Petro, Gustavo

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares189 Views

    Colombia, Normally a Wet Country, Battles Widespread Wildfires

    by

    Firefighters, many of them volunteers, have been confronting dozens of blazes amid high temperatures this month. The conditions have been linked to climate change.Helicopters hauling buckets of water fly toward the mountains where fires burn, a thick haze periodically covers the sky, and residents have been ordered to wear masks and limit driving because of the poor air quality.For a full week, firefighters have been battling fires in the mountains around Bogotá, Colombia’s capital, as dozens of other blazes have burned across the country, in what officials say is the hottest January in three decades.The president has declared a national disaster and asked for international help fighting the fires, which he says could reach beyond the Andes Mountains and erupt on the Pacific Coast and in the Amazon.Colombia’s fires this month are unusual in a country where people are more accustomed to torrential rain and mudslides than fire and ash. They have been attributed to high temperatures and drought exacerbated by the climate phenomenon known as El Niño.Ricardo Lozano, a geologist and former environment minister of Colombia, said El Niño was a natural phenomenon that occurred cyclically, but that with climate change, “these events are more and more intense and more and more extreme.”Heavy smoke from wildfires near the capital, Bogotá.Federico Rios for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Nicolás Maduro Is President of Venezuela Whether the U.S. Likes It or Not

      by

      When the United States arranged an exchange of prisoners with President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela last week — sending home two nephews of Mr. Maduro’s wife who had been convicted of drug trafficking in a swap for seven Americans held in Venezuelan jails — it exposed the incoherence of U.S. policy toward Venezuela.Even as it negotiates with Mr. Maduro, the White House continues to insist that Juan Guaidó, an opposition politician, is the real president of Venezuela. The United States has no formal diplomatic relations with the Maduro government, and the embassy in Caracas has been closed since early 2019, shortly after President Donald Trump recognized Mr. Guaidó as president in an unsuccessful, long-shot bid to force Mr. Maduro from power.It is time for the Biden administration to accept that the Guaidó gambit has failed and that most Venezuelans, and most of the international community, have moved on. The White House needs a Venezuela policy based on fact, not fiction. And the fact is that Mr. Maduro is president of Venezuela and Mr. Guaidó is not.Accepting reality will have many potential benefits — not least to the Venezuelan opposition, which is in the midst of a turbulent effort to remake itself.After Mr. Trump announced his support for Mr. Guaidó in January 2019, dozens of other countries followed Washington’s lead. But today, only a dwindling handful continue to recognize Mr. Guaidó as Venezuela’s president, and, like the United States, eschew direct diplomatic ties with Mr. Maduro’s government.And that list is getting shorter.Gustavo Petro, the newly elected leftist president of Colombia, moved quickly after taking office in August to abandon his country’s recognition of Mr. Guaidó and reopen its embassy in Caracas. That change is crucial because Colombia has long been Washington’s most important ally in South America and a key supporter of Mr. Guaidó.Brazil, another powerful backer of Mr. Guaidó, could be next, if Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva retakes the presidency in a runoff election later this month.Mr. Guaidó was always president in name only — he had no government and no power to act inside Venezuela. He showed courage when he defied Mr. Maduro’s repressive regime, but he never had a viable plan, beyond vague hopes for a military coup or for U.S. intervention. And he was wedded to Mr. Trump’s sanctions-heavy approach, which exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis.Mr. Guaidó’s claim to an alternate presidency rested on his role as head of the National Assembly, but his legislative term ended last year, and at that point many of his supporters inside and outside of Venezuela gave up on the notion.Today, Mr. Maduro is stronger than he was three years ago, and the opposition is in disarray.Dropping the pretense that Mr. Guaidó is president would set U.S. policy on a rational foundation but would not be an endorsement of Mr. Maduro. It could facilitate talks with Mr. Maduro over key areas, including the wave of Venezuelan refugees entering the United States and possible changes to economic sanctions related to oil exports. A resumption of consular activities would make it possible for citizens to obtain or renew visas and passports.One of the greatest beneficiaries could be the Venezuelan opposition, which is in a turbulent, and necessary, state of flux. The opposition has been harshly repressed by a Maduro government committed at all costs to staying in power; while the opposition has made many missteps, it is the primary political force in the country committed to democracy and the defense of human rights, and it is therefore critical to finding a solution to the country’s crisis.Over the last two years, most mainstream Venezuelan opposition parties have been thrown into crisis, hemorrhaging activists, splitting apart in leadership squabbles or watching once-loyal voters defect.The government has frequently stepped in to stir the pot, using the courts or electoral authorities to order the takeover of parties by substitute leadership that is considered suspect by the rest of the opposition. But in most cases, the divisions were there to be exploited.Venezuelans are fed up with opposition parties that often seem more interested in fighting with each other than in improving the country’s fortunes.At the same time, new parties have emerged, organizing around new leaders.The political changes were evident in elections held last November. The opposition won a third of the mayorships around the country, after previously holding fewer than one in ten. And although the opposition won just four governorships out of 23, it received a majority of votes in all but a few states. The reason it didn’t win more governorships was that multiple opposition candidates split the vote, essentially handing victory to candidates allied with Mr. Maduro.The lessons of November were powerful. The election showed that Venezuelans still see the ballot box as a way out of the nation’s troubles. It unmasked the weakness of the government party among voters. It demonstrated, once again, that lack of unity is the opposition’s Achilles’ heel.And it revealed gains for the nontraditional opposition, with about half of total opposition votes going to candidates outside the coalition led by the four mainstream parties, according to Eugenio Martínez, a journalist who specializes in election analysis.Venezuelan politics are now aimed at a presidential election that will take place in 2024.Will the opposition come together to choose a single candidate, or will it remain divided? The United States has urged Mr. Maduro and the opposition to resume negotiations that could lead to improved electoral conditions. But who will sit across the table from Mr. Maduro’s negotiators?So far, Washington has thrown its weight behind the Unitary Platform, a rebranded coalition led by Mr. Guaidó and the traditional parties, which is seeking to steer the choice of a 2024 candidate and which controls the team that would negotiate conditions with Mr. Maduro.But by continuing to uphold the fiction that Mr. Guaidó is president of Venezuela, the administration makes it harder for the opposition to go through the necessary process of reforming itself. The United States must acknowledge reality — as it relates to who actually governs in Venezuela and the need for Venezuelans to fashion the opposition that they choose. That is the only way that Washington can play a constructive role in solving Venezuela’s crisis.William Neuman is a former New York Times reporter and Andes region bureau chief, and the author of “Things Are Never So Bad That They Can’t Get Worse: Inside the Collapse of Venezuela.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      As Latin America Shifts Left, Leaders Face a Bleak Reality.

