Colombia’s Questionable Consultation Is a Detour from Democracy
President Gustavo Petro’s idea of using a public vote and not going through Congress has caused worry in Colombia. Those who do not support it say it does not improve citizen involvement. They think it avoids important controls, creating a risky example for the nation’s democratic systems, which are not strong.
The Problem with Bypassing Congress
The recent upheaval surrounding President Gustavo Petro’s stalled labor reform and health reform proposals has ignited a broader debate about the limits of executive power. According to statements, both bills have encountered resistance in the Colombian Congress, with the labor reform on the verge of being shelved in committee. In response, Petro says he will push forward with a popular consultation, inviting citizens to vote directly on core ideas that have so far failed legislatively. Although consultation may sound democratic on the surface, many fear it could undermine the country’s constitutional framework and erode the role of representative governance.
Below the rhetorical appeals to “let the people decide” lie pressing concerns. Can a national referendum truly capture the nuance of such large-scale reforms? If not carefully regulated, this pivot to a top-down plebiscite might degrade the spirit of constitutional checks and balances, especially since Colombian law prohibits certain matters—such as rewriting the Constitution or presenting fully drafted legislation—from being decided by popular vote. Nevertheless, Petro’s move signals a willingness to flirt with those boundaries in an effort to sidestep congressional roadblocks.
For many critics, the fundamental issue is that the proposed consultation leaps over the essential debate processes in the legislative branch. Petro’s defenders argue that the stalling of reforms in Congress justifies taking them to the public. Yet historically, a parliament’s slow or partial acceptance of presidential initiatives is not an anomaly; it is precisely how a checks-and-balances system functions. When the executive tries to push complex economic or social changes, the legislature scrutinizes, amends, and sometimes rejects them.
Such friction is not an outright failure of democracy; indeed, it is a sign that competing viewpoints, regional interests, and minority perspectives are being heard. Turning to a popular referendum can reduce complicated matters into oversimplified yes-or-no questions. This can sidestep the thorough, article-by-article scrutiny that typically happens in legislative committees—scrutiny that reveals unintended consequences, conflicting clauses, or even constitutional issues.
According to a former head of Colombia’s Registraduría Nacional, whom EFE interviewed, the consultation mechanism is legally constrained in a variety of ways. For instance, a direct vote cannot override constitutional principles, nor can it revolve around a “fully written” piece of legislation. The government would have to distill its entire labor or health reform into a handful of broad-strokes questions. That scenario raises doubts about whether such an approach can do justice to the details that normally require months of congressional review.
Legal Hurdles And Constitutional Precedent
Colombia’s own history offers cautionary tales about the referendum path. The Constitution outlines strict rules for setting up and validating a nationwide consultation. As per the established legal framework, the president must secure the signatures of every cabinet minister, and then the Senate must approve. Once given the green light, the government has a limited window of three months to organize the vote. For the result to be legally binding, a minimum of one-third of the electorate must cast votes, and the initiative must garner a simple majority of that turnout.
Experience suggests that clearing these hurdles is no small feat. The sole prior national discussion in the nation happened in 2018. It centered on steps to fight corruption. Even though the public felt intense anger about corruption, the step did not gain sufficient participation. This begs a question: If anticorruption proposals—usually popular—could not mobilize enough voters to pass, is a highly complex set of labor or health proposals likely to gain the necessary turnout?
After the general population receives a simple choice on major policy shifts, how does this relate to the role of the legislative branch in creating detailed statutes? Even should a “Yes” choice become the majority, elected officials must still devise and enact a real law. If that final statute differs significantly from the consultation’s broad outlines (and it almost inevitably would), public confidence might erode further.
Opponents suggest that the true intention of the proposed referendum is to leverage popular discontent and shame legislators into supporting the president’s agenda. This short-circuits robust legislative dialogue by painting any opposition or moderation as defiance of “the people’s will” rather than the result of prudent policy analysis. The risk is that the executive powers become inflated, overshadowing the legislative branch.
Citizen Participation Vs. Demagogy
Supporters of Petro’s move frame the proposed consultation as a pure expression of popular will. They contend that powerful figures in the legislature intentionally impede advancements, depriving most people of any option except direct democracy. A suitable situation for a vote could be one where the matter is clear. The voters are knowledgeable. Voter participation reaches the needed level. If those conditions were met, it could indeed strengthen democracy by reinvigorating civic engagement.
But the reality is often more complicated. High-stakes referendums have, in countries worldwide, proven ripe for politicization. The complexity of labor or health overhauls leaves the electorate potentially vulnerable to misinformation. A yes-or-no question likely cannot account for the complexities—economic projections, funding mechanisms, impact on small businesses, or potential disruptions in healthcare systems. Even if the majority “approves” a vague question, the path to implementing those reforms without further legislative input could be fraught with pitfalls.
The existing legal framework prevents the use of a single vote to bring about widespread change. The administration must discover how to formulate each query so it does not violate the legal provisions. This situation makes it a clumsy and potentially perplexing method for actual lawmaking.
Those who disapprove of the action consider it a tactic to distract. By advocating for direct democracy, Petro might avoid demands to compromise. He could also label those who oppose him as against change or the people. This account is not accurate. Real improvement usually calls for small alterations. These alterations are made through discussion.
Ultimately, circumventing congressional mechanisms to push through reforms is not a sustainable or consistent strategy. If every president, faced with legislative opposition, jumps straight to a national referendum, the legislature risks becoming obsolete, and the country’s democratic equilibrium wobbles. In Colombia’s fragile political context, such a scenario could lead to heightened polarization, inconsistent policymaking, and diminishing faith in the established institutions that hold the nation together.
Also Read: Bolivia’s Political Rift: Morales, Arce, And New Alliances
What Colombia needs is not a blind rush toward a referendum on proposals that have already shown difficulty passing legislative scrutiny. Careful talk, complete legal actions, and a helpful attitude among groups to reach an accord are needed. The claim that a method where people choose directly goes past the planned actions of chosen leaders fails to think about how vital this “planned action” is to ensure stability and the current legal structure. By forging ahead with a consultation that may well fail or cause confusion, President Petro risks weakening the very constitutional order that underpins the country’s democratic future.
