GP: Colombia has on the whole followed a political culture that caters to its upper class elite. As a result, most of the population, particularly the poorest are ignored by political institutions and state faculties. Is there a way to change that?
Fernando Carrillo-Florez: About 6 years ago at the IDB we published a book called Politics Matters for Development which basically affirms the importance of the study and analysis of the political variable in front of development. The traditional analysis in the field of development tended to consider only economic and social causes. Since the development banks like the IDB and World Bank were technical institutions, nobody cared about the importance of the political variable.
We established that in the case of Latin America there have been more than 15 processes of constitutional reform in the region in the last two decades. And not a single one of political reform. They recognized political weaknesses and lack of representation but didn’t approach the causes. The consequences of these reforms in the last twenty years were the creation of high expectations for the population but few results in terms of delivery of economic and social rights. The link between political rights and the economic/social rights is crucial.
That’s what we did in the case of Colombia with the constitutional reform of 1991. The main motivation was to guarantee the protection of rights. This was one of the most practical social reforms not just a technical or legal one. The point of departure was the need to change the way the citizens see how the establishment or the state protects their rights. The reform strengthened not just the judicial hand of the state against terrorism and organized crime but the idea of protecting the rights of the citizens by establishing a tribunal to guarantee and protect their rights. This is the beginning of the constitutional court in Colombia
There are probably four or five countries in the region following this Colombian example. Some authors and other academics have called it a ‘revolution of rights’. The difference is that the protection of basic rights like in the fields of health and education are not consequence of public policies or the actions of the executive power but of the judicial power dictating new terms to the executive, saying what rights must be protected. For example, in the case of health care, the courts have issued mandatory standards to hospitals, making them give attention to people in extreme cases in both emergency rooms and in childcare. This is totally new, and it is the new, powerful principle of equality in the Colombian constitution.
So my argument is that politics matters for development and that the rule of law is key for economic and social development. In the case of Colombia, there are now two mechanisms within the judicial system: the creation of the constitutional court, and the creation of a mechanism similar to the American judicial system called “tutela”, which protects fundamental rights, and has served as backbone for all the social and economic changes that have been taking place in Colombia. This has been in some way the complement to the politics of democratic security better known as ‘the hard hand’, la mano dura, and the soft hand, which is the social reform, and continuing the protection of civil rights.
GP: When you talk about social and economic reform through effective political reforms how do you see the forces of globalization especially in relation with economic progress and development?
FCF: In the reality of globalization the economic processes have been moving faster than the social, legal and political ones. We see a globalized world commanded by the economic forces, the current economic and financial crises being a good example of that. And you don’t see at the global level political institutions tackling, in terms of governance, important global problems. So what we have to try to do is to focus on political reform on the national level, both in developing and developed countries. The economic variable is the driving force in globalization, so its about time to work its political forces.
If you look, for instance, at the run-up to the G20 meeting from last April, they were talking about the possibility of a new ‘governance for the world’, new regulatory agencies and mechanisms to administer the financial system. I believe there was a proposal by the Germans to create a world organization for the finances, similar to the WTO, with strict, responsible, and accountable finance regulation. And this seems to be a ‘return of the state’. Politics will once again take up the most important place in society, because what is clear after the economic and financial crises is that politics are always behind the social issues of developing countries.
GP: Can Colombia use this in a regional sense? Can those forces be harnessed in the global sphere of Latin America?
FCF: We need a political dialogue. In the case of the G20, Colombia is unfortunately not a part. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico are. But we have some forums at an inter-American level: we have the OAS, which is in some ways effective, and there was the summit attended by President Obama in Trinidad and Tobago in April, where some of those issues were put at the forefront of the debate at an inter-American level.
GP: How much should Colombia rely on inter-American relations in this fight against poverty? Given the bad relations with its neighbors would Colombia be better off concentrating on its own resources?
FCF: One of the biggest threats at this moment, in 2009, is what is called ‘de-globalization’. Among globalization’s positive aspects are the increased flows of products and services which give opportunities to a re-distribution of wealth. We haven’t seen a proper implementation of free markets in Latin America. More common markets between countries foster economic integration that will produce results in the social sphere. Protectionism is no alternative. We should not be following the American model of ‘grabbing the pie’, or European economic patriotism. This could actually mean backtracking. Free markets have created negative impact and difficulties. But looking at the fluidity of services and products today, national economies should develop and continue encouraging their exports.
GP: You were talking about the strengthening of institutions thanks to the 1991 constitution, with the amplification of judicial powers. Has the Uribe government helped these processes, or has it rested on its security credentials?
FCF: Apart from the issue of the debate about re-election, which I won’t really refer to, since it is such a specific political argument, I think that on an international cooperation scale important social issues are now at stake with the current Obama administration. The emphasis has so far been the modernization of the armed forces and of the security apparatus. But there are a lot of things that can be done locally in terms of statecraft and statebuilding, strengthening local municipalities, and of fostering social and economic products at the basic level, where the crossing of political and social issues is very complex.
GP: In dealing with these social and economic issues that have so far remained politically separate, where do you see the role of politicians?
FCF: There were, and are, links between some in the political class to paramilitary groups. This has been investigated by the Colombian Supreme Court. Recently, up to a third of congress has been imprisoned under Supreme Court investigations because of paramilitary connections. It is a healthy sign that the justice system has worked and is working. If something is clear, is that justice in Colombia, thanks to constitutional reform, has made possible a proper fight against terrorism, against corruption, to secure the economic and social rights of citizens, and to further ensure them justice through la tutela in the constitutional courts. There is still need for many deeper political changes. Political parties need to be strengthened. We need to bring in more mechanisms of citizen participation. We need to strengthen congress so that it is not simply a reactive force to the executive branch, a second-rate actor. This must change.
GP: Should the relationship between Colombia and the U.S change? Or as it seems to be the case, can it largely stay along the same lines that under the Bush administration?
FCF: We need a lot of dialogue about the future of the US aid to Colombia. Of course, the security agenda will stay around for a long while. The question will be how this can be complemented with attention to social issues and economic development, specially in communities that have been victims of both the guerilla war, the drug trafficking presence and the U.S financed war against them.
GP: What should be taken from Venezuela’s president Chavez way of doing politics, given his efforts to politically include Venezuela’s poor?
FCF: Something that must be kept in mind is that Chavez’s social reforms depend completely on oil revenue that Colombia does not have. Each country does what it can with its resources, both human and financial. We must in this economic sense use our own resources to bring in social results, which is the Latin American challenge, not just Colombia. This applies especially to those countries and leaders more aligned on the left, who have greater expectations upon them to bring effective social reforms. It is not enough to align oneself on the left and claim to fight poverty, but to demonstrate that there is efficacy in this fight against poverty, that there is a delivery of services.
comments