[Iván Garzón, Rebeldes, Románticos y Profetas. La responsabilidad de sacerdotes, políticos e intelectuales en el conflicto armado colombiano (Bogotá: Ariel, 2020) 330 pp].
review / Paola Rosenberg
The book "Rebels, romantics and prophets" written by Iván Garzón sample the role played by priests, politicians and intellectuals in the internal armed conflict in Colombia and the responsibility they had in it. A war that marked the country politically, economically, socially and ideologically. Revolutionary movements in Latin America were characterized by the use of violence and the employment of weapons to reach power; more or less strong depending on the country, guerrilla groups had in any case a great influence on the course of events in the region during the second half of the twentieth century. The essay by Garzón, professor of Political Theory at the Universidad de La Sabana, focuses especially on the role of the Catholic Church in the different movements and on the contradictory ideas and actions that sustained the conflict over time [this is how he summarizes his purpose in this video].
"Rebels, Romantics and Prophets" questions and criticizes the responsibility of these groups around the resource of violence and the use of weapons to achieve social change in Colombia. Iván Garzón challenges the participants of the armed conflict in Colombia to reflect on their role in it and to assume their responsibility to build a better society. In addition, the book aims to open a discussion on the past, present and future of the role and influence of the Catholic Church and intellectuals in society.
The revolutionary waves in Latin America in those years were strengthened by the Marxist ideas of the time. Those ideas defended that the economic development of the third world countries was not possible without a rupture of the capitalist market; due to social inequality and class struggle. For this reason it was necessary to advocate the use of violence and thus come to power. After the triumph of the Cuban revolution in 1959, guerrilla ideas spread rapidly throughout Latin America. Cuba demonstrated that revolution was possible: through armed struggle and Marxist ideas, a social development could be achieved. This is how strong revolutionary movements began to emerge in these countries. Colombia was definitely no exception.
One of the young and main protagonists mentioned in the book is Camilo Torres, who was swept up in the revolutionary waves in Colombia. Also known as "the guerrilla priest" or the "Che Guevara of the Christians", Torres was a very influential leader in Colombia in the second half of the 20th century. A guerrilla priest, a hero to some, but a villain to others. Only 37 years old, he died in a troop clash on February 15, 1966, a year after joining the National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas. Willing to sacrifice his life and take up arms for his country and social change, Torres affirmed that revolution was inevitable and that it was necessary to contribute to it. Different intellectuals evaluate his figure in the book: some criticize the priest for his "failure" and his incorrect decision to take up arms, others justify him by pointing out that he submitted to a "just war".
Camilo Torres represents the group of the rebels, whom the author describes as the "warriors of a failed revolution". They used arms out of an often religious commitment. They justified violence and saw it as a representation of honor, bravery and submission. The rebels decided to take up arms, go out into the bush and join the guerrillas in order to make the Christian faith effective and help the poor. Many of these rebels like Torres focused on Christianity's primary mandate to love one's neighbor. They felt an obligation to collaborate to bring about radical change in the country's political, economic and social Structures . They desired a more just society and sacrificed their lives to achieve it, no matter the means. Many came to the conclusion that the only way to obtain this change was through violent struggle. Their actions sample how the dominant ideas of the time justified the use of violence, going against purely Christian ideas.
In the conflict there was also the group of the "romantics", those who approved of the cause, respected it, but did not get their hands dirty. They were priests, politicians and intellectuals who intervened in the moral and intellectual discussion to justify the reasons for the revolution. They were the passionate ones, the minds behind the acts that directly influenced the warriors who went into the bush to fight.
Finally, there were the "prophets": the priests, politicians and intellectuals who were completely opposed to armed struggle and the use of violence to bring about change in society. The prophets refused to make a pact with the devil and betray the moral values of the Church. They thought that there were other means to achieve social justice; peaceful and bloodless means. In the end, these were the ones who were right; it was a useless, costly and unwinnable struggle.
In conclusion, both the rebels and the Romantics found in their moral and political views a full justification for the use of violence. The prophets never approved of this cause, but rather criticized it by emphasizing its secularized and contradictory character. Iván Garzón intends to open a discussion on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the use of violence as a political means to achieve justice.
Today, the word revolution continues to be linked to violence due to the many traumatic conflicts experienced by many Latin American nations. In Colombia, as in many other countries, the revolutionaries won ideologically, but not in practice. For this reason, it can be concluded that in general, violent internal conflicts only lead to destabilize countries and end innocent lives. The book attempts to make religious and intellectual participants in the armed conflict reflect on their responsibility or guilt in the armed conflict. This discussion between criticism or justification of the armed struggle is still necessary today due to the constant threat to democratic institutions in Latin America.
