Roy Barreras (Cali, 62) is convinced that the real presidential campaign begins in January. He expects it to be agile, fast, very intense. The first president of Congress from the time of Gustavo Petro considers the consultation of the so-called Broad Front, still under construction, as a competition between him and Senator Iván Cepeda, the left’s own candidate.
A doctor by profession, he remembers his qualities as a builder of legislative majorities during the first year of government to underline his differences. At that time, the chemotherapies he underwent to treat colon cancer that he considered over did not stop him. “The presidency of the Republic will be won in the second round by the one who is able to build majorities,” he tells EL PAÍS in the living room of his apartment, filled with books, photographs and works of art, northeast of Bogotá.
Ask. You officially announced your intention to participate in a multi-stakeholder consultation in March. Who do you plan to compete with?
Answer. In my political life, I do not have intentions, but decisions. I plan rigorously, in advance. I don’t improvise. Three years ago, I created a party to participate in the consultation. More than a year ago, we established a scenario in which the left could choose a legitimate candidate in October. I did not participate in it, because I am a liberal, social democratic, progressive center-left man, but I was not active in the Communist Party, but in parties of liberal origin. Once the left’s decision was made on October 26, choosing Senator Iván Cepeda as a candidate, I waited for him on Sunday March 8 to compete with him. The consultation will involve a center-left candidate who will win the presidency.
Q. Why are you so convinced?
A. Because it will bring together a very powerful and revitalized current of a left which has been fighting for decades for rights and freedoms, which has cost them their lives and which has been persecuted. And he will join a historic left in Colombia, popular liberalism, which is the history of progressivism of recent decades: Gaitán, Galán, before Uribe Uribe, agrarian reform…. the liberal flags with which I traveled the country with Gustavo Petro 3 years ago so that he won the elections. It’s a similar struggle, it will once again be the combination of this sector of popular liberalism, the independents and the center, with these left-wing currents, to defeat a retrograde right.
Q. Are you excluding the participation of other candidates of liberal origin, such as Juan Fernando Cristo?
A. I am sure that this competition in practice will be between Iván and me, but other candidates are welcome.
Q. Other candidates have closed the door to participating in a consultation…
A. Our desire has always been to use it to join forces. This is where Professor (Sergio) Fajardo is wrong, who recently said that the consultations were divisive, a completely misleading expression. On the contrary, they resemble primary elections in countries where this occurs. They must unite. I understand that the teacher wants to position himself in the center as the man who brings people together. It’s impossible, it’s clear that he is one of the 90 right-wing candidates. Former President (Álvaro) Uribe said it with absolute propriety: “From Abelardo to Fajardo,” this is the reach of the right. And no one on the right can unify the country.
Q. Carlos Caicedo and Luis Carlos Reyes launched their own left-wing coalition, outside of the Broad Front. What do you say to those who criticize you as a “chameleon” politician?
A. I regret that Carlos Caicedo decided to contradict Petro and divide the left. This is a historical error insofar as we have a common objective, namely that the country does not retreat towards an obscurantist, revanchist and violent right. I’m not exaggerating. The main spokesperson for this right announced that he was going to “empty” the opposition. Every progressive leader, and Caicedo is undoubtedly one, should read the historical moment and, instead of dividing, unite.
Q. Back at Frente Amplio, Cepeda is leading the polls. What is your strategy to overcome it during the consultation?
A. Colombian progressivism follows two paths. One is Ivan’s path, legitimate, that of the pure left. Another is that of Roy, which is the path of inclusion, of growth. We have a lot in common, we have been walking the path to peace together for 15 years, but we also have differences. First, the ideological history. I am a progressive liberal, he is a man of the authentic left. Another difference: I am a builder of majorities, it is proven, majorities which resolve the problems of governability and which carried out Petro’s agenda during the first year of the government. I built the greatest coalition of any president. I know how to govern with everyone and for everyone. The presidency of the Republic will be won in the second round by whoever is capable of forming majorities.
Q. Is a new progressive cycle viable without Petro as a central figure?
A. Colombian democracy has this strength. Here, there is a transfer of power, elections every four years, there are no dictatorships. Gustavo Petro will have all my respect and also all my protection within my government. In Colombia, there is more progressivism than there is left. On the right, if you look at the candidates’ CVs, they are almost all ignorant. I don’t mean this as a disqualification but as a diagnosis.
