The country knows well the profound crisis in which this branch of public power is immersed. Crisis that is common to all institutions, as evidenced by the fact that not a week goes by when a corruption scandal erupts at one of the institutions of the State. Part of the same crisis is the permanent confrontations between state branches, like the one between the judicial and executive bodies, and the own continuation of the armed conflict that the Constitution of 1991 failed to resolve, despite the advances it meant in matters of rights.
We, the FARC-EP, have been holding the thesis of the need for a National Constituent Assembly as a necessary step on the path for a political settlement of the conflict.
Three main arguments we have held in this regard: the constituent would be the scenario for resolving the so-called caveats, which are subjects of the agenda on which no agreement has been reached with the Government and because of its importance, may become a serious obstacle to the signing of the final agreement. Among others, on the agrarian topic, it was left pending, for example, the matters regarding the large estates, the foreign ownership of land and the extractive economic model. On the issue of political participation we have pending the definitions of the democratic restructuring of the State and the political reform; the democratization of the electoral political system and the popular elections of the supervisory bodies (Attorney General, Comptroller, Attorney and Ombudsman). On the fourth point of the agenda, one of the caveats was the suspension of fumigations with glyphosate that President Santos, for the benefit of all the people, decided to suspend today, as a result of the scientific research that shows the irreparable damage that this spraying causes to human and animal life, and to the environment.
The second argument that we have held in favor of the constituent, is that it gives the agreements the indelible stamp of the sovereign will of the people, the only true guarantee to avoid that in the future, the irrationalities of the ruling government of the day could ignore what was agreed upon.
The third and most important is that the constituent opens the possibility to adapt the road map of the country to the new situation arising from the agreements. It is not any light event in the life of a society, the termination of such a prolonged and traumatic conflict as the one we Colombians have suffered. Thus, the National Constituent Assembly is presented as a great opportunity for all sectors that today make up the Colombia of the 21st century, to sit down and do what we were never able to do because of the successive wars that we have faced throughout history: to design among all a social pact that gathers us and commits us to the future of the nation. That is the true lasting peace treaty that we need.
On the part of those opposed to the idea, it is argued that the constituent assembly could reject the peace agreements, which would constitute a risk even for the FARC; they add that the far right pro-Uribe forces could take over that scenario causing a regression in the matters of rights; but fundamentally they express their fear that the assembly covered with full powers, overflows in a reformist outburst.
A political agreement with all sectors, without any kind of exclusion, which opens the way to this call and simultaneously determine its composition, scope and boundaries, is the solution to these fears. The truth is, that as time goes by, the need for this scenario as the best formula is becoming more evident, so that together we find the path to national reconciliation and reconstruction of the homeland; having as a framework, a new Constitution that reflects the interests of all sectors who today make up the Colombian nation.