“Do you support the accord that puts an end to armed conflict and constructs a stable and durable nation?”
A little over two weeks has gone by the after results of the Colombian Referendum, attempting to end the 52 years of armed conflict, took the world by surprise. Having been supported by the international community including Cuba, Norway, Venezuela and Chile as foreign guarantor countries, it seemed impossible to except that 50.21% of voters would disapprove the peace accord. Abstention reached a high 62% and although 49.79% of those who voted did so in favor of peace, these extremely close results reveal a great divide amongst the Colombian people. In a situation where the most imaginable desire would reveal an unquestionable desire for peace, it is intriguing what is behind this rejection.
Photo by Agencia de Noticias ANDES/ CC BY-SA 2.0
The Colombian peace process refers to the cease-fire process between the Colombian government of President Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the People’s Army (FARC–EP). The negotiations for peace agreement began on August 26, 2012, and concluded on August 25, 2016, when the 297-page accord was released to the public, for a period of consideration of its contents to prepare for the vote on October 2nd.
During this month the country began to experience the political and social divide between the YES and the NO campaigns focused around the question “Do you support the accord that puts an end to armed conflict and constructs a stable and durable nation?”. The campaigns in favor of the accords were representative of President Santos, promoting forgiveness and opening political space to former combatants; development programs, credit and training and land reforms leading to a balance between city and country. The opposition, on the other hand, took force under the leadership of former president of the republic Alvaro Uribe Velez, promoting an indignation towards the integration of terrorists into civil society as well as fear of a communist alignment foreshadowed by allowing the FARC to participate in democracy. The NO movement claimed to desire peace, but evidently not the peace this referendum was offering.
According to the interactive map of the Colombian National Registry, there were some clear differences in the divide of the votes. In this visual representation, the orange areas show those who voted NO and the green those who voted YES. Paradoxically, it was in the regions that were most affected by the armed conflict which people voted in favor of the agreement and those in possibly less directly in contact with the violence, voted NO.
In response to the results of the referendum President Santos responded “I will not give,” after summoning all political forces, including the opposition, to seek points of agreement and define what to do moving forward. Timoshenko, head of the FARC from Havana, reiterated the desire for peace stating that “with today’s result, we [the FARC] know that our challenge as a political movement is bigger and requires us to be stronger in order to build a stable and lasting peace. Even senator Alvaro Uribe Velez spoke in representation of the No saying “we want to contribute to a great National Agreement”. All of these signs of prospect in the face of quite a disappointing moment in the countries’ history.
Unexpectedly on the morning of October 7, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Colombian president Santos the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the armed conflict with the FARC, despite the rejection of Colombians to the agreements. The news was greeted as a historical nod to international dialogue commenced with the oldest guerrilla group on the continent and is perceived by many as a beacon of hope that the peace accord will be installed into the constitution and steps can be taken to continue the journey of peace for Colombia.
By Sayumi Teshima
Please note that opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views and values of The Blank Page.
