Maria Clara Ospina
In recent days Gustavo Petro has disturbed us with his extravagances, such as the speech he read at Stanford University during his recent visit to President Biden, which was so absurd, disconnected from reality, and incomprehensible that they say the translator of the University considered some of its paragraphs impossible to translate due to their lack of meaning. Needless to say, the rest of the visit was inconsequential, to the point that none of the leading US newspapers reported it.
But his string of semi-failed events did not stop here. The famous Summit of Foreign Ministers in Bogotá, cited by himself, as a priority to seek a rapprochement between the USA and Nicolás Maduro, was a failure. Maduro clearly rejected any type of negotiation with Washington without first removing all sanctions against his government. Didn’t Petro, in his multiple visits to Caracas, arrange this summit with the Venezuelan? Or was it that Maduro was bad for Petro? And incidentally undermined his Colombian counterpart’s attempt to become the regional leader he so desperately seeks to be.
Perhaps that was the drop that filled Petro’s cup and led him to create a tsunami in his government team. In one fell swoop, he removed seven of his ministers, including José Antonio Ocampo, perhaps the most reputable of all and the most arbitrary, as well as detested, Minister of Health, who with her arrogance, inability to dialogue and understand the problems presented by his Health Reform, was about to have it shelved. They say that Petro, to save the Reform, was forced to send his wife to Diana Congress, to distribute jam.
Many think that the ministerial crisis caused by Petro was not simply a political “tantrum” to punish the Conservative, Liberal and U political parties for not going along with their reforms, with the dismissal of the ministers who represented them in their cabinet. .
Others think that the objective was to change those ministers who from the same government criticized said reforms as inconvenient, unconstitutional and frankly negative for the economic growth of the country and the protection of the rights acquired by citizens; In addition to being a means to get out of ministers like Corcho who had become a stone in his shoe.
German Vargas Lleras would not be surprised if Petro’s strategy is to deepen the crisis that the country is experiencing, “to call a Constituent Assembly and thus screw themselves indefinitely in power. That is the script of Latin American socialism”.
Former Vice President Humberto de la Calle has another interpretation of the situation, from Petro’s atrocious speech from the presidential balcony, where he threatened to riot the people if they did not approve his reforms, to the recently experienced ministerial crisis. He says From the street: “The President’s statements to replace Congress with the streets are repetitive and worrying. Ministerial turbulence is temporary. What should generate alarm is that the institutions are not respected. We call for moderation and a democratic attitude” (New Century Newspaper, 4/28/23).
Is Petro delirious, or is he a strategist capable of disconcerting the most astute politicians? I don’t know! But he is certainly dangerous.