TO win The Economist’s award as Country of the Year, it is not enough to be peaceful and rich. The British newspaper aims to reward improvement. Previous winners have included Myanmar and Tunisia, for escaping tyranny and building something resembling democracy. Japan, New Zealand and Switzerland, as lovely now as they were a decade ago, need not apply.
This year’s contenders include plucky Estonia. Threatened by Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it is one of the few NATO members to meet its obligation to spend 2% of its GDP on defense. One of the poorer countries in Europe, nonetheless it saw its schoolchildren prove to be the continent’s star performers in the most recent PISA science tests. Estonian head teachers have the autonomy to hire and fire, and are held accountable for results. It is only a single generation since Estonia was a wretched colony of the Soviet Union, but now it looks almost Nordic.
Another small country on the shortlist is Iceland, population 330,000, which was the fastest-growing rich country in 2016. Also, its soccer team knocked England—population 53 million—out of a European tournament. Wags noted that the English coach was paid $4.3 million a year, whereas Iceland’s was a part-time dentist.
Canada has stayed sober and liberal even as other rich countries have bevome intoxicated by illiberal populism. It remains open to trade and immigrants—a fifth of its population is now foreign-born, twice the proportion in the United States. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has negotiated a carbon-pricing deal with nearly all Canadian provinces and vows to legalize marijuana too. Exactly what we would have expected from a former snowboarding coach.
However, our pick is Colombia, for making peace in 2016. This was a colossal achievement. The conflict between Colombia’s government and the Marxist insurgents of the FARC lasted for half a century and claimed perhaps 220,000 lives. At one point the country was on the brink of becoming a failed state—something that is now inconceivable.
FARC guerrillas murdered with abandon, recruited children and occasionally forced girl soldiers who became pregnant to have abortions. They also ran drug, kidnapping and extortion rackets to finance their war. Government troops were brutal, too. Some of them used fake job advertisements to lure innocent men to remote places. They then killed them and claimed that the corpses were rebels, making themselves seem more heroic and increasing their odds of promotion.
The nightmare ended in 2016—touch wood. President Juan Manuel Santos thrashed out a peace deal with the FARC and submitted it to a referendum. When voters narrowly rejected it, because the FARC leaders were not being punished severely enough, the two sides sat down again and answered some of the objections. The new deal is being pushed through parliament.
It would have been preferable to hold another referendum. If voters want to risk a return to war, however, in 2018 they can vote for a presidential candidate who promises stiffer penalties for FARC bosses. Meanwhile rebels are poised to hand in their arms.
Like most negotiated peace deals, Colombia’s is incomplete and involves ugly compromises. The alternative is worse, though. Colombia is a worthy winner.
© 2016 Economist Newspaper Ltd., London (December 24). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Image credits: Martin Bureau/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images