[dropcap]C[/dropcap]olombians excel at so many disciplines, but one in which they fall short is saying “no.” They will insist on seeing you, by saying “tenemos que vernos,” even though both parties know that it’s not entirely true. They will extend an offer to wine and dine you “de?jame atenderte” even though the invitation never arrives. For some, this could be a personal shortcoming, but I put it down to Colombians being generally averse to negativity. Anyone who has spent a certain amount of time living here will tell you that a negative easily becomes a positive, especially in the hands of a self-taught mechanic.
So with the official announcement by the Casa de Narin?o that Colombians must head to the polls October 2 to vote in the “referendum for peace,” both the “No” and “Yes” campaigns are out presenting their positions regarding a 297-page Final Accord and why voter participation is so important at this historic crossroads.
Both sides of the political divide have plenty of solid ground upon which to base their arguments, and many valid points regarding the outcome of four years of peace negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are being raised. But the debates in the public forum, and especially on social media, have moved beyond ideology to become emotionally charged, often distorting the facts in a document that has legally binding powers, and as important as the Constitution of 1991.
Regardless of which side wins the popular vote on October 2, the repercussions are seismic and will forever change Colombia’s political future. The final vote could plunge this nation into an altered economic state, hard to sustain without a significant increase in across-the-board taxation, and one that could stall private initiative and investment.
Clearly Colombians want peace for their country and this is an undeniable right. If the “No” vote has its day, FARC will halt their mass demobilization and head back to hills. The vote then is not just symbolic — even if for many, it’s a rejection of the impunity offered to terrorists who held this nation hostage and have no remorse. For others, on the “Yes,” it’s a necessary concession for settling a half-century-old conflict and that offers former Marxist guerrillas the possibility of shaping the democratic values of this nation.
A “No” vote validates Alvaro Uribe’s belligerent two-term presidency, but can’t change what has been agreed upon in Havana. It does, however, send an S.O.S to the international community that the social “transformation” promised in a Final Accord is a whitewash of profound feelings of political discontent and alienation, a document, many believe, lacks historical responsibility.
Many “No” votes will be cast in Bogotá, a capital that absorbed millions of displaced persons, was the seat of corruption for two failed administrations, and abandoned to its own devices as squalor and crime proliferated.
Pessimism and aggression have become part of everyday existence in this city and will translate at the ballot. Bogota? puts the majority of votes in any election. With a low voting threshold (just 4.4 million votes are required to reach the 13%), the October 2 plebiscite also cuts across generational lines. Younger voters who grew up with the war on YouTube have a very different understanding of the nature of conflict than those who managed to live through it.
For the many Colombians who lost loved ones during the war, this war may never be over. On October 2 every vote must therefore count, regardless of the outcome. I am convinced “Yes” will triumph over “No,” as Colombians are by nature an optimistic people and have a hard time voicing a “no.” The prospect of a lasting and stable peace with FARC is possible and won’t short-circuit in the years following a Santos presidency. But remember, the next time someone says “tenemos que vernos” take it as a “yes.” And if that invitation never arrives, blame the postal service.