      by

      All six of the region’s largest economies could soon be run by presidents elected on leftist platforms. Their challenge? Inflation, war in Europe and growing poverty at home.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — In Chile, a tattooed former student activist won the presidency with a pledge to oversee the most profound transformation of Chilean society in decades, widening the social safety net and shifting the tax burden to the wealthy.In Peru, the son of poor farmers was propelled to victory on a vow to prioritize struggling families, feed the hungry and correct longstanding disparities in access to health care and education.In Colombia, a former rebel and longtime legislator was elected the country’s first leftist president, promising to champion the rights of Indigenous, Black and poor Colombians, while building an economy that works for everyone.“A new story for Colombia, for Latin America, for the world,” he said in his victory speech, to thunderous applause.After years of tilting rightward, Latin America is hurtling to the left, a watershed moment that began in 2018 with the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico and could culminate with a victory later this year by a leftist candidate in Brazil, leaving the region’s six largest economies run by leaders elected on leftist platforms.A combination of forces have thrust this new group into power, including an anti-incumbent fervor driven by anger over chronic poverty and inequality, which have only been exacerbated by the pandemic and have deepened frustration among voters who have taken out their indignation on establishment candidates.During the height of a coronavirus wave in Peru last year, people waited to refill oxygen tanks for loved ones on the outskirts of Lima. Marco Garro for The New York TimesBut just as new leaders settle into office, their campaign pledges have collided with a bleak reality, including a European war that has sent the cost of everyday goods, from fuel to food, soaring, making life more painful for already suffering constituents and evaporating much of the good will presidents once enjoyed.Chile’s Gabriel Boric, Peru’s Pedro Castillo and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro are among the leaders who rode to victory promising to help the poor and disenfranchised, but who find themselves facing enormous challenges in trying to meet the high expectations of voters.Unlike today, the last significant leftist shift in Latin America, in the first decade of the millennium, was propelled by a commodities boom that allowed leaders to expand social programs and move an extraordinary number of people into the middle class, raising expectations for millions of families.Now that middle class is sliding backward, and instead of a boom, governments face pandemic-battered budgets, galloping inflation fed by the war in Ukraine, rising migration and increasingly dire economic and social consequences of climate change.In Argentina, where the leftist Alberto Fernández took the reins from a right-wing president in late 2019, protesters have taken to the streets amid rising prices. Even larger protests erupted recently in Ecuador, threatening the government of one of the region’s few newly elected right-wing presidents, Guillermo Lasso.“I don’t want to be apocalyptic about it,” said Cynthia Arnson, a distinguished fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “But there are times when you look at this that it feels like the perfect storm, the number of things hitting the region at once.”Protesters in Santiago, Chile, in 2019, demanding economic changes to address systemic inequality. The country’s new president, elected last year, has become deeply unpopular among Chileans angry over rising prices.Tomas Munita for The New York TimesThe rise of social media, with the potential to supercharge discontent and drive major protest movements, including in Chile and Colombia, has shown people the power of the streets.Beginning in August, when Mr. Petro takes over from his conservative predecessor, five of the six largest economies in the region will be run by leaders who campaigned from the left.The sixth, Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, could swing that way in a national election in October. Polls show that former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a fiery leftist, has a wide lead on the right-wing incumbent, President Jair Bolsonaro.New leaders in Colombia and Chile are far more socially progressive than leftists in the past, calling for a shift away from fossil fuels and advocating for abortion rights at a time when the United States Supreme Court is moving the country in the opposite direction.But taken together, this group is extremely mixed, differing on everything from economic policy to their commitment to democratic principles.Mr. Petro and Mr. Boric have vowed to vastly expand social programs for the poor, for example, while Mr. López Obrador, who is focused on austerity, is reducing spending.What does link these leaders, however, are promises for sweeping change that in many instances are running headlong into difficult and growing challenges.Gustavo Petro and his running mate, Francia Márquez, celebrated their victory in June in Colombia’s national election. They will lead a country where 40 percent of the people lives on less than half of the monthly minimum wage.Federico Rios for The New York TimesIn Chile late last year, Mr. Boric beat José Antonio Kast, a right-wing establishment politician associated with Chile’s former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, by pledging to jettison the neoliberal economic policies of the past.But just months into his term, with an inexperienced cabinet, divided Congress, rising consumer prices and unrest in the country’s south, Mr. Boric’s approval ratings have plummeted.Ninety percent of poll respondents told the polling firm Cadem this month that they believed the country’s economy was stuck or going backward.Like many neighbors in the region, Chile’s yearly inflation rate is the highest it has been in more than a generation, at 11.5 percent, spurring a cost-of-living crisis.In southern Chile, a land struggle between the Mapuche, the country’s largest Indigenous group, and the state has entered its deadliest phase in 20 years, leading Mr. Boric to reverse course on one of his campaign pledges and redeploy troops in the area.Catalina Becerra, 37, a human resources manager from Antofagasta, in northern Chile, said that “like many people of my generation” she voted for Mr. Boric because Mr. Kast “didn’t represent me in the slightest.”Students taking part in an anti-government protest in June in Santiago.Javier Torres/Agence France-Presse, via Getty Images“But I wasn’t convinced by what he could do for the country,’’ Ms. Becerra added. “He has not achieved what he said he would.”In September, Chileans will vote on a remarkably progressive constitution that enshrines gender equality, environmental protections and Indigenous rights and that is meant to replace a Pinochet-era document.The president has bound his success to the referendum, putting himself in a precarious position should the draft be rejected, which polls show is for now the more likely outcome.In neighboring Peru, Mr. Castillo rose last year from virtual anonymity to beat Keiko Fujimori, a right-wing career politician whose father, former President Alberto Fujimori, governed with an iron fist and introduced neoliberal policies similar to those rejected by Chilean voters.While some Peruvians supported Mr. Castillo solely as a rejection of Ms. Fujimori, he also represented real hopes for many, especially poor and rural voters.As a candidate, Mr. Castillo promised to empower farmers with more subsidies, access to credit and technical assistance.But today, he is barely managing to survive politically. He has governed erratically, pulled between his far-left party and the far-right opposition, reflecting the fractious politics that helped him win the presidency.Supporters of Peru’s leftist presidential candidate Pedro Castillo during a protest against his rival’s effort to annul votes in 2021. Mr. Castillo won the election but is barely managing to survive politically. Marco Garro for The New York TimesMr. Castillo — whose approval rating has sunk to 19 percent, according to the Institute of Peruvian Studies — is now subject to five criminal probes, has already faced two impeachment attempts and cycled through seven interior ministers.The agrarian reform he pledged has yet to translate into any concrete policies. Instead, price spikes for food, fuel and fertilizer are hitting his base the hardest.Farmers are struggling through one of the worst crises in decades, facing the biggest planting season of the year without widespread access to synthetic fertilizer. They normally get most of it from Russia, but it is difficult to obtain because of global supply disruptions related to the war.Eduardo Zegarra, an investigator at GRADE, a research institute, called the situation “unprecedented.”“I think this is going to unfold very dramatically, and usher in a lot of instability,” he said.In a poor, hillside neighborhood in Lima, the capital, many parents are skipping meals so their children have more to eat.“We voted for Castillo because we had the hope that his government would be different,” said Ruth Canchari, 29, a stay-at-home mother of three children. “But he’s not taking action.”In Colombia, Mr. Petro will take office facing many of the same headwinds.President Gabriel Boric of Chile flashed a victory sign after his swearing-in ceremony at Congress in Valparaiso in March.Esteban Felix/Associated PressPoverty has risen — 40 percent of households now live on less than $100 a month, less than half of the monthly minimum wage — while inflation has hit nearly 10 percent.Still, despite widespread financial anxiety, Mr. Petro’s actions as he prepares to assume office seem to have earned him some support.He has made repeated calls for national consensus, met with his biggest political foe, the right-wing former president Álvaro Uribe, and appointed a widely respected, relatively conservative and Yale-educated finance minister.The moves may allow Mr. Petro to govern more successfully than, say, Mr. Boric, said Daniel García-Peña, a political scientist, and have calmed down some fears about how he will try to revive the economy.But given how quickly the honeymoon period ended for others, Mr. Petro will have precious little time to start delivering relief.“Petro must come through for his voters,” said Hernan Morantes, 30, a Petro supporter and environmental activist. “Social movements must be ready, so that when the government does not come through, or does not want to come through, we’re ready.”Julie Turkewitz More

