Colombian referendum narrowly rejects peace with rebels

[alhoon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37537252

The gist: Voters in Colombia have rejected a peace deal with Farc rebels with 50.24% voting against it. The deal came after 4 years of negotiations to end a 52 years war (that's 2 generations) that has displaced millions and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.



With a surprising low turnout in such an important decision, 50.2% of Colombians voted to reject the deal, with 49.8% that voted to accept it. The peace deal would have the Farc rebels demilitarizing and becoming a political party within 6 months. Of course, it wouldn't have been like a switch turned off after so many years of divide and I expect tensions would be high, gangs of former paramilitaries would be active for years etc.
The peace deal was, as it turned out, too light for half the Colombians. Anti-left sentiment, mistrust about whether the rebels will keep their part of the deal (they have broke it in the past), near-amnesty for many that committed crimes and suggested payment for demobilized rebels soured the deal for the Colombians that narrowly rejected it.
The president backing the deal and the Farc rebel leadership now have to walk a weird path in order to reach peace. While the cease-fire will still remain in effect, the current peace deal was rejected, so a new one would have to be decided and such things take time. During this time it is quite possible for disgruntled rebel elements to provoke the government with terrorist attacks or for paramilitary (or military) elements to provoke the rebels making a peace deal more difficult.



In my opinion, even if the deal passed, with just 40% turnout and 0.2% difference it would be too weak to last. There needs to be much stronger support for it, in order to work and not break down after a few years. Let's hope that in the face of this, the rebels and the military will respect the ceasefire.

[DaniCatBurger]

The executive is allowed not to follow a legislative proposal for a raison d’état sometimes if it is able to explain it and willing to get a legitimisation afterwards. I may add that questions of international treaties and war and peace are not an object of the popular vote in direct democratic systems normally.

[Yayattasa]

The executive is allowed not to follow a legislative proposal for a raison d’état sometimes if it is able to explain it and willing to get a legitimisation afterwards. I may add that questions of international treaties and war and peace are not an object of the popular vote in direct democratic systems normally.

International? You know the FARC are from Colombia right?

These domestic paramilitary groups all over Latin America for some reason are not labelled terrorists as well. I wonder why...

[DaniCatBurger]

It's more rational to solve conflicts peacefully than with force. A peace treaty will end the conflict. Plus it may reduce the production of cocaine in Columbia. Both are rational goals. Solving conflicts and protecting people from crime describe legitimate aspects of the Raison d'état. It would contradict the rational to let the conflict to continue and not to take up the chance to reduce crime.

[Infidel144]

These domestic paramilitary groups all over Latin America for some reason are not labelled terrorists as well. I wonder why...

By whom?
FARC is on both the US and EU lists of terrorist organizations:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappin...groups/view/89

[alhoon]

According to the article, most people in the "no peace" camp do want peace, they just consider this peace agreement bad.

[juanplay]

Im from there and it seems the low turnout is to blame for this result, only 38% of all elegible voters participated in this election, not only that but heavy rains in the caribbean coast (a heavy pro yes region) may have had an adverse effect on the vote. The leader of the no camp, former president alvaro uribe is using this particular campaign to get back to power in 2018 while manipulating the feelings of the no supporters.

[alhoon]

But why such a low turnover over such an extremely important vote?

[Muizer]

I haven't followed this closely, but I heard polls predicting overwhelming support (like 2/3) for the peace treaty. Perhaps a lot of people in the yes camp didn't show up because they thought the race was won already.

I also read that of those who voted, quite a few have taken the opportunity to use their vote in protest to the government, not necessarily the peace treaty. That would be of course be a completely irresponsible abuse of democratic rights. Seems to be a worldwide trend..........

