Since October 2008, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, has consistently stressed the importance that public opinion plays in a state under the rule of law. This emphasis started a few weeks after Congress formally commenced studying the popular initiative to call for a referendum on an immediate presidential re-election.
In Uribe’s words “the equilibrium between participative democracy and representative democracy has made that public opinion, of escalating activity, becomes the determinant factor of the legislative product. (speech given last week during a dinner in honor to the visiting heir of the Spanish throne)
Since Uribe, by his own accounts, does not read newspapers, it is obvious that by public opinion he means the general population that consistently regard his administration as the best in living memory, rather than other important voices representing public opinions such as op-ed columnists.
In Colombia, deep polarizations along political party lines have led to bloody periods as in 1948 when 180,000 people died in 10 years, in a period remembered as “The Violence”. However, today’s deep polarization has become more pronounced along educational and political awareness lines.
A way to prove the sentiment of the more educated and politically-aware people is by reading the op-ed columns in the two national newspapers, El Tiempo and El Espectador. The former is naturally more pro-government given that it was funded, and is run, by the family of the current Vice-president and the former Defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos. Their op-ed columnists are academics, lawyers, journalists, human rights advocates, politicians, former government officials, among others.
In the op-ed columns published last week (Mon-Sun), explicitly addressing the government, the pattern in terms of the opposition to the president continued despite the lack of new incidents affecting his administration. From the 45 columns related to Colombian current affairs published in El Espectador there were 14 anti-Uribe articles and only one pro-Uribe opinion. In El Tiempo there were 29 columns with five explicitly anti-Uribe and only one pro-Uribe.
In turn, the sentiment of the general population is best gauged by the latest poll on current political affairs. For instance, 67 percent of people would vote for the re-electionist referendum, with 83 percent supporting it. Moreover, if Uribe is a candidate he would obtain 57 percent of the votes. And if the president does not run again the most favored candidates are Juan Manuel Santos and the former Agriculture minister Andres Felipe Arias, who are the epitome of Uribe’s war policies.
In a democracy, the majority decides elections. However, this does not signify that their perceptions on the political environment are correct. For example, in the same poll, 30 and 8 percent respectively think that Santos and Arias have fought corruption. Thus, the many incidents evidencing the contrary have been heavily discounted.
Furthermore, 55 percent of the respondents did not think the recent illegal wiretapping by the government’s security agency on Supreme Court judges, the opposition and journalists, influenced their perception of the president. More disturbing still is that 13 percent claimed the scandal has positively influenced the president’s image.
This great divide between the more educated and politically-aware class and the general population may not lead to a repeat of “The Violence”. However, it demonstrates the condition of media consumption in Colombia where analyzes on political developments are seldom read by the general population. This great divide only highlights the power of the media for manufacturing popular consent that is then used by Uribe to boast his “democratic principles” in front of foreign dignitaries.
Author Sebastian Castaneda is Colombian and lives in Hong Kong