    • 50 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Qué prometió Gustavo Petro?

      by

      Durante su campaña, el candiato de izquierda Gustavo Petro propuso importantes reformas. Después de ganar las elecciones del domingo tendrá que demostrar que es capaz de implementar esos cambios.BOGOTÁ — En un estadio repleto de Bogotá, en medio de una explosión de confeti y debajo de un cartel que decía “Colombia ganó”, Gustavo Petro celebró el domingo su victoria como el primer presidente de izquierda que ha sido elegido en Colombia.“Llegó el gobierno de la esperanza”, dijo el exguerrillero y veterano senador, en medio de una cascada de aplausos y vítores.Durante décadas, Colombia ha sido uno de los países más conservadores de América Latina, donde la izquierda se ha asociado con una insurgencia violenta y algunos candidatos presidenciales de izquierda anteriores fueron asesinados durante sus campañas electorales.En ese contexto, la victoria de Petro fue histórica, una señal de la frustración de los votantes con el establecimiento político de derecha que, según muchos, no logró atender los problemas de generaciones que vivieron en condiciones de pobreza y desigualdad que solo empeoraron durante la pandemia.El hecho de que Petro eligiera como compañera de fórmula a Francia Márquez, una activista ambiental que será la primera vicepresidenta negra del país, hizo que la victoria fuese aún más excepcional. Algunas de las tasas de participación electoral más altas se registraron en varias zonas de las regiones más pobres y abandonadas del país, lo que sugiere que muchas personas se identificaron con los llamados repetidos de Márquez a la inclusión, la justicia social y la protección del medioambiente.Como candidato, Petro prometió cambiar algunos de los sectores más importantes de la sociedad colombiana en una nación que se encuentra entre las más desiguales de América Latina.Pero ahora que ocupará el palacio presidencial, pronto tendrá que convertir esas promesas, algunas de las cuales los críticos califican como radicales, en acciones.“Hay un programa de transformaciones muy profundas”, dijo Yann Basset, profesor de ciencias políticas en la Universidad del Rosario en Bogotá. “En todos esos temas va a necesitar de un apoyo importante del Congreso, lo que promete ser bastante difícil”.Simpatizantes de Petro en Bucaramanga, Colombia, el domingo.Nathalia Angarita para The New York TimesPetro ha prometido ampliar los programas sociales, proporcionar un subsidio significativo para las madres solteras, garantizar trabajo y un ingreso para las personas desempleadas, reforzar el acceso a la educación superior, aumentar la ayuda alimentaria, cambiar el país a un sistema de salud controlado públicamente y rehacer el sistema de pensiones.Dice que los fondos para esos cambios, en parte, se obtendrán de aumentar los impuestos a las 4000 familias más ricas del país, eliminando algunos beneficios fiscales corporativos, aumentando algunos aranceles de importación y atacando a los evasores de impuestos.Una parte central de su plataforma es un plan para pasar de lo que él define como la “vieja economía extractivista” de Colombia, basada en el petróleo y el carbón, a una enfocada en otras industrias, en parte para luchar contra el cambio climático.Algunas de las políticas de Petro podrían causar tensión con Estados Unidos que ha invertido durante las últimas dos décadas miles de millones de dólares en Colombia para ayudar a sus gobiernos a detener la producción y exportación de cocaína, con poco éxito. Petro ha prometido rehacer la estrategia del país contra las drogas, alejándose de la erradicación de los cultivos de coca, el producto base de la cocaína, para enfatizar el desarrollo rural.Washington ya ha comenzado a moverse en la dirección de priorizar el desarrollo, pero Petro podría chocar con los funcionarios estadounidenses por su visión precisa sobre ese tema.Petro también se ha comprometido a implementar por completo el acuerdo de paz de 2016 con el grupo rebelde más grande del país, las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, o FARC, y a frenar la destrucción de la Amazonía colombiana, donde la deforestación ha alcanzado nuevos máximos en los últimos años.Uno de los mayores desafíos de Petro será financiar su ambiciosa agenda, especialmente encontrar nuevos ingresos para compensar la pérdida de dinero del petróleo y el carbón mientras se expanden los programas sociales.Recientemente, otros dos políticos de izquierda, Gabriel Boric en Chile y Pedro Castillo en Perú, asumieron la presidencia con promesas de extender los programas sociales, pero su popularidad se desplomó, entre otros factores, en medio de la creciente inflación.Colombia recauda menos impuestos en proporción de su producto interno bruto en comparación con casi todos los demás países de la región.El país ya tiene un déficit elevado, y el año pasado, cuando el presidente actual, Iván Duque, intentó impulsar un plan fiscal para ayudar a bajarlo, cientos de miles de personas salieron a las calles a protestar.“Las cifras presupuestarias simplemente no cuadran”, escribió James Bosworth, fundador de Hxagon, una firma de consultoría de riesgo político en Bogotá, en un boletín enviado el lunes. “Es probable que los costos de los programas sociales propuestos por Petro consuman el presupuesto y dejen un déficit que crecerá con rapidez”.“Para el segundo o tercer año de su gobierno”, continuó Bosworth, “tendrá que tomar decisiones difíciles debido a las restricciones financieras y eso terminará molestando a una parte de la coalición que lo eligió”.Mauricio Cárdenas, exministro de Hacienda, dijo que el primer paso que debe dar Petro es anunciar un ministro de Hacienda con experiencia que pueda sosegar los temores del mercado y de los inversionistas al asegurarle a la gente que no incentivará un gasto descontrolado o una intervención gubernamental excesiva.Otro reto importante podría ser trabajar con el Congreso. La coalición de Petro, Pacto Histórico, tiene la mayor cantidad de integrantes en la legislatura. Pero no tiene una mayoría, que necesitará para impulsar su agenda. Ya se ha acercado a líderes políticos fuera de su coalición, pero no está claro cuánto apoyo obtendrá y si la formación de nuevas alianzas lo obligará a renunciar a algunas de sus propuestas.“Yo creo que tendrá que abandonar ciertas partes de este programa”, dijo Basset. “De todos modos, yo creo que no tiene una mayoría para implementar todo lo que ha prometido”.Petro también heredará una sociedad profundamente polarizada, dividida por clase, raza, región y etnicidad y marcada por años de violencia y conflicto.Durante décadas, el gobierno de Colombia luchó contra las FARC, y el conflicto armado se convirtió en un enfrentamiento intrincado entre grupos guerrilleros de izquierda, paramilitares de derecha y militares, todos los cuales han sido acusados de abusos contra los derechos humanos.A pesar del acuerdo de paz de 2016 con las FARC, muchas de las líneas divisorias del conflicto continúan, y han sido amplificadas por las redes sociales, que permitieron que los rumores y la desinformación circularan.Las encuestas previas a las elecciones mostraban una desconfianza en aumento en casi todas las instituciones importantes.“En mi opinión, esta elección es, por mucho, la más polarizada que hemos visto en Colombia en muchos años”, dijo Arlene B. Tickner, politóloga de la Universidad de Rosario. “Creo que será un desafío clave el solo hecho de calmar las aguas y hablarle en particular a los votantes y sectores de la sociedad colombiana que no votaron por él y que tienen temores considerables sobre la presidencia de Petro”.Una de las tareas más difíciles de Petro podría ser abordar la violencia en el campo.A pesar del acuerdo de paz, los grupos armados han seguido creciendo, especialmente en áreas rurales, alimentándose del narcotráfico, la industria ganadera, el tráfico de personas y otras actividades.Los homicidios, las masacres y los asesinatos de líderes sociales aumentaron en los últimos años, y el desplazamiento interno sigue siendo alto: 147.000 personas fueron obligadas a huir de sus hogares el año pasado, según datos del gobierno.Muchas personas afectadas por esta violencia votaron por Petro y Márquez, quien nació en el Cauca, una de las zonas más afectadas de Colombia.El plan de Petro para enfrentar la violencia incluye una reforma agraria que desalentaría con impuestos la propiedad de grandes parcelas de tierra y otorgaría títulos de propiedad a los pobres, cuya falta de recursos a menudo los obliga a unirse a grupos armados.Pero, presidencia tras presidencia, los intentos de emprender una reforma agraria han sido obstaculizados, y Petro admitió en una entrevista de este año que puede ser “lo más duro” de cumplir de sus promesas de campaña.“Es alrededor del tema en el que en Colombia se han hecho las guerras”, dijo.Megan Janetsky More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      He Promised to Transform Colombia as President. Can He Fulfill That Vow?

