When Britons decided to break with the European Union in the nationwide “Brexit” referendum on June 23, the decision to leave sent shockwaves around the world. Now it’s Colombia’s turn and on October 2, millions will have their say in a “plebiscite for peace.”
President Juan Manuel Santos presented last month the question on the ballot to Colombians: “Do you support the final accord to end the conflict and construct a stable and lasting peace?” (“Apoya usted el acuerdo final para terminar el conflict y construir una paz estable y duradera?”) and even though for the two-term leader “it is clear and simple,” for many Colombians, reading through the 297-page Final Accord, is anything but.
After the Constitutional Court ratified the plebiscite process on July 18, the voting threshold was lowered to 13% so at least 4,4 million Colombians could vote “Yes” to the proposed peace. According to the government, the decision to lower the threshold was democratic as it aimed to curb voter absentionism and prevent “those who normally don’t vote” from influencing the final count. But a vote for “Yes” may hardly be an endorsement of President Santos’ second term, as ac- cording to a recent poll by Gallup, the head of state has an approval rating of just 33%. When Santos was re-elected in June 2014 he clinched power with 7,7 million votes, and less than a 6% margin over conservative rival Óscar Iván Zuluaga. By lowering the threshold, the government believes it’s fair play for both camps.
The peace plebiscite also aims to break with voter apathy regarding a peace process with the country’s oldest guerrilla that has lasted almost four years in Havana, Cuba. After more than a half century of internal conflict, the plebiscite sums up in one question the original six points of an agenda agreed upon by both sides in August 2012. This is a sore and contentious point, as many who will vote, believe that the word “supporting” is not the same as “approving.” Regardless of the final vote, the Final Accord with FARC cannot be modified. And beyond the semantics, this “plebiscite for peace” is not a national referendum, as only a referendum can alter or change existing laws guaranteed by the Constitution.
So what is at stake?
The 13,000-strong FARC have begun concentrating in 22 rural verification zones and six “special camps” across the country. Within a period of up to 180 days they must begin the process of integrating into civilian life. During the next six months, the combatants must hand over all their weapons to inspection teams assigned to the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. The FARC will surrender the first 30% of their weapons within 90 days of the signing of the Final Accord. A month later they must relinquish another 30%, and the final 40% a month after that.
The country’s security forces are obliged to guarantee the safe transit of all guerrillas to their assigned zones, including those who are detained and have requested legal protection under the transitional courts of the Justicia Especial para la Paz – Special Peace Justice.
President Santos confirmed during the closure of the Andicom conference, September 2, that the signing of the Final Accord between him and FARC’s maximum commander Rodrigo Londoño Echeverri, alias “Timochenko”, will take place in Cartagena on September 26. The President revealed the location after Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy claims he was invited by Santos to the historic signing September 26 in front of a global audience sitting for the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
But there’s a catch: FARC is on the United States’ annual list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) and has been since 1997. In order for “Timochenko” and chief negotiator “Iván Márquez” to attend the UN Assembly, the United States would have to suspend arrest warrants that include drug trafficking charges.
If the Final Accord will be signed this month, why then the need for a plebiscite? The vote gives voice to an “all bark and no bite” endgame. In other words, if “No” wins October 2, the process according to the government “ends without results.”
But the “results” are in. FARC cannot afford to backtrack with public opinion, but they could suspend their handover of weapons and wait it out in the hills. But the bilateral ceasefire that went into effect August 29 is now binding and indefinite.
The de-escalation of the Colombian conflict began two years back when the guerrilla announced a unilateral ceasefire. Then, in June 2015, Santos ordered the halting of all bombardments against the rebels and a gesture that led to the June 23 signing of the ‘Bilateral and Definitive Ceasefire, Cessation of Hostilities’ document.
With the Final Accord in the hands of Congress, the plebiscite does not have Brexit-like powers. If “No” becomes a vote of protest – fueled by anger over the amnesty the rebels have been offered – no one is heading back to the negotiating table in Havana anytime soon. If “Yes” wins, then it sends a signal to the world that Colombians can turn a page in their conflict- ridden history by accepting FARC’s immediate participation in political life. The accord grants the rebels six non-voting seats in Congress until the 2018 elections. For that electoral campaign, FARC as a political party, have been given a total of 10 seats – five in the House of Representatives and five in the Senate – regardless if they can get enough votes.
The Final Accord details on every page a profound transformation of Colombian society. It is a road map to a “new Colombia” from a state of war to a country at peace. More than an agreement with FARC, the document consolidates a fundamental realignment of the political and economic structure we have so far taken for granted. What really is at stake in this momentous plebiscite, isn’t a lasting peace with FARC, but the future of democracy.
