Colombians are facing their most important vote in at least 50 years. With peace negotiations concluded between the government of Juan Manuel Santos and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) guerrillas, Colombia needs to decide whether to support the peace agreement on the table, or reject it in favour of the continued use of violence to resolve the conflict.

As ever with this kind of decision, there are many compromises to be made; the pursuit of peace is often balanced precariously with the pursuit of justice. But while we should perhaps leave the ethical considerations up to Colombians to decide, one thing seems obvious.



If Colombians are interested in development – in social progress and more equality, better infrastructure, good quality schools, functioning healthcare for all, more foreign investment and jobs, rising wages; in short, in living up to their country’s potential as one of the world’s great 20th century success stories – then they need to vote for an end to the conflict.

Violent conflict is the nearest thing there is to de-development. Evidence has shown that the more violence there is in a region or country, the less development. It is fairly obvious why. How can you set up schools and hospitals when there is a danger they will be bombed? Where will the doctors and teachers come from? And how can businesses grow if they are in constant fear of losing their investments, or having to pay off armed groups?

No business means no jobs; no schools means no education. No development. De-development, in fact, because existing schools, hospitals and businesses may fall into disuse or go under.

Of course, the relationship also works the other way. Factors such as inequality and human rights violations provoke grievance and lead to conflict. The social conflict that has divided Colombia into haves and have-nots for centuries is not about to miraculously disappear, but breaking the vicious cycle offers a chance for differences to be aired in political debate rather than mountain skirmishes, and for development initiatives to get a stronger footing in often remote areas.



The danger is that post-conflict scenarios can also be highly violent. There has already been a demobilisation in recent Colombian history, of the right-wing paramilitary forces. But many are concerned that, rather than return to civilian life, many former members of these organised terrorist forces simply formed criminal gangs and continued to wreak havoc among defenceless communities, controlling not only the illicit drug trade but also many legitimate businesses and government positions.



The end of civil war does not mean the end of violence. El Salvador and Honduras have proved that. Moreover, there are countries, like Mexico and Jamaica, where there has been no formal armed conflict in living memory, but where incredibly high levels of violence can often be just as antagonistic to development efforts.

Perhaps it is time for a new designation to describe countries that have no formal conflict, but where violence is so rife that it seriously and systematically affects efforts to govern and develop. Violence-affected states?



Assuming Colombia does vote for peace, there are three priorities.



First, a huge peace dividend must be felt by all sections of society. Those who have suffered under the poverty and inequality that has accompanied the prolonged civil war need to feel this most. Then there will be the “no” voters, who still need convincing that a decisive rejection of violent conflict is the best way forward for Colombia, and who could yet stand in the way of a successful peace.



Second, the already significant focus on improved governance, accountability and democratic institutions must continue. These areas have suffered greatly as people of violence have taken control of important levers of power. Only gradually, and with care, can corruption be rooted out.



Finally, a focus on security is needed. The development sector has sometimes failed to appreciate the importance of investing in policing and security interventions. However, in a post-conflict situation where people are expecting less violence but the threat of more is just around the corner, security has to be a key priority. It is incredibly difficult to get right – especially as Colombia’s security services have themselves been strongly implicated in corrupt and violent practices – but it cannot be ignored.

For these reasons and many others, the international community will be needed more than ever if Colombians vote “si”. Rather than exiting the scene as though the job were done, international agencies – both official and non-governmental – should be doubling or tripling their presence and levels of investment. The history of Colombia and of countless other conflict countries shows that a return to violence of some kind is, depressingly, a likely scenario.