      by

      During his campaign, Gustavo Petro proposed major reforms if he was elected. After winning Sunday’s presidential election, he’ll now have to prove he can carry out those changes.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — In a packed arena in Bogotá on Sunday, amid a burst of confetti and below a sign that read “Colombia won,” Gustavo Petro celebrated his victory as the first leftist ever elected president of Colombia.“The government of hope has arrived,” said the former rebel and longtime legislator, to a cascade of cheers.For decades, Colombia has been one of the most conservative countries in Latin America, where the left has long been associated with a violent insurgency and past leftist presidential candidates have been assassinated on the campaign trail.Against that backdrop, Mr. Petro’s win was historic, signaling voters’ frustration with a right-wing establishment that many said had failed to address generations of poverty and inequality that have only worsened during the pandemic.Mr. Petro’s choice for running mate, Francia Márquez, an environmental activist who will be the country’s first Black vice president, made the victory all the more exceptional. Some of the highest voter turnout rates were recorded in some of the poorest and most neglected parts of the country, suggesting that many people identified with her prominent and repeated calls for inclusion, social justice and environmental protection.As a candidate, Mr. Petro promised to reshape some of the most important sectors of Colombian society in a nation that is among the most unequal in Latin America.But now that he will occupy the presidential palace, he will soon have to turn those pledges — some of which critics call radical — into action.“This is a program of very deep transformations,” said Yann Basset, a political science professor at Rosario University in Bogotá. “On all these issues he is going to need significant support from Congress, which promises to be quite difficult.”Supporters of Mr. Petro on Sunday in Bucaramanga, Colombia.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesMr. Petro has vowed to vastly expand social programs, providing a significant subsidy to single mothers, guaranteeing work and a wage to unemployed people, bolstering access to higher education, increasing food aid, shifting the country to a publicly controlled health care system and remaking the pension system.He will pay for this, in part, he says, by raising taxes on the 4,000 wealthiest families, removing some corporate tax benefits, raising some import tariffs and targeting tax evaders.A core part of his platform is a plan to shift from what he calls Colombia’s “old extractive economy,” based on oil and coal, to one focused on other industries, in part to fight climate change.Some of Mr. Petro’s policies could cause tension with the United States, which has poured billions of dollars into Colombia in the last two decades to help its governments halt the production and export of cocaine, to little effect. Mr. Petro has promised to remake the country’s strategy on drugs, shifting away from the eradication of the coca crop, the base product in cocaine, to emphasizing rural development.Washington has already begun moving in the direction of prioritizing development, but Mr. Petro could clash with U.S. officials on precisely what this looks like.Mr. Petro has also pledged to fully implement the 2016 peace deal with the country’s largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and to slow the destruction of the Colombian Amazon, where deforestation has risen to new highs in recent years.One of Mr. Petro’s biggest challenges will be paying for his ambitious agenda, in particular finding new revenue to compensate for lost oil and coal money while expanding social programs.Two other leftists, Gabriel Boric in Chile and Pedro Castillo in Peru, have taken office recently with ambitious promises to expand social programs, only to have their popularity plummet amid rising inflation, among other issues.Colombia collects less in taxes as a proportion of its gross domestic product compared with almost every other country in the region.The country already has a high deficit, and last year, when the current president, Iván Duque, attempted to pursue a tax plan to help lower it, hundreds of thousands of people took to the street in protest.“The budget numbers just don’t add up,” James Bosworth, the founder of Hxagon, a political risk consulting firm in Bogotá, wrote in a newsletter on Monday. “The costs on Petro’s proposed social programs are likely to burn through the budget and leave a rapidly widening deficit.”“By year two or three of his administration,” Mr. Bosworth continued, “he’s going to have to make tough choices due to financial restrictions and that will end up angering some portion of the coalition that elected him.”Mauricio Cárdenas, a former finance minister, said that the first step Mr. Petro should take is to announce an experienced finance minister who can calm market and investor fears by assuring the public that he will not be engaging in runaway spending or excessive government intervention.Another major challenge could be working with Congress. Mr. Petro’s coalition, called the Historic Pact, has the largest number of lawmakers in the legislature. But he does not have a majority, which he will need to push through his agenda. He has already reached out to political leaders outside his coalition, but it’s unclear how much support he will gain — and whether forming new alliances will force him to give up some of his proposals. “I think he is going to have to abandon certain parts of this program,” Mr. Basset said. “In any case, I believe that he does not have a majority to implement everything he has promised.”Mr. Petro will also inherit a deeply polarized society, divided by class, race, region and ethnicity and scarred by years of violence and war.For decades, Colombia’s government fought the FARC, and the war grew into a complex battle among left-wing guerrilla groups, right-wing paramilitaries and the military, all of which have been accused of human rights abuses.Despite the 2016 peace accord with the FARC, many of the fault lines of the conflict remain, which has been supercharged by social media, allowing rumor and misinformation to fly.Polls before the election showed growing distrust in almost all major institutions.“This election in my mind is by far the most polarized that we’ve seen in Colombia in many years,” said Arlene B. Tickner, a political scientist at Rosario University. “So simply calming the waters and speaking to in particular those voters and those sectors of Colombian society that did not choose him, and that have significant fears about a Petro presidency, I think is going to be a key challenge.”One of Mr. Petro’s most difficult tasks could be addressing violence in the countryside.Despite the peace deal, armed groups have continued to flourish, mostly in rural areas, feeding off the drug trade, the cattle industry, human trafficking and other activities.Homicides, massacres and the killings of social leaders are all up in recent years, and internal displacement remains high, with 147,000 people forced to flee their homes last year, according to government data.Many people affected by this violence voted for Mr. Petro and Ms. Márquez, who was born in Cauca, one of the hardest hit parts of Colombia.Mr. Petro’s plan to address the violence includes a land reform that would discourage the ownership of large land parcels through taxation and give land titles to poor people whose lack of resources often indentures them to armed groups.But land reform has stymied president after president, and Mr. Petro admitted in an interview this year that it may be “the hardest” part of his campaign pledges to fulfill.“Because it’s this topic that has caused Colombia’s wars,” he said.Megan Janetsky contributed reporting. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Before He Ran for President, Gustavo Petro Was a Guerrilla Fighter

      by

      Long before Gustavo Petro emerged as the apparently victorious leftist candidate for president, he was part of the M-19, an urban guerrilla group that sought to seize power through violence in the name of promoting social justice.For some Colombian voters, his past was a source of concern after decades of armed conflict. For others, it offered a sign of hope for one of most inequitable countries in Latin America.The M-19 was born in 1970 as a response to alleged fraud in that year’s presidential elections. It was far smaller than the country’s main guerrilla force, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which was Marxist and sought haven in Colombia’s jungles and rural areas.The M-19 was an urban military group formed by university students, activists and artists who wanted to topple a governing system they believed failed to bridge a chronic divide between the rich and the poor.“The M-19 was born in arms to build a democracy,” Mr. Petro told The New York Times in an interview.It originally tried to promote a Robin Hood image, robbing milk from supermarket trucks to distribute in poor neighborhoods and, in a symbolic act of rebellion, stole a sword from a museum that Simón Bolívar used in Colombia’s war for independence.Mr. Petro, 62, joined the group when he was 17 and an economics student, dismayed by the poverty he witnessed in the town where has living, outside Bogotá, the capital.While the M-19 was less brutal than other rebel groups, it did orchestrate what is considered one of the bloodiest acts in the country’s recent history: the 1985 siege of Colombia’s national judicial building that led to a battle with the police and the military, leaving 94 people dead.The group also stole 5,000 weapons from the Colombian military and used kidnapping as a tactic to try to wrest concessions from the government.Mr. Petro, who spent 10 years in the M-19, largely stockpiled stolen weapons, said Sandra Borda, a political science professor at the University of the Andes in Bogotá.“What’s key is that he wasn’t part of the main circle who made the decisions in M-19. He was very young at that moment,” she said. “He didn’t participate in the most important operations of the M-19, the military operations.”At the time of the justice building takeover, Mr. Petro was in prison for his involvement with the group and he has described being beaten and electrocuted by the authorities.The group eventually demobilized in 1990, which was considered one of the most successful peace processes in the country’s long history of conflict. It turned into a political party that helped rewrite the country’s constitution to focus more on equality and human rights.Mr. Petro ran for Senate as a member of the party, launching his political career.Sofía Villamil More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Gustavo Petro gana las elecciones y será el primer presidente de izquierda de Colombia

