re-‐politicisation of IDPs as political subjects, and the inclusion of their perceptions of state and non-‐state actors. In doing so, I intend to avert the gaze of the international development lens onto the multifaceted political drivers of displacement in the city. First though, I make the case for more nuanced attention to IDPs in urban contexts.

2.2.2. Revitalising Approaches to IDPs in Urban Settings

Despite the fact that the geographical strain of displacement in Colombia falls upon its urban centres, there are strikingly few academic studies that aim to reinvigorate IDP debate through more innovative examinations of their relationship to the city. As discussed previously, IDPs often fall victim to “institutional convenience” in tough urban environments and do not receive adequate practical assistance, or alternative academic approaches that could energise discussion and facilitate improvements (Dolan, Refstie & Okello, 2009). As a result, literature on IDPs living in urban areas remains scant. Crisp, Morris and Refstie (2012) identify this striking knowledge gap. They posit that new partnerships need to be established between relevant actors to tackle displacement as a development issue. More critically, though, they make an urgent call for new approaches to IDPs in order to improve understanding of their

(24)

lives in urban environments and increase the chances of their voices being heard by urban policy makers.

I agree with the need for new approaches to IDPs in urban areas, but re-‐emphasis the need for these to remain embedded in their political context. Olarte and Wall (2012) take a positive step in this direction through a study of political agency of IDPs in Bogotá. Applying critical geography and critical legal studies, they theorise IDPs’ occupation of Parque Tercer Milenio as a ‘dissensus’ from the partitioning of public space in Bogotá, which challenges their depoliticisation and invisibility in the city (Ranciere, 1999). In occupying public space, IDPs step out from their assigned place in the political order, challenging the terms of political engagement and their isolation in the “urban void into which they are increasingly condemned to fall” (Olarte & Wall, 2012, p.334. By this, they mean dangerous, peripheral areas of the city.

Olarte and Wall’s (2012) study takes the depoliticisation of IDPs in Colombia as its point of departure, redefining them as political subjects and linking the urban to the political. This coming together of IDPs, political agency and the city provides a critical analytical intersection that requires more attention that I intend to explore in greater depth. Such a holistic approach holds the potential to unlock perspectives that assess IDPs, the political and the urban together. However, their study disregards the analytical significance of the ‘urban void’ despite the fact that these marginal areas are home to the majority of IDPs. Thus, a different theorisation of political agency is needed that facilitates contextualised understandings in ‘less visible’ urban areas. I assert that IDPs relationship to the ‘urban void’ itself demands more nuanced examination. This includes their interactions with key actors that define the space, as well perceptions of space itself. I propose that the study of these relationships and interactions therein holds the potential to reveal unique perspectives of IDPs on their urban environment. Such perspectives can be used to reinvigorate debate relating to IDPs in urban settings and influence new approaches. In accordance with Abello Colak and Pearce (2015), I press the importance of approaches that “take serious account of the knowledge, experience and agency of those most affected by urban violence” in order to effectively scrutinise and improve divided urban realities (Abello Colak & Pearce, 2015, p.199).