Jorge Enrique Robledo (Ibagué, 73 years old) came sixth, with only 34,658 votes (1.13%), in the recent elections for the Mayor of Bogotá. Five years ago, when he ran for the Senate, he was the third strongest candidate in the entire country, with 229,276 votes. Although his downfall is undeniable, he assures that he will remain in politics until his energy runs out. A scenario that seems distant, especially when he is asked about Gustavo Petro’s management.
Both were active in the Polo Democrático Alternativo, the party that brought together different movements at the beginning of the century and for the first time gave enough strength to the left to win the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá and become a viable option for power. In Polo, which for a decade was synonymous with “the left,” the two acquired notoriety. Their differences became irreconcilable after the 2010 presidential elections, when Petro was that party’s candidate. Their distancing has only increased and now Robledo is the main leftist leader who opposes the president. He spoke with EL PAÍS about this and other topics.
Ask. How do you receive President Gustavo Petro’s proposal to not comply with the fiscal rule?
Answer. Petro, from day one, is playing the role of president of the opposition. He always has a way out that attracts media attention, he is an expert at that, and then presents magical solutions. He now talks about modifying the fiscal rule, which in the economic debate are capital words because it is a doctrine of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which adjusts the country’s economy to the payment of the debt and cuts public spending. There is an additional issue that shows how astute Petro is: he points out that to modify the fiscal rule he has to approve a reform in Congress, where he knows he does not have majorities. His proposal is a shot in the air, with the aggravating factor that it generates a large dose of uncertainty. He looks like Donald Trump.
Q. To Trump?
R. Trump, being president, also behaved as an opponent. He always had a phrase to stir up his angry crowd, but things stayed the same. Petro is clever and every day he puts out three or four topics that force the media to pay attention to him, although they disappear after a short time. They are smoke screens.
Newsletter
The analysis of current events and the best stories from Colombia, every week in your mailbox
RECEIVE THE
Q. Broadening the panorama further, what diagnosis do you make of Petro’s 15 months in office?
R. Petro inherits a very weak economy, partly due to the pandemic but, above all, because it does not function in general terms. This is a country that imports excessively and exports little. No exit. Here are the figures: Colombia is ultra-indebted, with an external debt of 186 billion dollars, which demonstrates the existence of a serious structural problem. Add to that a government that, if you look, has not made any rectification in the economic model. Petro talks about an agrarian reform that no one sees. Replacing oil with tourism is idiotic, it makes no sense. The economy is suffering. In addition, the Bank of the Republic’s mission is to cool the economy by raising the interest rate. It is not exclusively a problem of the Government.
Q. Another vision would be that the Bank of the Republic does it to stop inflation.
R. That’s the pretext. At the Bank they have their own theories, which don’t work. But, well, in this environment of structural problems come the Government’s mudslinging. For example, it is not carrying out public spending as quickly as it should in public works and housing promotion, key sectors for the economy. The sector that fell the most in this quarter, if compared to the same period last year, is construction, with 8%. Add that many of the things Petro says, such as the fiscal rule, cause economic uncertainty, and capital is timid by nature.
Q. Do you recognize any positive changes?
R. When he became President he said a few things that I agree with. For example, carrying out a peace process. I agree with that, but one looks and the process does not move forward either. The number of social leaders murdered this year is skyrocketing. Talking about peace sounds good, the problem is that it is not working. Recomposing relations with Venezuela is another point where something similar happens. What Iván Duque did [rompió relaciones con Nicolás Maduro en 2019, tras reconocer como presidente a Juan Guaidó] It was absurd. But Petro’s decisions have not achieved the economic reactivation that they promised.
Q. A defect that they attribute to the left is that it has more speech than execution. Do you think that happens to the president?
R. Don’t put me in the same bag as Petro, I have had too many years of disagreements with him. Clearly he talks a lot, but he doesn’t make the right decisions. What he is doing with health reform is an example. He took her to Congress without having enough votes and she was bogged down. The wisdom of a president is measured in his ability to identify which regulations are likely to be approved. He cares about making noise, he thinks it’s enough. He is causing a negative impact on the health sector, which needs reforms. It makes no sense for him to propose an unviable reform that would lead him to break his own coalition. Petro was elected president with the support of former presidents Juan Manuel Santos, Ernesto Samper, César Gaviria and the Liberal and Conservative parties, among others. That hulk was dismantled very quickly because he tried to impose on them, who defend the EPS, an uncomfortable reform for the EPS.
Q. Some sectors of the left call him out for not supporting the president. Does he feel responsible for a division on the left?
R. The differences on the left have been historic. What the left is today has its origins in the great student movement of 1971. In those days the divisions were immense. I’m going to mention a few: a large sector—of which Petro was a part—promoted armed struggle, another assured that the entire economy should be nationalized, and there were those who insisted on leaving the orbit of the United States and moving into the orbit of the Soviet Union. We opposed weapons and life proved us right. We considered that nationalizing the economy was nonsense because more companies are needed and we ruled out the possibility of being under the orbit of any country because we defend national sovereignty. If this happened 50 years ago, why is it surprising that there are differences now?
Q. But the left gets better votes when it unites, as happened with the Alternative Democratic Pole a few decades ago and currently with the Historical Pact.
R. Our differences with Petro are many. When we were both at the Polo, I supported his presidential aspiration in 2010. We did the entire campaign for him. Once the results were out, the Polo declared its opposition to Juan Manuel Santos, who won and had just been Álvaro Uribe’s Minister of Defense, and Petro preferred to make an agreement with him and betray the Polo. That’s where the disagreements come from. Another disagreement: I think it was a very serious mistake for Petro to have taken out Bolívar’s sword on the day of the inauguration.
Q. Because?
R. Because that is sending a message that the armed uprising of the M-19 was correct, it exalts it. Those uprisings have been one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the country. By August 7, 2022, the day he took office, the country had three groups up in arms in a very wrong way.
Q. If things go badly for the president, how would it affect the left?
R. Right now he is doing terrible damage to the left and to any idea of change. The errors are too many and the forces of the establishment, on the right, find it very easy to create the narrative that everyone who thinks differently has Petro’s ideas. That negatively affects the rest of us. The curious thing is that part of the right is with the president, like former presidents Santos, Samper and Gaviria.
Q. You and Sergio Fajardo created a political party, Dignidad y Compromiso. His vote for the Mayor of Bogotá was only 1.13%, 34,658 votes, and his for the Presidency a year ago, 4.2%, 888,585 votes.
R. Dignity and Commitment is the alternative that Colombia needs. Even if it is a relatively small light, it will stay there. They have a lot of respect for us. You would be surprised to see the great respect and support there is for what we are doing. Another thing is that they didn’t vote for me as much because of the useful vote. When a country becomes polarized, whoever is not at the poles is left in a mess. This is a long process and we are only just getting started.
Q. They tell him that he has become lukewarm and right-wing.
R. Those who say that are two types of people. Some who do not understand and repeat anything they are told; the others are cheating Petrists who prefer to lie, but know what the truth is. The debates I raise are uncomfortable for them and they are not able to dispute them. No Petrista attack on Jorge Robledo is supported. It is a bully style, undemocratic and zero argumentation. I take this opportunity to tell President Petro to choose whoever he wants from his best cadres and we will hold a forum, he and I, about anything about this Government. We will see who is the lukewarm one and who has spent his life betraying the ideas of the left.
Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS newsletter about Colombia and here to the channel on WhatsAppand receive all the information keys on current events in the country.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Jorge #Enrique #Robledo #Petro #terrible #damage #left