      by

      La victoria del exrebelde y senador veterano sitúa al tercer país más poblado de América Latina en un nuevo rumbo.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Por primera vez, Colombia tendrá un presidente de izquierda.Gustavo Petro, un exrebelde y legislador con experiencia, ganó las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia el domingo, movilizando a los votantes frustrados por décadas de pobreza y desigualdad con gobiernos conservadores, con promesas de ampliar los programas sociales, poner impuestos a los ricos y alejarse de una economía que él ha calificado de excesivamente dependiente de los combustibles fósiles.Su victoria sitúa al tercer país más poblado de América Latina en una senda muy incierta, justo cuando se enfrenta a un aumento de la pobreza y la violencia que ha enviado a un número récord de colombianos hacia la frontera con Estados Unidos; a los altos niveles de deforestación en la Amazonía colombiana, un amortiguador clave contra el cambio climático; y a una creciente desconfianza en las instituciones democráticas clave, algo que se ha convertido en una tendencia en la región.Petro, de 62 años, obtuvo más del 50 por ciento de los votos, con más del 99 por ciento escrutado el domingo por la noche. Su contrincante, Rodolfo Hernández, un magnate de la construcción que entusiasmó al país con una plataforma anticorrupción, obtuvo algo más del 47 por ciento.Poco después de conocerse los resultados de la votación, Hernández reconoció la victoria de Petro.“Colombianos, hoy la mayoría de ciudadanos que votaron, lo han hecho escogiendo al otro candidato”, dijo. “Como lo expresé reiteradamente, acepto el resultado”.Petro subió al escenario flanqueado por Francia Márquez, su elección para vicepresidenta, y tres de sus hijos. El estadio, repleto, se volvió loco. La gente estaba de pie en los asientos y sostenía en alto sus celulares.“Esta historia que estamos escribiendo en este momento es una historia nueva para Colombia, para América Latina, para el mundo”, dijo. “No vamos a traicionar este electorado”.Prometió gobernar con lo que llamó “la política del amor”, basada en la esperanza, el diálogo y la comprensión.Francia Márquez durante un evento de campaña el mes pasado en Yumbo, Colombia.Federico Rios para The New York TimesPoco más de 58 por ciento de los 39 millones de electores de Colombia emitieron su voto, según las cifras oficiales.La victoria significa que Márquez, una activista medioambiental que salió de la pobreza para convertirse en una destacada defensora de la justicia social, se convertirá en la primera vicepresidenta negra del país.La victoria de Petro y Márquez refleja un fervor antisistema que se ha extendido por toda Latinoamérica, donde la pandemia ha exacerbado el enfado con problemas de larga data, como la falta de oportunidades.“El país entero está pidiendo un cambio”, dijo Fernando Posada, un politólogo colombiano, “y eso es clarísimo”.En abril, los costarricenses eligieron a la presidencia a Rodrigo Chaves, un exfuncionario del Banco Mundial y outsider de la política del país que aprovechó el descontento generalizado con el partido en el poder. El año pasado, Chile, Perú y Honduras votaron por líderes de izquierda que compitieron contra candidatos derechistas, lo que amplió una tendencia que ya lleva varios años en América Latina.Como candidato, Petro ha entusiasmado a una generación que es la más educada de la historia de Colombia, pero que también se enfrenta a una inflación anual del 10 por ciento, una tasa de desempleo juvenil del 20 por ciento y una tasa de pobreza del 40 por ciento. Sus mítines a menudo estaban llenos de jóvenes, muchos de los cuales decían sentirse traicionados por décadas de líderes que habían hecho grandes promesas, pero que habían cumplido poco.“No conformarnos con la mediocridad que viene de las generaciones pasadas”, dijo Larry Rico, de 23 años, un votante a favor de Petro en un sitio de votación de Ciudad Bolívar, un barrio pobre de la capital, Bogotá.La victoria de Petro es aún más significativa debido a la historia del país. Durante décadas, el gobierno luchó contra una brutal insurgencia izquierdista conocida como las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, o FARC, y el estigma del conflicto dificultó el florecimiento de una izquierda legítima.Pero las FARC firmaron un acuerdo de paz con el gobierno en 2016, dejando las armas y abriendo espacio para un discurso político más amplio.Petro había formado parte de otro grupo rebelde, llamado M-19, que se desmovilizó en 1990 y se convirtió en un partido político que ayudó a reescribir la constitución del país. Con el tiempo, Petro se convirtió en un líder contundente de la oposición del país, conocido por denunciar los abusos a los derechos humanos y la corrupción.Votantes emitiendo sus votos en las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia, en Bucaramanga, el domingo.Nathalia Angarita para The New York TimesEl domingo, en una zona acomodada de Bogotá, Francisco Ortiz, de 67 años y director de televisión, dijo que también había votado por Petro.