“Populist philanthropism should not be confused with left,” says former Colombian leader Ernesto Samper, 71, when talking about Rodolfo Hernández, who surprisingly went into the second round of the presidential election to face Gustavo Petro, from the left, in 19 of June.
Despite not having created a left-wing government, Samper has been increasingly approaching this ideological field — he is part of the Puebla Group, which brings together progressive Latin American leaders. “My administration was progressive liberal, following the European social-democratic line”, he says.
This week, he started a campaign to rally support for Petro. To this end, he invited, for example, former president César Gaviria, leader of the Liberal Party. Former secretary general of Unasur, Samper considers the result of the first round to be historic for “sinking the Colombian establishment”.
like mr. evaluate the result of the first round? It was a historic episode, because it sank the Colombian political establishment. Federico “Fico” Gutiérrez’s candidacy had the support of almost the entire traditional political class: three former presidents, four parties, including the most traditional, the Liberal and the Conservative, in addition to the current government, the Attorney General’s Office and the entire the propaganda machine that these forces possess. In other words, it was a huge defeat for those who bet on Fico in the pool (laughs).
Now, this defeat could also happen in a second round between Petro and Fico. But no, she got ahead, with the arrival of Rodolfo Hernández. If we add up the votes of the two finalists, we see that almost 70% of the population voted against the establishment. This is very significant.
What’s next for Colombia, when it gives such a sign of rejection to the establishment? A complicated situation of reorganization of power. The two are basically not so different in the sense of pointing to a change. Petro’s project, however, is more real, consistent. Nor is it a project of one man, but of a group, the Colombian left, which is playing its cards in this election like never before. On the other hand, we are already seeing that Hernández will end up attracting most of the traditional right, which rejects Petro. We expected a polarization between something solid and something liquid, and now we have a polarization between something solid and something gaseous. Changed state.
like mr. Do you see the figure of Hernández as a political phenomenon? I would compare it to figures like [o chileno José Antonio] cast and [Jair] Bolsonaro, keeping the peculiarities. The guy already said he admires Hitler…
Yes, but then he apologized and said he got confused, which meant Einstein. Well, I don’t know what’s worse. Having an admirer of Hitler or someone who is capable of confusing Hitler with Einstein (laughs).
There is debate over whether or not Hernández is on the right. What is his opinion? I don’t see in Hernández a politician with an ideological background, but someone who represents some economic interests. He is a millionaire guy, who conveys the idea of austerity, of wanting to be a protector, someone who speaks simple, that is, the perfect outsider for the situation we live in. Now, the fact that he represents the anti-system will not necessarily translate into an anti-Petro position. There are a lot of contradictions in what he’s already said, and we don’t know if he’s a constructed character. Hernández has already made statements in favor of Petro in the past. It will be interesting to see how this polarization looks, because there are things in common on both platforms.
So mr. don’t you see him as right? The right will support him, but I don’t see him with a right-wing political preparation. Perhaps he could look, if he wins, like a not-so-aggressive kind of Bolsonaro. But you can’t say he’s left-wing in any way. What he promises — and what may be common with demands on the left — is nothing more than populist philanthropy. I think he sees these themes as a socially conscious entrepreneur. But I don’t see anyone with deep ideas about what the state is. He is someone who does not have well-defined proposals, what he has are strategic hatreds that he manages very well, especially on social networks, where national issues are treated with great emotion. Hernández switched from participating in the debates to social networks. And he’s doing well so far.
Mr. Do you believe that the result of these elections is a consequence of the protests of 2019 and 2021? The protests influenced, but did not explain everything. The young, urban and massive vote for Petro shows that this candidate had the support of those who took to the streets. But there are other factors. We are coming out of 20 years of uribismo. There are two elements in this Colombian election that are atypical of any election in Latin America. First, the fact that the peace agreement in 2016 gave an opening to the electorate by ending the stigma that the left would always be related to the armed struggle. Breaking away from the guerrilla symbol did a lot of good for the Colombian democratic left. This was already clear in the election for Congress, in which the left had almost 30% of the votes, when before it did not reach 5%.
The reduction of the armed struggle and the demobilization of guerrillas allowed many social sectors that today are represented by Francia Márquez [candidata a vice de Petro] had the opportunity to enter the scene. The agreement opened space for indigenous people and Afro-Colombians, who in general are supporting Petro and the [partido] Historic Pact. The second element is the end of the Uribe era, a character with complicated theses for this country, with a discourse of order, of anti-terrorist struggle, which went over Colombia’s social problems and human rights. People voted to punish Uribe.
Why do peace accords have such a bad image, especially abroad? Mr. do you think you are being positive? It was super positive. What is happening is that this government has put the peace agreement in airplane mode, put its foot on the brakes, failing to advance on fundamental themes of the agreement, such as the redistribution of land and the replacement of coca crops, whose territory has even increased in your period.
Thus, the idea that peace was on hold spread. Now, the demobilization of 13,000 guerrillas is no small feat. It is an example of peace that 13,000 combatants who worked in 180 municipalities have given up their weapons and are now integrated into society. Just as the performance of the special court has been an advance [JEP], with its reparatory, non-punitive penalties. JEP and the Truth Commission are uncovering all chapters of the conflict and promoting reconciliation. And the increase in violence is linked to drug trafficking and the role that Colombia plays in this illegal network where there is a lot of money at stake. Drug trafficking finances and arms factions that provoke these conflicts. It is necessary to separate this from what was in fact the objective of the peace agreement with the FARC. [Forças Armadas Revolucionárias da Colômbia].
It is necessary to deepen the implementation of this agreement and reopen negotiations with the ELN [Exército de Libertação Nacional]. And both candidates promise that. It would put an end to a violence still related to an ideology. Then drug trafficking needs another specific policy.
Ernesto Samper, 71
Born on August 3, 1950, he is a lawyer and economist. He was president of Colombia from 1994 to 1998), senator (1986-1990) and secretary general of UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations (2014-2019).
