More than polarized between two ideological extremes, Colombian society is divided in halves. A division that began at the end of the previous century gradually accentuated throughout the new century, deepened during the four years of Gustavo Petro’s government and was exacerbated during the electoral campaign.
It has been rightly believed that Petro, with his rhetoric, brought together and gave voice to traditionally excluded groups of the population, now converted into an empowered social force that whoever wins the presidency on Sunday, June 21, must take into account and incorporate into their government projects. It is clear, as has also been stated, that the left “is here to stay.” The traditional political balances have been modified: there is a new, unstable political dynamic that cannot be ignored.
In politics, as in life, changes do not come without costs of various kinds. The evolution of recent times has brought conflicts: Colombians have been divided between the good and the bad, between the rich and the poor, between those in favor of ‘life’ and those of ‘death’, between Petro’s ‘slavers’ and those oppressed by the ruling classes of the almost 220 years of republican life.
Hatred towards adversaries in the electoral struggle is an unfortunate consequence. A devastating feeling of very bad memory emerged strongly in Colombia due to the Violence of the middle of the previous century. With different and strident manifestations from one side to the other. Neither the rules, nor the dictates of the judges, nor the most basic forms of confrontation have been respected. Simply, all Colombians have been disrespected. The result of the first round was not recognized in time by the losing candidate and President Petro has not yet done so. The winner, for his part, used inappropriate and improper language and manner to celebrate the victory and has continued to use it in this endless space between the two electoral rounds. Dignity in Colombian politics ceased to exist.
Colombia needs reforms that promote economic and social progress to provide better life opportunities to all its inhabitants.
* * * *
The risk we are running is falling into violent conflict between political and social groups. Just as the left “came to stay,” Petro and his forces will also remain in the future political scene; either as contradictors, if their candidate wins, or as fierce opponents from Congress and the streets, if the one on the right wins.
Meanwhile, the country will continue in its dissolution process. The sad truth learned in these years and in this campaign is that the future of the country has been sacrificed. The possibility of changing the Constitution has been played with and visions of the Colombia in which new and future generations would like to live have not been planned.
It is unfortunate, as stated The Economist in his article on the result of the first electoral round, that the governments had not confronted the problem of inequality in a timely manner, and had given it to “the hardest left,” while violence, insecurity, and drug trafficking worsened, inspiring the activity of an “extreme right like that represented by Mr. De la Espriella in Colombia.”
We must accept ideological differences and disagree. But Colombia needs reforms that promote economic and social progress to provide better life opportunities to all its inhabitants. This is not the time for complacency with the current situation as expressed by the government candidate, nor for authoritarian measures such as some of those announced by his opponent.
And, above all, unite instead of divide, mitigate hatred, and avoid violence.