“Creo que hacía mucho tiempo no teníamos una oportunidad como esta para cambiar”, dijo. “Que si es mejor, mejor, no lo sé, pero si seguimos en lo mismo, sí sabemos qué es lo que vamos a tener”.La victoria también podría poner a prueba la relación de Estados Unidos con su aliado más fuerte en América Latina. Tradicionalmente, Colombia ha sido la piedra angular de la política de Washington en la región.Pero Petro ha criticado lo que él llama el enfoque fallido de Estados Unidos en la guerra contra las drogas, al decir que se ha centrado demasiado en la erradicación del cultivo de coca, el producto base de la cocaína, y no lo suficiente en el desarrollo rural y otras medidas.Petro ha dicho que apoya alguna forma de legalización de las drogas, que renegociará un acuerdo comercial existente con Estados Unidos para beneficiar mejor a los colombianos y que restaurará las relaciones con el gobierno autoritario del presidente Nicolás Maduro de Venezuela, todo lo cual podría crear conflictos con Washington.Unos dos millones de migrantes venezolanos han huido a Colombia en los últimos años en medio de una crisis económica, política y humanitaria.Soldados colombianos en una zona de cultivos de coca cerca de la frontera con Venezuela. Estados Unidos ha desembolsado miles de millones de dólares en las últimas dos décadas para reducir la producción y exportación de cocaína, sin grandes resultados.Federico Rios para The New York TimesEn una entrevistade este año, Petro dijo que creía que podría trabajar bien con el gobierno del presidente Joe Biden, y agregó que su relación con los Estados Unidos se centraría en el trabajo conjunto para hacer frente al cambio climático, específicamente para detener la rápida erosión de la Amazonía.“Ahí hay un punto de diálogo”, dijo. “Porque salvar la selva amazónica implica unos instrumentos, unos programas, que hoy no existen por lo menos con respecto a Estados Unidos. Es, en mi opinión, la prioridad”.Tanto Petro como Hernández se impusieron a Federico Gutiérrez, exalcalde de una gran ciudad respaldado por la élite conservadora, en la primera vuelta de la votación del 29 de mayo, lo que los llevó a una segunda vuelta.Ambos se habían autodenominado candidatos antisistema, diciendo que se presentaban contra una clase política que había controlado el país durante generaciones.Uno de los factores que más les distinguía era su visión de la raíz de los problemas del país.Petro piensa que el sistema económico está roto, que depende demasiado de la exportación de petróleo y de un negocio floreciente e ilegal de cocaína que, según él, ha hecho que los ricos sean más ricos y los pobres más pobres. Exige detener las nuevas exploraciones petroleras, un cambio hacia el desarrollo de otras industrias.También ha dicho que introducirá el trabajo garantizado con una renta básica, hará que el país pase a tener un sistema de salud controlado públicamente y aumentará el acceso a la educación superior, en parte subiendo los impuestos a los ricos.“Hoy lo que tenemos es un resultado de esto que yo llamo el agotamiento del modelo”, dijo Petro en la entrevista mencionada, refiriéndose al sistema económico actual. “El resultado final es un empobrecimiento brutal”.Sin embargo, su ambicioso plan económico ha suscitado preocupaciones. Un exministro de Hacienda definió su plan energético como un “suicidio económico”.Hernández no propuso modificar el marco económico, pero dijo que era ineficiente porque está plagado de corrupción y gastos frívolos. Pidió que algunos ministerios se fusionaran; propuso eliminar algunas embajadas y despedir a los empleados gubernamentales ineficientes y que el dinero que se ahorrara con esas medidas se utilizara para ayudar a los pobres.Hernández durante un evento de campaña este mes en Barranquilla, Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesUna partidaria de Hernández, Nilia Mesa de Reyes, de 70 años, profesora de ética jubilada que votó en un sector adinerado de Bogotá, dijo que las políticas de izquierda de Petro, y su pasado con el M-19, la aterrorizaban. “Estamos pensando en irnos del país”, dijo.Los críticos de Petro, incluidos antiguos aliados, lo han acusado de una arrogancia que lo lleva a ignorar a sus asesores y a batallar para lograr consenso. Cuando asuma el cargo en agosto, se enfrentará a una sociedad profundamente polarizada en la que las encuestas muestran una creciente desconfianza en casi todas las instituciones importantes.Ha prometido ser presidente de todos los colombianos, no solo de quienes votaron por él.El domingo, en una secundaria convertida en lugar de votación en Bogotá, Ingrid Forrero, de 31 años, dijo que veía una división generacional en su comunidad, con los jóvenes apoyando a Petro y las generaciones mayores a favor de Hernández.Su propia familia la llama la “guerrillerita” por su apoyo a Petro, a quien dijo preferir por sus políticas sobre la educación y la desigualdad salarial.“La juventud está más inclinada hacia la revolución”, dijo, “hacia la izquierda, hacia un cambio”.Megan Janetsky More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Gustavo Petro Wins the Election, Becoming Colombia’s First Leftist Leader

