Will sectarian politics deliver the presidency to castrochavism in Colombia?

(Interamerican Institute for Democracy) The concept that “politics is the art of doing what is possible” is complemented by another that says “survival is the art of doing what is necessary”. These concepts are intertwined when we face dictatorships that wield power with crimes against humanity in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, but also to countries with electoral processes where Castrochavism has, as one of its options, the wrecking of democracy, just as is now happening in Colombia where the proliferation of candidates boils down to the fact that sectarian politics may end up delivering the presidency to Castrochavism.

In the presidentialism systems of countries in the Americas, the election of a president, who is the head of the Executive Branch, is the most important political event because it determines the control of the State. In an electoral process a candidacy to the presidency is, in most cases, indispensable to be able to get the Legislative Branch to participate through the election of parliamentarians even if it is known, before-hand, that the candidate to the presidency has no chance of winning. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the presidentialism system when compared to a parliamentarian system where, conversely, starting with the election of legislators a majority is built for the head of the Executive Branch.

In presidentialism systems, political participation in parliament is subject to the need of a presidential candidate, something that generates dozens of presidential candidates with no chance of winning and that are only useful to shield parliamentary candidates, but with their participation make it possible for a candidate with a minority popular backing to take the presidency.

The presidentialism system enables the creation of dictatorships starting with elections relatively won by a candidate who, once already a member of parliament, wrecks democracy by manipulating it with his/her own schemes, with votes, plebiscite elections, referendums, constituent assemblies, and successive voting to indefinitely perpetuate itself in power with impunity. This is proven by the existing situation in the dictatorships of Chavez/Maduro in Venezuela, Morales/Arce in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador, and Ortega/Murillo in Nicaragua.

Castrochavism, or 21st Century Socialism, takes advantage of these conditions to establish presidents who only have a minimum of popular backing and who are rejected by the majority of the population. Candidates with minority backing in the first round of elections are able to take the presidency, just as what has recently happened in Peru and Chile. The results are weak governments or authoritarian regimes who destroy the democratic system.

Castrochavist dictatorships from Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua have established a model for how to manipulate elections in order to give themselves legitimacy, establishing their methodology of “vote-catching dictatorships” in which “people vote but do not elect” due to the institutionalized conditions of fraud and the chain of crime that end up counterfeiting the popular will. Aggravating these conditions, opposition political parties in these countries, divide the voting population and present dozens of candidates -including several who are managed by the regime- so that the end result be favorable to the dictatorship.

In democracy, what favors the establishment of dictatorships is sectarian politics evidenced by the dozens of candidates that ultimately enable Castrochavism to “counterfeit as absolute majorities, what start as relative minorities”. In dictatorships, the role to favor the regime is played by “functional oppositions” or “hostages” who divide the peoples’ rejection of the dictator and prevent voters to show a massive expression of rejection.

In the particular case of Colombia’s elections this 2022, there are 21 candidates now campaigning. Polls show that Gustavo Petro, the Castrochavism’s candidate, has around 25% backing and that the remaining 75% is divided among the multiple candidates who proclaim, with several different discourses, their desire to stop Petro when -in reality- they are actually doing the opposite, allowing Petro who has been dubbed “the trojan horse” to get to a second round of voting.

With electoral sectarian politics those claiming to be defenders of democracy have lost, just as what has happened in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, and perhaps -this remains to be seen- in Peru and Chile. Now is Colombia’s turn, where political parties and leaders are heading along the same path. Nearly 75% of Colombians do not want the Castrochavism option, but candidates -who claim to be opposing this- are doing everything possible to deliver the presidency of Colombia to it.
*Attorney & Political Scientist. Director of the Interamerican Institute for Democracy.

Translated from Spanish by; Edgar L. Terrazas, member of the American Translators Association, ATA # 234680.