PLEBISCITOS POR LA PAZ Y DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES EN COLOMBIA. UNA APROXIMACIÓN HISTÓRICA Y COMPARADA, 1957-2016

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
Melba Luz Calle Meza, José Ignacio Lacasta-Zabalza
{"title":"PLEBISCITOS POR LA PAZ Y DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES EN COLOMBIA. UNA APROXIMACIÓN HISTÓRICA Y COMPARADA, 1957-2016","authors":"Melba Luz Calle Meza, José Ignacio Lacasta-Zabalza","doi":"10.21017/rev.repub.2022.v33.a127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the legal, political and historical nature of the plebiscite and its relationship with fundamental rights. The study has a comparative approach, of theoretical, conceptual and critical reflection on the plebiscite as a mechanism for legitimizing political power and, at the local level, on its connection with the search for peace. And he concludes that the comparison between the plebiscites of 1957 and 2016 is useful to show, on the one hand, that in Colombia the characteristic features of this mechanism in the universal history of the 20th century have also been revealed. That is, despite its foundation in direct democracy, due to the use that can be given to manipulate the popular will, the plebiscite can be useful for Bonapartist or Orléanist and presidential systems, as well as for interests contrary to republicanism and theories of democratic rights like those of Luigi Ferrajoli. On the other hand, in this country, with the lure of the end of violence as a background in both cases, while in 1957 the plebiscite was a complete success for its organizers (traditional political parties and military junta) who achieved overwhelming popular approval (with wide participation) of the exclusive political system called the National Front and one of the decisive factors of the armed conflict in the last century; In 2016, the real leader of the plebiscite was the then senator Álvaro Uribe, former president and head of the opposition to the government of Juan Manuel Santos, promoter of peace. Uribe thus obtained, with a weak victory of the No to the «Havana Agreements» and an abstention rate of more than 60%, a clear victory for his authoritarian and warmongering policy, a key approach to the electoral campaign that would lead his political party to the victory in the 2018 presidential elections and the consequent stagnation of peace objectives.","PeriodicalId":40477,"journal":{"name":"REVISTA REPUBLICANA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVISTA REPUBLICANA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21017/rev.repub.2022.v33.a127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyzes the legal, political and historical nature of the plebiscite and its relationship with fundamental rights. The study has a comparative approach, of theoretical, conceptual and critical reflection on the plebiscite as a mechanism for legitimizing political power and, at the local level, on its connection with the search for peace. And he concludes that the comparison between the plebiscites of 1957 and 2016 is useful to show, on the one hand, that in Colombia the characteristic features of this mechanism in the universal history of the 20th century have also been revealed. That is, despite its foundation in direct democracy, due to the use that can be given to manipulate the popular will, the plebiscite can be useful for Bonapartist or Orléanist and presidential systems, as well as for interests contrary to republicanism and theories of democratic rights like those of Luigi Ferrajoli. On the other hand, in this country, with the lure of the end of violence as a background in both cases, while in 1957 the plebiscite was a complete success for its organizers (traditional political parties and military junta) who achieved overwhelming popular approval (with wide participation) of the exclusive political system called the National Front and one of the decisive factors of the armed conflict in the last century; In 2016, the real leader of the plebiscite was the then senator Álvaro Uribe, former president and head of the opposition to the government of Juan Manuel Santos, promoter of peace. Uribe thus obtained, with a weak victory of the No to the «Havana Agreements» and an abstention rate of more than 60%, a clear victory for his authoritarian and warmongering policy, a key approach to the electoral campaign that would lead his political party to the victory in the 2018 presidential elections and the consequent stagnation of peace objectives.
哥伦比亚争取和平和基本权利的公民投票。历史和比较方法,1957-2016
本文分析了公民投票的法律、政治和历史性质及其与基本权利的关系。这项研究采用比较的方法,从理论、概念和批判的角度对公民投票作为一种使政治权力合法化的机制进行反思,并在地方一级对公民投票与寻求和平的联系进行反思。他的结论是,1957年和2016年的公民投票之间的比较是有用的,一方面,在哥伦比亚,这一机制在20世纪的普遍历史中的特征也被揭示出来。也就是说,尽管公民投票的基础是直接民主,但由于公民投票可以用来操纵民众的意志,它对波拿巴主义者、奥拉西姆主义者和总统制,以及与共和主义和民主权利理论(如路易吉·费拉乔利的那些)相反的利益都是有用的。另一方面,在这个国家,在这两种情况下,以结束暴力为背景的诱惑下,1957年的公民投票对其组织者(传统政党和军政府)来说是一个完全的成功,他们获得了压倒性的民众(广泛参与)对被称为国民阵线的排他性政治制度的认可,这是上个世纪武装冲突的决定性因素之一;2016年,公投的真正领导者是当时的参议员Álvaro乌里韦,他是前总统兼胡安·曼努埃尔·桑托斯政府反对派领袖,和平促进者。乌里韦因此获得了对“哈瓦那协议”的微弱胜利和超过60%的弃权率,这是他的专制和好战政策的明显胜利,这是竞选活动的关键途径,将导致他的政党在2018年总统选举中获胜,并因此停滞了和平目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: La Revista Republicana es una publicación semestral del Centro de Investigaciones de la Corporación Universitaria Republicana, institución universitaria ubicada en Bogotá D.C, Colombia. Tiene el propósito de visibilizar la producción académica de investigadores nacionales e internacionales concretada en artículos científicos que deben ser inéditos, resultado de proyectos de investigación preferiblemente terminados; en temas relacionados con el derecho y las ciencias sociales.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信