      by

      The former rebel and longtime senator’s victory sets the third largest nation in Latin America on a sharply new path.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — For the first time, Colombia will have a leftist president.Gustavo Petro, a former rebel and a longtime legislator, won Colombia’s presidential election on Sunday, galvanizing voters frustrated by decades of poverty and inequality under conservative leaders, with promises to expand social programs, tax the wealthy and move away from an economy he has called overly reliant on fossil fuels.His victory sets the third largest nation in Latin America on a sharply uncertain path, just as it faces rising poverty and violence that have sent record numbers of Colombians to the United States border; high levels of deforestation in the Colombian Amazon, a key buffer against climate change; and a growing distrust of key democratic institutions, which has become a trend in the region.Mr. Petro, 62, received more than 50 percent of the vote, with more than 99 percent counted Sunday evening. His opponent, Rodolfo Hernández, a construction magnate who had energized the country with a scorched-earth anti-corruption platform, won just over 47 percent.Shortly after the vote, Mr. Hernández conceded to Mr. Petro.“Colombians, today the majority of citizens have chosen the other candidate,” he said. “As I said during the campaign, I accept the results of this election.”Mr. Petro took the stage Sunday night flanked by his vice-presidential pick, Francia Márquez, and three of his children. The packed stadium went wild, with people standing on chairs and holding phones aloft.“This story that we are writing today is a new story for Colombia, for Latin America, for the world,” he said. “We are not going to betray this electorate.”He pledged to govern with what he has called “the politics of love,” based on hope, dialogue and understanding.Just over 58 percent of Colombia’s 39 million voters turned out to cast a ballot, according to official figures.The victory means that Ms. Márquez, an environmental activist who rose from poverty to become a prominent advocate for social justice, will become the country’s first Black vice president.Francia Márquez, at a campaign event last month in Yumbo, Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Petro and Ms. Márquez’s victory reflects an anti-establishment fervor that has spread across Latin America, exacerbated by the pandemic and other longstanding issues, including a lack of opportunity.“The entire country is begging for change,” said Fernando Posada, a Colombian political scientist, “and that is absolutely clear.”In April, Costa Ricans elected to the presidency Rodrigo Chaves, a former World Bank official and political outsider, who took advantage of widespread discontent with the incumbent party. Last year, Chile, Peru and Honduras voted for leftist leaders running against candidates on the right, extending a significant, multiyear shift across Latin America.As a candidate, Mr. Petro had energized a generation that is the most educated in Colombian history, but is also dealing with 10 percent annual inflation, a 20 percent youth unemployment rate and a 40 percent poverty rate. His rallies were often full of young people, many of whom said they feel betrayed by decades of leaders who had made grand promises, but delivered little.“We’re not satisfied with the mediocrity of past generations,” said Larry Rico, 23, a Petro voter at a polling station in Ciudad Bolívar, a poor neighborhood in Bogotá, the capital.Mr. Petro’s win is all the more significant because of the country’s history. For decades, the government fought a brutal leftist insurgency known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, with the stigma from the conflict making it difficult for a legitimate left to flourish.But the FARC signed a peace deal with the government in 2016, laying down their arms and opening space for a broader political discourse.Mr. Petro had been part of a different rebel group, called the M-19, which demobilized in 1990, and became a political party that helped rewrite the country’s constitution. Eventually, Mr. Petro became a forceful leader in the country’s opposition, known for denouncing human rights abuses and corruption.Voters cast their ballots in Colombia’s presidential election, in Bucaramanga, on Sunday.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesOn Sunday, in a wealthy part of Bogotá, Francisco Ortiz, 67, a television director, said he had also voted for Mr. Petro.“It’s been a long time since we had an opportunity like this for change,” he said. “If things will get better, I don’t know. But if we stick with the same, we already know what we’re going to get.”The win could also test the United States’ relationship with its strongest ally in Latin America. Traditionally, Colombia has formed the cornerstone of Washington’s policy in the region.But Mr. Petro has criticized what he calls the United States’ failed approach to the drug war, saying it has focused too much on eradication of the coca crop, the base product in cocaine, and not enough on rural development and other measures.Mr. Petro has said he embraces some form of drug legalization, that he will renegotiate an existing trade deal with the United States to better benefit Colombians and that he will restore relations with the authoritarian government of president Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, all of which could create conflict with the United States.About two million Venezuelan migrants have fled to Colombia in recent years amid an economic, political and humanitarian crisis.Colombian soldiers in a coca growing area near the border with Venezuela. The United States has spent billions of dollars in Colombia in the past two decades to help its governments halt the production and export of cocaine, to little effect.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Petro, in an interview earlier this year, said he believed he could work well with the government of President Biden, adding that his relationship with the United States would focus on working together to tackle climate change, specifically halting the rapid erosion of the Amazon.