Las palabras del ex-alto comisionado para la paz del Gobierno de Uribe, Luis Carlos Restrepo, coinciden con un sentimiento sumamente arraigado in the ultra-conservative host country, no doubt, are supported by the Gothic mood of former Colombian president. For many have chosen to Santos was to ensure continuity without any variant of the basic tenets that have characterized the eight-year administration of his predecessor. In fact, admittedly, was a speech that managed the campaign of now President Santos and was a successful merchandising strategy that drove their business political campaign strategists, which is good in a race for the presidency, obviously. All leaders, not only in Colombia but in the world, found as a support what they believe are concentrated preferences the electorate. If Santos is revealed as the liberal he is, probably would have had a negative flow of the powerful conservative voters meant Uribe.
However, those who are now believing that it actually Colombia faced in the last presidential election was not an option for continuation of the Government of Alvaro Uribe, but a trade off, a choice between a model political liberalism and conservatism of democratic security, bordering on meanness own end and radicalism in politics. The truth if they believed the most Uribe Colombia was facing a continuity model whose only variation was who ran it were very naive, and if we now believe that Colombia has had to maintain democratic security, also committed an error. Not because the Uribe government is a black episode in history, on the contrary, as time goes by better recognize their successes and mistakes, both in good quantities. But for any democracy renewal is necessary. I would say is a must.
With the perception that the country's rampant violence and the economic policies yields are very low, we may well regret the absence of Uribe. However, neither the violence ended with his Government, though it evolved and the conflict between guerrillas and armies ended, or the country took the leap required for its economic modernization, political and institutional. And the fact already evident problems of corruption and distortion of public procurement, construction delays expressed in strategic development and the inescapable presence of structural unemployment, poor infrastructure, much in the rainy season, and yet sustained presence of questionable social coverage suggest that the country should think of the post-conflict and not a government to reach him.
Uribe changed the country. I would say was the president who played his enormous political capital in the eradication of the greatest threat ever faced by the Colombian government and the elimination of left-wing guerrilla groups and the extreme right. The latter showed that in the end it was his criminal character and devoid of any political or ideological message. While today there are criminal groups derived from both sides, no more than that criminal groups deserve a policy aimed at militarily and economically asphyxiate. Contrary to what the teacher suggests Humberto Vélez of the Universidad del Valle in a recent lecture at this university, Colombia's armed conflict does not exist as a struggle between political actors. The only political actor is the government and President Uribe was left sitting this promising beginning recovered.
But the presence of a government that set the country to a different scenario to the old armed conflict between political factions is necessary and would not conflict with the model of a nation be enabled to maintain the security, coexistence and national defense. Colombia must now rebuild his weakened social fabric cost of any armed conflict, through economic policies aimed at redistributing wealth and economic growth. Redeployment will be obtained through a policy for reducing unemployment, increasing quality and coverage of education, health and housing. The Chilean model is a clear example of what a country should be thinking about society and the competitiveness of enterprises in the allocation of assets in infrastructure that would connect the country, lower transport costs and connectivity within the country, and from the rest of the world. Chile has reduced its poverty levels, as few countries grew during 1990 and until recently was modernized economically, became a vibrant democracy, with a significantly more efficient the average of its neighbors, and ensured a reliable defense and national security.
The ultra-conservative claim some today in Colombia to show Santos as a traitor at odds with what should be understood as continuity. The issue of security in Colombia is not the same issue as in 2002 or today can claim to be used as a pretext to maintain a custom character in politics. The great success of Uribe have left now is think of far-reaching reforms to the Colombian society and not on how to fight them to a well-armed irregular army. But Santos is the duty of governing, not be true to a legacy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment