« A terrible surprise from Colombia | Main | Establishing the rule of law is not easy »

October 06, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Can you explain the "definition of family" bit? I didn't think there were that many gay guerillas.

I forgot that the BBC link was in Spanish!

These are the three clauses of the agreement that evangelical churches, some part of the Catholic hierarchy, and former-president Uribe seized upon to claim that it redefined family:

“That the implementation of the agreement is made taking into account gender, ethnic and cultural diversity, and that measures be adopted for the humblest towns and villages, especially for boys, girls, women, disabled people and victims.”

“That gender equity be promoted via the adoption of specific measures intended to guarantee that men and women equally participate in and benefit from the adoption of this Agreement.”

“Recognizing and taking into account the economic, cultural and social needs, characteristics and particulars of rural territories and communities —boys, girls, women and men, including people of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The prose is turgid in the original Spanish; don't blame my translation.

Thanks. I tried Google Translate on it but I still had trouble understanding it.

Oh, God. I just tried that myself. I would have thought that leaden, legalistic writing would work better with the Google algorithms, but apparently not.

Anyway, those seem to be the clauses that have attracted conservative ire.

I very much appreciated this!

Very interesting and insightful post Noel. Have you thought of covering whatever impact the overseas vote might have had? Looking at the wikipedia article on it they have a map of the results by department but also by overseas consular areas (Russia, the USA, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Brazil, South Africa, etc) and it is interesting to note that a majority of Colombians in the USA, Costa Rica, Panama, the UAE and Paraguay voted against the agreement but Colombians everywhere else voted for it. With the difference being so small (only about 54,000 votes), might this have been a factor? And is it that Colombians in those 4 countries tend to predominantly come from the areas that voted "no" as well and for the same or similar reasons?

It seems terrible that the people most affected by this may end up not getting to benefit from a peace accord on account of folks for whom the war has not directly touched in decades. It (and Brexit) really do seem to suggest that referenda need to be planned more carefully.

What do you think is the likely next step? Congress overturning the referendum (on account of low turnout - though it seems even a 25.99% would have validated the vote had the "yes" side won) and implementing the deal anyway? Or Santos amending it (perhaps by keeping the 5 FARC seats for the Senate but removing the 5 seats for FARC in the House and just allowing FARC to stand for elections and win however many seats they can?) and then putting it to Congress to implement?

I don't think it should be put to another referendum to be honest. There have been a number of peace agreements in the world and the only one that I can really remember that last had a referendum to approve it was the Good Friday Agreement. The agreements and accords that ended the civil wars in Guatemala, Angola, El Salvador and Nicaragua had no referenda to approve them. I think Algeria might have had a referendum on an agreement or at least on a proposal for an agreement though....

The comments to this entry are closed.