BOGOTÀ -. “I’m happy. For Colombia and Colombians. But I have a great fear: that Gustavo Petro’s proposals are not feasible, because they are too ambitious for the country’s economy, and I fear that then there will be enormous disillusionment that will destabilize people ”. Let’s talk about his Colombia and the historical turning point experienced by the country with the election of Gustavo Petro John Gabriel Vasquezone of the most important Latin American writers of his generation, awarded with dozens of awards, author of seven novels, including the last, Voltarsi verso, to be released by Feltrinelli in early July.
Colombia: Gustavo Petro wins, the former guerrilla is the country’s first left-wing president
by Daniele Mastrogiacomo
Colombians trust Petro. They refuse to remain prisoners of fear.
“This vote is trust. But I’m afraid of violence: in the 1980s the far right killed anyone who seemed too leftist. We now have a left-wing government. I hope it will confirm the idea that we have really changed ”.
Did he expect it?
“It was the closest election in recent history. Whoever said they knew what would happen knew they were lying ”.
The left in power
The left in power, for the first time. What changes for Colombia?
“This is good news, the sign of a mature society. The left had never come to power because for six decades the war prevented talking about the democratic left: the left was revolutionary and anyone who laid down their weapons and tried to do politics was killed by the forces of the far right. In this, the Marxist guerrillas constituted a great obstacle for the democratic left ”.
He publicly supported Sergio Fajardo, center left. That after seeking an agreement with Hernandez he was rejected. An error?
“Fajardo’s program was practically the same as Petro’s, with one difference: it was more feasible. Hernández, on the other hand, did not have a program: he was a populist with no ideas, and he approached Fajardo (not the other way around) to gain legitimacy. Fajardo accepted these meetings, but they did not lead to anything, because there is no affinity between the two men. For me it was a mistake: Hernández was an opportunist and he manipulated the approach in his favor ”.
If Fajardo had sought an agreement with Petro today, he would be part of the government. The left would be stronger.
“Yes, it can be assumed. But we must be clear: an agreement between Fajardo and Petro was not possible, because Fajardo has always believed that politics could be exercised with ethics and consistency; Petro’s campaign broke many important rules in democratic life. He has carried out dirty deeds against his contenders, slandering and lying knowingly, destroying reputations … Being a leftist movement, he has joined with homophobic and anti-abortion evangelical preachers. I hope that these contradictions will be overcome to have a government that is good for the left. I have always wanted a decent social democracy for Colombia ”.
Elections Colombia, who is Francia Márquez, the country’s first African American vice president
by Enrico Franceschini
The past that returns
The past that returns. It is a theme that he often proposes in his books. Even in his latest literary effort. He considers it the great unfinished drama of his country. This vote seems to have canceled it.
“In this vote there is a guerrilla from the 1980s who signed the peace in 1990 and has since descended into legal politics. This is the past returning; the symptom of a mature society, of a reflection on what has happened to us in recent decades. All my books have wanted to express this. But the important thing for me is that this vote means the defense of the Peace Accords. The right has always sabotaged them and this election is their best defense ”.
In an interview he speaks of a Colombia “torn and unable to cope”. Do you think she is still like this?
“Colombia today is a country divided and at odds with itself. It is a tense country where one half hates or despises the other half. This is what Petro finds. Fortunately, his speech now is one of union and reconciliation. I really hope that he will fulfill his promises, because he himself has a temperament that has often succumbed to more traditional populism ”.
Political polarization exists almost everywhere. United States, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia. It is the consequence of the end of traditional parties, of the triumph of populism.
“In these elections, an old-fashioned populism, typical of Latin America, born with Perón, and a modern – let’s say – populism, interpreted by Trump, were facing each other. Petro, who represented the former, managed to change language to paradoxically become a representative of institutional stability, of traditional politics, of the establishment. Hernández, on the other hand, was an empty brand, a product of social networks, without ideas, without substance and without the capacity of a statesman. That’s why he lost ”.
The historical turning point
The Colombians wanted to change. They voted for change.
“Yup. Colombians voted to reject the political class that has ruled us for the past twenty years. Above all, they voted against Uribe and what Uribe stands for. I, who have always supported peace agreements, see in this vote the defense of their legitimacy against those who sabotaged them, even with lies and slander. These elections can be read as a victory of the peace accords that many have defended, even at a time when they were unpopular ”.
The divisions, which produce violence and injustice, are due to inequalities that cannot be overcome and that Covid, the financial crises and globalization have accentuated.
“Iván Duque’s government was extraordinarily clumsy, disconnected from the reality of the people, unable to measure the suffering that inequality and the pandemic have caused among Colombians. This achievement cannot be understood without last year’s massive protests, which Duque handled without solidarity. We are a tremendously unequal country and injustice and violence are the order of the day for millions of people. In this situation, how can we fail to understand the profound need for change? “
Seven hundred thousand votes of difference between Petro and Hernández are a clear sign. Will the right be willing to accept it?
“He began to accept it, at least verbally. Now we will see if she is really willing to collaborate on a project to bring the country forward instead of putting a spoke in the wheel, which she did with the peace accords “.
Could the peace process, in which you yourself say you have so many hopes, consolidate and create the conditions for the unity of the country?
“The peace process and the 2016 agreements are what matters most to me. They have changed the lives of many Colombians and are allowing us to know the truth about what happened to us Colombians, as a country, for six decades ”.
The defeat of the demagogue
And if Hernández had won, would there have been the breakthrough that the population was longing for?
“Absolutely no. Hernández was a cheap demagogue and a populist with no ideas, a man created on TikTok who knows nothing about how to govern a difficult country like Colombia. Besides, he didn’t have a program, and that empty space would be occupied by the old political class, including the Uribist right. No, Hernández’s victory would have been bad news ”.
Surprise in the first round of the elections in Colombia, the “old man of Tik Tok” undermines the success of the progressive candidate Petro
by Daniele Mastrogiacomo
A left-wing president and a black woman as vice president. Two absolute novelties that mark the beginning of a change.
“France Márquez is the first black female vice president in history. This is a cause for joy. In fact, I’ve always been very critical of Gustavo Petro and some of the people around him, but I think his movement is full of very valuable people who represent immensely positive change for Colombia. It is truly the beginning of something new. I wish Petro the best of luck in the world, but most of all I wish him to make good decisions. So that in my country a social democracy is not only possible, but also desirable ”.