It is surprising that a left-wing president would give as his campaign flag to the right the defense of the 91 Constitution, the most progressive we have had in history. It is surprising that by currently seeking a result in an election, we are putting into play a Charter, even as a smokescreen, which, if modified today, could roll back acquired rights. Although many of his articles are not yet fully realized, they provide a guide to trying to achieve them. It is no small thing to have a Constitution in which the supreme objective of building a social state governed by law is enshrined. Therefore, although the idea of a Constituent Assembly is a balloon, a smokescreen, a campaign strategy, it is not enough to defend again and again what costs so much effort.
The Minister of Labor Antonio Sanguino led the group of people who registered the committee promoting the National Constituent Assembly in the Register and with this act the Government launched an idea that served to heat up the public debate at different times. President Gustavo Petro is an expert at stirring the waters and he is still doing it because during his more than three years in power he has had the political initiative and he does not want to lose it at the very moment when the campaign for Congress and for the presidential consultations formally begins.
It is therefore not strange that the idea of a Constituent Assembly is being launched again as a campaign project and that a jaguar is even used as a symbol, which at first glance looks like an animal that would stand up to the tiger used by the most far-right candidate. Poor animals have become the symbols of such senseless projects, but we already know that politics has the capacity to contaminate everything. What is strange, I insist, is that President Gustavo Petro has been trying for months to make one of the country’s few collective agreements in recent decades a subject of contention. With each of its faults, the Constitution of 91 – born as a response to a situation of extreme violence and which was the culmination of the peace agreement with the M 19 – constituted a great advance in terms of rights and collective agreement on which there was no further debate.
It is true that several political leaders have spoken about the Constituent Assembly because this idea is a temptation especially for authoritarian leaders who always want to have rules adapted to them, but it has never gone beyond the stage of a stone thrown into the water which makes waves and disappears. It is true that certain points of the Constitution deserve to be revised, such as the process of electing members of the high courts, which found itself mired in political maneuvering, and it is true that Congress did not want to address important substantive reforms. It is true that several legislative acts have modified it. However, all this has not affected the backbone of a social, democratic, inclusive and secular Constitution in its fundamental bases. This is what could be in danger.
However, the road is very long and this first step does not mean that we will reach a Constituent Assembly. This should go through the new Congress and if it obtains majorities, go to the control of the Constitutional Court, then to the polls to consult if it is summoned and then return to the polls to elect the voters. All this if you exceed the threshold and each procedure. For now, it’s a campaign flag. How much do voters care about this issue today?
The political moment is very different from the one we experienced in the late 80s and early 90s. For different reasons, but it is worth mentioning a few: although it is still present and growing, the level of violence is different because our conflict has evolved with nuances over the years with greater or lesser consequences and different scenarios. The political reality of the time demanded peace agreements and supported amnesties that would be unacceptable to much of the population today. The world was also experiencing another moment. Today, millions of voters in countries around the world support authoritarian leaders who promote the loss of citizens’ rights. The Nazi parties take advantage of this and shamelessly wave flags of discrimination against different populations. The world, in some sense, seems to be going against what our Constitution protects.
35 years ago, the seventh ballot which gave birth to the Constituent Assembly generated majority agreements, today President Petro’s proposal divides and separates. Toying with the possibility of changing the Constitution is irresponsible. The problem is not what voters signed in 1991, the problem is that governments and Congresses elected since then have not done everything they could to make every word of that text a reality. The capture of the state by the mafia or by private interests transforms every dream into a nightmare. No new rules are necessary, it would be enough to comply with what this Constitution says. Ultimately, this whole debate is meaningless. It’s about politics, campaigning, arousing emotions, getting votes at all costs. In this there is no difference between left and right. Anything goes to gain power and once there, the objective is to maintain oneself. Although the Constituent Assembly is an idea born to die, it is worth remembering what the 91 Constitution means, because in these turbulent times, anything can happen and we must have plans to stick to.
About The Author
