In a scenario of increasing political tensions and institutional challenges, it is important to open spaces for serene reflection on the country's direction and the health of its democracy. In this conversation with Andrés Caro, director of the Foundation for the Rule of Law, the causes of polarization, the deterioration of public trust, and the risks facing the Rule of Law are addressed, as well as the role that citizens, unions, and the private sector must play in supporting institutions.
ACP: Colombia is experiencing moments of high polarization and distrust in institutions. What factors explain that we have reached this level of political and social fracture, and what differentiates this crisis from previous ones that the country has faced?
Andrés Caro: First, I would like to review whether the premise is correct; whether the polarization that one notices on social media, on the internet, in the news, and in debates in Congress is really a trait of the entire population, and I believe it is not. The majority of Colombians, like the majority of the population in all countries of the world, do not think much about politics and are not so polarized. What happens is that those of us who have a voice and use it sometimes act very irresponsibly and put ourselves in harsher positions than we would actually have or assume if we could have more adult and evidence-based conversations.
However, I do believe that there is a political and social fracture in Colombia. It has been visible since the pandemic and the social outbreak. I consider that the political regime showed exhaustion, and from that exhaustion, we have not been able to awaken. We all—mainly, political leaders and social leaders—must awaken, awaken a country that feels, in some way, more than politically broken, politically, economically, and socially lethargic, and get it to work, to move, to think about a common future.
What happens is that many of our leaders are very toxic for thinking about a common future: they do not think about the future nor about the common good, and that is very dangerous.
ACP: Public conversation seems dominated by emotions, biases, and misinformation. How does this information ecosystem of networks, fake news, and polarization impact the quality of democracy and citizen decisions? Is it possible to rebuild a public sphere based on facts and trust?
AC: I don't know if it is possible, but I believe that we must make the effort, and I don't know if we are doing it. Serious public media in Colombia are underfunded. The private sector, in some way, has abandoned the information sector, the media, and journalism. Journalism is a very important profession in a liberal democracy, but journalists in Colombia have precarious salaries and very difficult working conditions, and that makes it impossible for us to constitute or build what an author from the United States, named Rauch, calls “the constitution of truth”: a public sphere that allows us to reach consensus on facts, an epistemological constitution in which all people share the same facts, something that was achieved before when there were two or three newspapers that reported more or less the same thing.
Obviously, social networks have also allowed new leaderships and new ways of telling the truth and reality to emerge, and that must be taken advantage of. It is not simply about saying that social networks are bad, because there is very important local, participatory, and youth journalism. Even guilds like yours have done the work of promoting public communication through social networks in a very interesting way.
The most important thing for a liberal democracy is to share the epistemological space, the space of facts, because —although this is not new— without facts, a shared political reality cannot be built. And what is happening with fake news and manipulation is very serious. That is why one of the most profitable investments for a liberal democracy is to strengthen independent media that can really do fact-checking, that know how to tell things in a way that reaches people.
It is not just about educating children to read newspapers, but about educating our journalists to reach those children when they are older, in the best way: with true, responsible content and within the framework of the values of pluralism and liberal democracy.
Social networks have also allowed new leaderships and new ways of telling the truth and reality to emerge, and that must be taken advantage of.
ACP: We are entering a new electoral cycle with a confrontational environment. What institutional risks do you identify in this electoral process? How can we prevent democratic competition from becoming a struggle to delegitimize the rules of the game?
AC: Surely this question was raised before Petro's constituent assembly, because the rules of the game have already been delegitimized. The institutional risks are very clear, and they are that there is a party, a very important movement in Colombia, that does not believe in the Constitution, or that says it does not believe in it to gain more votes. In that sense, this is going to be a very tough electoral cycle, because we are going to have a government and a sector —I won't say majority, but certainly very numerous— of the population that will not believe in the rules. If they do not believe in the Constitution, why would they believe in the National Electoral Council or in the Registrar, who are children and products of the same Constitution?
So a very important job of persuasion —and even of a persuasion that is not only optimistic but also defensive— is to create consensus around respect for the rules of the game. This has to be done with politicians: if politicians believe and trust, the citizens who vote for them will also trust. We cannot have bad losers, which is a bit what is happening now with the government, which is seen losing the narrative battle and, instead of accepting defeat and continuing to play another day, prefers to break the board and change the rules of the game.
So a very important job of persuasion —and even of a persuasion that is not only optimistic but also defensive— is to create consensus around respect for the rules of the game.
ACP: Today many citizens feel that politics does not represent them. How can the legitimacy of politics be recovered in a context where anti-system discourses are the ones that connect most with people?
AC: The lack of political representation was normally solved with elections: one voted, chose someone, then got frustrated and voted for another person. That was a more or less predictable political cycle and coherent with the ideals of a liberal constitutional democracy.
Now the lack of representation is felt daily, precisely because of the type of conversations we are having: public conversations, conversations on social media. Thus, the loss of legitimacy feels much more immediate and much more urgent.
Institutions and political leaders need to learn to present themselves as legitimate in a much more effective way. And I believe this government has been very effective in that: in showing a legitimacy, at least symbolic, with the people who become ministers, with the symbols that are used. Those symbols, which may seem very simple, precarious, or even rude, ultimately do serve to create a certain legitimacy. This is demonstrated by the stability of the President's popularity, with a floor of 30% and a ceiling of 35%.
Thus, one must learn to present oneself as legitimate, not just to be legitimate and presume that one is because one is a political leader or institution, but to express that legitimacy and know how to show it. I believe that could be a solution.
ACP: The rule of law seems weakened by the tension between powers. What signs indicate to you that a democracy is beginning to erode from within? What institutions do we most need to protect today in Colombia?
AC: As a friend of mine says, checks and balances, when they work, feel like speed bumps: a speed bump works because a car crashed hard against it. And that is very serious, but that is how the institutional design operates. It works under stress, with contradiction, with fights; thus, tension is something natural within the design. There must be tension between public powers for there to really be an effective separation of powers.
However, that tension can end up breaking the system. And we already know this is not a conspiracy or anything like that: there is a group, a sector of the Colombian population, that wants to tension these powers until they break them and produce a new arrangement in the form of a constitution.
The signs are already very clear: democracy has begun to erode from within and also from outside. From the outside, due to threats like violence, lies, and fake news; and from the inside, through the use of constitutional instruments to replace the Constitution, or through manipulation and blackmail —which are part of political exercise— no longer to pass a law, but to break the system itself.
Therefore, the institutions we most need to protect in Colombia are precisely those that most need that protection and the support of the citizenry: judges —constitutional judges, but also judges in general—, electoral authorities, and Congress, which will have to make very important decisions regarding the future of the political system.
I always think of an idea from a New Zealand historian, Pocock, who talks about the “Machiavellian moment.” That moment, he says, is when political communities face the problem of their own duration. And we are clearly in such a moment: in which Colombia, its institutions, and its democracy are asking whether they will last, and in what way they will do so.
Those of us who have a liberal worldview —and therefore, in some way, also somewhat conservative— believe that there are institutions worth preserving, safeguarding, and caring for, and that they would be at serious risk in a constituent exercise.
ACP: Democracy depends not only on governments but also on citizens. What role do we, the citizens, the unions, and the private sector play in defending institutions? How can the business sector contribute to strengthening the rule of law without entering into partisan logic?
AC: Democracy, above all, works for the citizens, not for the governments. Governments are a result of democracy, but they also serve to protect it… and, in many cases, to destroy it. In most episodes of democratic destruction, the origin lies in the governments, not in the people. In that sense, strengthening the democratic and civic capacities of the population —to state the obvious— is fundamental.
I also believe that unions and the private sector play an essential role, not only because of their business and representation functions but because they help expand civic space: they create places where discussions can take place outside the state, apart from public power, where political rights and freedom of expression can also be exercised, without depending on a state authority that allows or limits them.
The business sector, therefore, plays a crucial role in a liberal democracy like Colombia's, and its contribution to strengthening the rule of law is key. This implies supporting that strengthening through civil society organizations, public manifestations by business and union leaders, and honest participation in the relationships between the private and public sectors, contributing to strengthening institutions, not weakening them with webs of corruption or the pursuit of monopolies or rents.
The most important thing is to understand that the rule of law, constitutional freedoms, and fundamental rights are not second-order contents in politics: they are what makes it possible. They are, in fact, the first-order structure.
Therefore, they come before partisan defenses or affinities, and their protection should not depend on them. The rule of law is needed for political parties to exist, for a private sector to exist, and for citizens to have rights. Without the rule of law, freedom cannot be exercised, and in that sense, it is a kind of infrastructure that must be protected by all people and institutions participating in society, and not by particular ideas of a movement or political party.
ACP: In such a divided scenario, what kind of leadership or discourse could help us reconnect as a society?
AC: One that identifies, I believe, the causes of the division, what are they? They are ideological, class-based, resource-based, regional, and that proposes things to overcome those gaps and divisions. So, on one hand, it has to be a moderate leadership in politics, that does not get carried away by extreme temptations, and also proactive and able to act in the real world of Colombia, that can propose real solutions, viable solutions for the coming years and that can fulfill them.
Also a leader who does not insult, who does not tell lies, a leader who manages their time correctly, who does not exercise authoritarian leadership over the country or over their own team, who does not allow themselves, above all, to be flattered, who does not let themselves be ‘lamboneado’, as happens to many presidents, who surround themselves with people whose only job is to flatter them, telling them they are the smartest, bravest, and the best, and therefore they miss a very important piece of reality. That is also a fundamental trait of political maturity or the maturity of a political leader.
Colombian Association of Oil and Gas