Q. You criticized the president’s idea of proposing a Constituent Assembly. Why do you think Petro insisted?
A. This responds to frustration that Congress has not approved the reforms he has introduced. This led him to believe that Congress does not work and that a constituent assembly must be held, but Congress works, it works for me. My government will not need a new Constitution.
Q. Whoever arrives at Casa de Nariño will have to deal with Donald Trump for at least two years. How do you propose to rebuild these relationships?
A. Through the diplomatic, institutional and official channels that Colombia maintains with friendly countries. When it all started, I requested the convening of the diplomatic missions accredited in Colombia, because I am convinced that there are interests in Spain, in England, in Germany, in France, who want Colombia, which is in the center of Latin America, not to exacerbate a crisis with the United States that would destabilize the region. Colombia has a huge opportunity to establish multipolar relations.
Q. What achievements are you demanding from this government and where is it deviating?
A. I recognize social inclusion. This priority of recognizing the invisible, the vulnerable, the poorest cannot be denied. No president has been more persecuted than this one, including his inclusion on the Clinton list, which provoked a very aggressive defensive response. Concerning the challenges, the first is in terms of security. What sets me apart are the methods. If the state is weak, criminals abuse it and this happened in the first year, when 20 negotiation tables were opened with different illegal groups, as if they were all equal. The idea of treating them the same implies inexperience. Other important challenges include restoring the health system and meeting the enormous energy and fiscal challenge.
Q. Would you like to continue peace talks?
A. The path is submission to righteousness. For the criminal gangs of drug traffickers, there is no transitional justice but submission accompanied by advantages. The ELN, for example, degenerated because of drug trafficking. And if they behave like drug dealers, they should be treated like drug dealers.
Q. What decisions would you make regarding security?
A. My proposal is total security. For example, I wouldn’t buy more Gripen planes. I will liquidate Inpec and build five megaprisons with factories so that inmates can work to produce their food and provide for their families. We need 10,000 drones that work with artificial intelligence in the neighborhoods where the highest number of crimes are committed and that, thanks to facial recognition, help capture the criminal. It’s using technology for cities. 140 helicopters must also be re-equipped with remote-controlled missiles in order to be able to hit high-value targets who have decided not to submit to justice.
Q. With this idea of attacking the groups, will the bombings continue?
A. At any table of dialogue on submission to justice, the first thing must be to lay down your arms. Any conversation with someone who has the weapons to violently control territory is doomed to failure. Regarding attacks, I will use all legal tools within the framework of IHL to attack and control violent people who do not submit to justice. It even involves combat.
Q. Four years ago you presented a motion of censure against Guillermo Botero for having bombed a camp with children, which has already been repeated in this government…
A. What I said was that this defense minister lied to the Colombians. After announcing the loss of 14 guerrillas, alias Guacho He did not fall and all the victims were young children. The minister hid the evidence of minors in forensic medicine, he did not take political responsibility. In this government there were bomb attacks, but on the same day the president took responsibility for them. This is a fundamental difference. A head of state must make tragic decisions. Any death is painful, and even more so that of a minor, but anyone who does not have the necessary character to fight the criminals who enslave families, is not felt in Colombia alone.
Q. Reduce crops for illicit use. Would glyphosate come back?
A. It is an obsession of the North American government which is completely ineffective. I am a doctor and before entering politics I discussed a lot about insecticides and pesticides harmful to human health. This isn’t really helpful, as advances have been made in coca growing technology. Substitution is more effective, but for this, infrastructure must be built. Ground and targeted fumigation are more effective than aerial fumigation. There would be manual fumigation if replacement is not carried out.
Q. Let’s talk about the crisis in the health care system, to which you are no stranger as a doctor. Would you propose a new reform? What do you think of what the government has presented?
A. The EPS should disappear to make way for benefit plan administrators. We must give priority to a network of services that must be public-private, because in any company in the world, if there is a need to control someone from the outside, it must be the audit. Petro tried to do it the first year and Minister (Carolina) Corcho wanted to trample this reform and exaggerate it without even proposing a transition period. Consequence: there is no health reform.
About The Author