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I have heard much of the referendum but as a citizen I chose not to vote since I am not there right now and I am not caught up with current events. Back in the 90's a peace treaty was rejected by President Pastrana. In the early 2000's another treaty was rejected by President Uribe, a popular guy who ran as a Liberal but is now working with the Conservatives after his term limit ended. In fact the current President Santos ran on a platform that was supposed to mirror Uribe and it is said that Santos won because everyone wanted another Uribe. Why the populace would disagree with a peace treaty is frankly quite hard for me to understand. I think what they want is to see FARC dead and I can understand that sentiment. However the guy in charge of the negotiations has stated that he doesn't think peace will be possible for another 10 years if this treaty is rejected. Notice how there was no talk of wiping FARC off the face of the Earth. It seems that the government was also working to splinter FARC into collaborationist cells and anti-government cells. I would be hesitant to say that the referendum is a good thing as I truly don't think that Colombia has the means to defeat FARC once and for all and the country desperately needs peace to try and rebuild and consolidate. I'm sure there must be at least one good reason to continue the war but I have yet to see it.
As for Alvaro Uribe trying to get back into power I'm not sure that is legal at all. Colombian law limits the president to two 4 year terms. While I initially disliked Santos and I will be honest I distrusted Uribe greatly for me Santos is the little train who could.

[juanplay]

Uribe does not need to run for president in order to get back to power, he just needs a puppet, without him, the centro democrático would be almost harmless.

[LaMuerte]

I'm a bit saddened the peace deal got rejected, but I sincerely hope some form of reconcilliation and peace can be achieved. At least the government and Farc still seem to be committed to finding a resolution for their 'predicament'. I'm kinda wondering wether this is worse for Farc than for the Columbian government. I can imagine it being demoralizing for communist Farc members to find out that the people , you know the workers and peasants marxists around the world depend on , rejected the peace deal. A bit like they came out of the jungle and discovered Colombia is a whole new and strange country , one that doesn't care about antiquated ideologies.

[juanplay]

well if you look at the electoral map you will find that the areas that were the most affected by the conflict voted yes (http://plebiscito.registraduria.gov....ZZZZZZZ_L1.htm), while the inner cities (except for the capital) voted no which is bizarre since it is the peasants who have suffered the most in this war

[Muizer]

well if you look at the lectoral map you will find that the areas that were the most affected by the conflict voted yes (http://plebiscito.registraduria.gov....ZZZZZZZ_L1.htm), while the inner cities (except for the capital) voted no which is bizarre since it is the peasants who have suffered the most in this war

How is that bizarre? Seems to make a lot of sense. It's a lot easier to let moral judgement prevail over pragmatism if you do not have to pay the price for it. Interesting link btw. Very strong geographic pattern center vs periphery.

[juanplay]

it is bizarre because the victims of the conflict are the ones willing to forgive (despite all the pain they went through) and move on while city dwellers, most of whom have never been affected by the conflict voted no because of their ignorance and the propaganda/lies carried out by uribe´s party

[Muizer]

it is bizarre because the victims of the conflict are the ones willing to forgive (despite all the pain they went through)

Interesting. Their "yes" was a sign of genuine forgiveness, not war weariness?

[alhoon]

Interesting. Their "yes" was a sign of genuine forgiveness, not war weariness?

I kinda think it is war weariness. I am not sure returning FARC members would be welcome in these areas. Paramilitaries and gangs would target them for reprisals for sure. It took over 30 years for us to heal the damage done in our civil war. I don't expect things to be clear the day following the peace.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

So you are in agreement with me that Uribe is a total snake? I really don't trust this guy especially now of all times. BTW the reason I left Colombia was because of FARC.

[juanplay]

But of course he is a snake, the man has been in every possible political party (except those on the left), he campaigned for the no in order to increase his bargaining power, and he did it, santos will meet with him tomorrow.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Santos should coup his ass and remember to get his brother as well. Too bad that ain't happening...
I see a definite potential for nepotism in that guy but what is more disturbing is how everyone just accepts anything that he does. How many scandals has this guy been involved in, next you will be telling me that he killed Luis Carlos Galan.
I could have sworn that Uribe ran for the Liberals back in 2002, do you not consider that to be Left?