|
The Colombian Constitution: A Ten-Year Assessment Among the institutions it created was the Prosecutor General's Office, to handle the investigative stage of criminal cases; an ombudsman, to mediate between the state and its citizens; the Constitutional Court, charged with constitutional oversight and protecting human rights; the Supreme Judiciary Council, which controls and administers the judicial branch; and tutelary mechanisms to protect basic human rights. Ten years later, most Colombians complain that the 1991 Constitution had no effect on their quality of life. They argue that the reforms it introduced failed to produce results and that any changes that were achieved were insignificant or insufficient. The exceptions are the office of the ombudsman and the tutelary human rights protections, which are perceived as positive by the majority of the population and have been credited with creating better channels of communication between citizens and state institutions. According to Constitutional Court judge Manuel José Cepeda, a fervent supporter of the tutelary provisions, this mechanism is "one of the few means of participation that have been effective." He argues that it has "placed justice at the service of human beings instead of legal formalities." The provisions allow citizens to invoke immediate protection of their basic constitutional rights in cases where they have no other recourse for their legal defense. To date, they have been invoked 450,000 times. "Dignity, equality, liberty and multiculturalism now have concrete meaning thanks to the Constitutional Court and its institutional guidance," Cepeda maintains. One of the constitution's most important elements, responsible for raising public expectations, was reform of the Congress. A main criticism was the system of electing senators, which allowed candidates to obtain votes in any region or department around the country. Former president Alfonso López described this system as "creating a plutocracy in the Senate and a loss of representation of a great many small departments" due to increased campaign costs. Many observers are frustrated at the lack of any real change in the way politics are conducted in Colombia under the new constitution. Lack of accountability and arbitrariness perpetuate the abuse of power by elected officials. But former president César Gaviria, who played a key role in promoting the 1991 constitution, argues that public opinion in Colombia is overwhelmingly pessimistic. "It would be a mistake to attribute the climate of negativity to the constitution," he noted in a recent interview with Colombia's El Tiempo newspaper. "Politicians often make that error. The economic recession, the reluctance of the guerrillas to move ahead with the peace process, the deterioration of the armed conflict because of the savagery of violent actors-these are some of the factors contributing to this climate. The constitution is not the cause, but it could be a victim." Indeed, much of Colombians' skepticism is due to the failure to resolve the armed conflict. The constitution and the institutions it created are not to blame. The profound institutional reforms that Colombia needs have stalled because of incompetence and lack of political will in Congress. Thanks in large part to the popular vote to create a Constituent Assembly, important steps have been taken to guarantee human rights and strengthen judicial procedures (via the Constitutional Court, Prosecutor General, special "peace judges" and indigenous jurisdictions). Like all constitutions, Colombia's requires reforms and improved legislative procedures to produce results. But it is one thing to aim for institutional changes and another to promote the constitution as the solution to all of the country's problems. The current situation in Colombia cannot be overcome with a paper constitution. Real change will only come about through a collective commitment on the part of all Colombians.
|