Breathe
By Solange Márquez, International Analyst. Lecturer. Author of Girl's Skills for Life, Editor and Co-author of Mexico-Canada. Two Nations in a NorthAmerican Partnership and Co-author of Climate Abandoned. We're on the Endangered Species List. Contributor to El Universal and international media such as France24, BBC, Univision, among others.
President Gustavo Petro proposed a few days ago to call for a National Constituent Assembly in Colombia if his social reforms are not approved. His pension and health reforms have met with opposition in Congress, where he does not have a majority. This scenario, without the majority needed for ordinary reforms, further suggests the complexity and possibly lack of rationale for calling a Constituent Assembly, raising questions about the feasibility and legitimacy of such an action under the current circumstances.
The current Constitution, issued in 1991, establishes in its Article 376 the basis for convening a Constituent Assembly. "The Congress may provide that the people in a popular vote decide whether to convene a Constituent Assembly with the competence, period and composition determined by the same law. This rule implies a direct and considerable popular support, with at least one third of the electoral roll in favor of such convocation. This requirement underscores the importance of a broad and direct support of the citizenry in decisions of constitutional magnitude, contrasting with the current situation where the administration faces significant challenges to advance its legislative agenda. The latest electoral census established that 40,292,068 people are eligible to vote in Colombia.
Among the points presented by Petro for a possible Constituent Assembly would be a judicial reform focused on bringing the judicial system closer to citizens and increasing its effectiveness. This proposal arises in a context of adverse judicial decisions for his government, highlighting the tension between the Executive and the Judiciary. This proposal, while pointing to necessary improvements, also raises questions about its scope and the implications of a profound judicial reform on the balance of powers and judicial independence.
The main concern of analysts and opponents revolves around the inclusion of reelection in the Constituent Assembly proposal, despite Petro's previous promises during his 2022 campaign not to use this mechanism to modify the Constitution. "My commitments written in marble will be in the president's office" said Petro when asked, assuring that he would not call for a constituent assembly. However, on Friday he already indicated that "if the institutions [referring to the National Congress and the Judiciary] are not capable of living up to the reforms" proposed by his government, "then Colombia has to go to a national constituent assembly". This discrepancy between his promises and recent actions fuels skepticism and concern about the direction of his government and the possibility of fundamental alterations in the country's political structure.
At the beginning of his presidency, Petro tried to project a conciliatory image, approaching businessmen and appointing figures close to the private sector in his cabinet. This approach seemed to seek stability and tranquility among investors and businessmen. A little more than a year after taking office, in September 2023, in Bogotá's Plaza Bolívar before tens of thousands of participants, Petro presented his proposal to call for a Great National Agreement, involving former presidents, politicians, businessmen and "all social forces [and] society as a whole" to "give direction to the changes in Colombia".
Petro has also thrown away that agreement and last Friday, while disdaining his promise not to call for a Constituent Assembly, he also threw away his own proposal for a national agreement. "It is no longer time for a national agreement as I proposed".
Petro's narrative, by threatening to change the Constitution if his demands are not met, reflects a strategy common among populist leaders facing opposition in other organs of the State. This tactic, based on denying the legitimacy of the opposition and claiming to represent the only "voice of the people," undermines the democratic principles of dialogue and negotiation. Experience shows that the most successful countries have advanced thanks to the ability of their leaders to coexist and conciliate, while extreme ideological positions have contributed to the current situation in several Latin American countries. The populist narrative is by nature, contrary to democracy.
The 1991 constituent experience in Colombia, which included a wide range of political and social forces working together (such as the M-19, MSN, liberals, etc.), resulted in a Constitution that promoted greater political plurality and recognition of the country's diversity. This process contrasts sharply with Petro's current proposal, which seems to seek not unity and consensus, but the consolidation of power for his group, threatening the integrity of democracy and its institutions.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()