What use can the experience of a National Constituent Assembly have in these times? This question seems to have an obvious answer depending on which shore you are on, whether on the side of Petro or on the side of anti-Petrism. For the former, a reformed Constitution or a new Magna Carta is the guarantee that Colombia will cease to be one of the most unequal countries in the world and become an earthly paradise. For the latter, a reformed Constitution is, without speaking words, the sure path to the Venezuelanization of Colombia. The latter have reason to worry since the consolidation of the Chávez/Maduro dictatorship occurred thanks to a change in the Constitution; However, other countries that were in the hands of left-wing governments, such as Ecuador and Bolivia, also had their Constitutions changed and although at first it was thought that this would be a consolidation of left-wing projects, in the end they did not consolidate anything, nor transform these countries into less poor or unequal places.
There are many reasons to change the Political Constitution of Colombia. Another thing is that the government prefers to speak in general terms rather than directly pointing out the points that are missing from our political charter. From the Casa de Nariño, we talk about drafting a new Constitution as if a text (whatever it may be) was capable, after its promulgation, of revolutionizing the way we live in our country. As if the current Constitution was responsible for the social and security chaos. As if the 1991 text was responsible for drug trafficking and smuggling. As if the letter born thanks to consultation between the most diverse political currents, including the recently demobilized M-19, was responsible for the corruption which is suffocating the country.
The government could well say that it is worth reforming the Constitution to put an end to the perverse system of election of magistrates which ends up becoming politicized due to the vote that must be taken by the Congress of the Republic. Or that candidates for High Court judges should not be former officials of the government appointing them, as this also contaminates the High Courts with politics.
Likewise, they could say that we need to reformulate the text of our political charter to put an end to the offices of municipal and departmental comptrollers, which are only offices responsible for putting aside and giving a Christian burial to obvious acts of corruption committed by local leaders. Additionally, they could also say that we need to reform the Comptroller General of the Republic, which does the same thing, but on a large scale: it covers up the wrongs of the government that helped create the Comptroller.
They could say that what they want is that we are now a country with a parliamentary system, where parties must reach political agreements head-on and where parties represent ideas and not political figures as we see with Ingrid Betancourt, Juan Fernando Cristo, Germán Vargas Lleras or César Gaviria, who have certain logos, but no ideals. In short, they could say a lot to make their appeal meaningful, but they won’t. Because they know that a text changes nothing. Or are Venezuelans more prosperous thanks to Chávez’s Constitution?
About The Author