“There is a point of dialogue there,” he said. “Because saving the Amazon rainforest involves some instruments, some programs, that do not exist today, at least not with respect to the United States. It is, in my opinion, the priority.”Both Mr. Petro and Mr. Hernández had beaten Federico Gutiérrez, a former big city mayor backed by the conservative elite, in a first round of voting on May 29, sending them to a runoff.Both men had billed themselves as anti-establishment candidates, saying they were running against a political class that had controlled the country for generations.Among the factors that most distinguished them was how they viewed the root of the country’s problems.Mr. Petro believes the economic system is broken, overly reliant on oil export and a flourishing and illegal cocaine business that he said has made the rich richer and poor poorer. He is calling for a halt to all new oil exploration, and a shift to developing other industries.He has also said he will introduce guaranteed work with a basic income, move the country to a publicly controlled health system and increase access to higher education, in part by raising taxes on the rich.“What we have today is the result of what I call ‘the depletion of the model,’” Mr. Petro said in the interview earlier this year, referring to the current economic system. “The end result is a brutal poverty.”His ambitious economic plan has, however, raised concerns. One former finance minister called his energy plan “economic suicide.”Mr. Hernández did not want to overhaul the economic framework, but said it was inefficient because it is riddled with corruption and frivolous spending. He had called for combining ministries, eliminating some embassies and firing inefficient government employees, while using savings to help the poor.Mr. Hernández during a campaign event this month in Barranquilla, Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesOne Hernández supporter, Nilia Mesa de Reyes, 70, a retired ethics professor who voted in an affluent section of Bogotá, said that Mr. Petro’s leftist policies, and his past with the M-19, terrified her. “We’re thinking about leaving the country,” she said.Mr. Petro’s critics, including former allies, have accused him of arrogance that leads him to ignore advisers and struggle to build consensus. When he takes office in August, he will face a deeply polarized society where polls show growing distrust in almost all major institutions.He has vowed to serve as the president of all Colombians, not just those who voted for him.On Sunday, at a high school-turned-polling station in Bogotá, Ingrid Forrero, 31, said she saw a generational divide in her community, with young people supporting Mr. Petro and older generations in favor of Mr. Hernández.Her own family calls her the “little rebel” because of her support for Mr. Petro, whom she said she favors because of his policies on education and income inequality.“The youth is more inclined toward revolution,” she said, “toward the left, toward a change.”Megan Janetsky contributed reporting from Bucaramanga, Colombia, and Sofía Villamil and Genevieve Glatsky contributed reporting from Bogotá. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Antes de dedicarse a la política, Petro formó parte de una guerrilla urbana

      by

      Mucho antes de que Gustavo Petro surgiera como un candidato de izquierda a la presidencia de Colombia, fue parte del M-19, un grupo guerrillero urbano que buscaba hacerse del poder en nombre de la justicia social.Para algunos votantes colombianos, su pasado es fuente de preocupación luego de décadas de conflicto armado en el país. Para otros, es una señal de esperanza en uno de los países más desiguales de América Latina.El M-19 nació en 1970 en respuesta a un supuesto fraude en las elecciones presidenciales de ese año. Era mucho más pequeño que la principal fuerza guerrillera del país, las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC, que era marxista y se refugiaba en las selvas y en las zonas rurales colombianas.El M-19 era un grupo militar urbano formado por estudiantes universitarios, activistas y artistas que buscaban derrocar a un sistema de gobierno que consideraban que había fracasado en disminuir una brecha crónica entre ricos y pobres.“El M-19 nació en armas para construir una democracia”, le dijo Petro a The New York Times en una entrevista.Inicialmente, el movimiento intentó promover una imagen al estilo Robin Hood: robaban leche de los camiones de los supermercados para distribuirlos en los barrios pobres y, en un acto de rebelión simbólica, sustrajeron de un museo una espada que Simón Bolívar usó en la guerra de independencia de Colombia.Petro, de 62 años, se unió al grupo cuando era un estudiante de economía de 17 años consternado por la pobreza que veía en el pueblo donde vivía, a las afueras de Bogotá.Si bien el M-19 era menos cruel que otros grupos rebeldes, sí llevó a cabo un acto que es considerado como de los más sangrientos de la historia reciente del país: el sitio del Palacio de Justicia en 1985, que llevó a un enfrentamiento con la policía y el ejército y dejó 94 personas muertas.El grupo también robó 5000 armas del ejército colombiano y recurrió al secuestro como un modo de conseguir concesiones del gobierno.Petro, que pasó 10 años en el M-19, sobre todo almacenaba armas robadas por el grupo, dijo Sandra Borda, profesora de ciencias políticas de la Universidad de los Andes en Bogotá.“Lo que es clave es que no era parte del círculo principal de toma de decisiones del M-19. Estaba muy joven en ese momento”, dijo. “Y no participó tampoco en los operativos más importantes del M-19, los operativos militares”.Al momento de la toma del Palacio de Justicia, Petro se encontraba en prisión por su participación en el grupo; ha contado que las autoridades lo golpearon y electrocutaron.Al final, el grupo terminó por desmovilizarse en 1990 en uno de los procesos de paz que se considera entre los más exitosos en la prolongada historia de conflicto del país. Se convirtió en un partido político que ayudó a reescribir la Constitución del país para hacerla más enfocada a la igualdad y los derechos humanos.Petro se postuló al Senado como integrante del partido, con lo que inauguró su carrera política.Sofía Villamil More