By Rosa C., PST – Colombia
The last months have been marked by mobilizations against the Petro government orchestrated by the bourgeois opposition. While countermobilizations in favor of Petro have been called by the union and social leaderships that support him. At the same time there have also been protests in response to some corruption scandals and unpopular legislation, like the application of the new healthcare model for the teachers’ union.
In this context, Petro has reiterated his denunciations and calls to reject the “soft coup” that the most reactionary sectors of the bourgeoisie are preparing.
It is very important that we analyze this situation using an objective method and from a class position. We refuse to fall into that sinister logic, as common as it is legendary, that “if you are not with us you are against us” or the logic of single thinking. It is unfortunate that the so-called left that fought this logic when the one who used it was Uribe, now applies it to those of us from sectors of the working class who criticize the program and the alliances that Petro has made, and that undoubtedly have put him at a crossroads. The terms used in this polarization: “right and left” indicate location, but hide the class interests behind each one. For example, Velasco is to the left of Gaviria, yet both defend the interests of a sector of the business and bourgeoisie.
To better understand all their contradictions, it is necessary to start from the class character of the government of “change”. Although it has claimed that it stands with the most vulnerable and needy sectors, it is not a government that embodies the interests of the working class. Neither is it a bourgeois government equal to that of Santos or Samper, much less to that of Uribe. It is a different bourgeois government, it is a government of coalition or of class conciliation, which was built on the enormous expectations of those from below. They were the ones who put the government into power, but at the same time it remains tied to institutionalism, the laws of the bourgeois state and its capitalist economic structure, which it has sworn to defend. That is the reason for its enormous contradictions and its ups and downs. The first period until the approval of the tax reform and the Development Plan, was a honeymoon period with almost all sectors of the bourgeoisie, because it niether affected their interests, nor those of the capitalists nor those of the imperialists. This period seems to be behind us and we are entering into a much more politically active one.
Corruption is inherent to capitalism and its State
No sector of the bourgeoisie has the moral authority to point out and use the cases of corruption in this government to position itself as honest judges. The latest scandals have been on account of Olmedo López, former director of the UNGRD; and of the Minister of Health, Guillermo Jaramillo (Partido de la U) and the former manager of the Fiduprevisora Mauricio Marín (Partido Liberal) with teachers’ healthcare. All three were trained in the school of clientelism of the traditional parties.
The first scandal is under investigation, and Petro has distanced himself from the leading character. Now his position is in tune with the new director Carrillo, who is trying to uncover all the rot that the legal regulations haved allowed in that institution.
The Minister of Health continues in his post as if nothing had happened. While Marín had to resign as the teachers and pensioners endure the implementation of a new healthcare model which, although it improves some aspects, does not substantially modify the core of the problem: its privatization.
Traditional political practices remain in order to seek consensus and governability. As long as there is no break with the bourgeoisie and its parties, its practices and norms, corruption scandals will continue to erupt because, as Trotsky said, the bourgeoisie needs to corrupt a layer of officials to sustain its edifice. This “is due to the inflexible need to form and sustain a privileged minority as long as it is not possible to ensure real equality,” and there are many officials that make up this layer, which Petro would have to remove. But he will not do it.
Is a soft coup being prepared?
The sectors of the bourgeoisie that supported the government and were part of it, have withdrawn once the health and labor reforms were presented. The business sector that got rich with Law 100 and Law 50 have joined the Democratic Center in the chorus of defense of the EPS (the entity that organizes the public healthcare system), of outsourcing, and of all the labor norms that in the 90’s eliminated the rights of the working class. There is a sector of the bourgeoisie that spares no effort nor forgives any errors, as it puts forth unfounded claims with the aim of weakening and wearing down Petro’s government. They are not willing to give up the smallest concession to workers’ rights and are rabidly opposed to reforms, no matter how tepid and limited they may be. This has led Petro to denounce that these sectors are planning a “soft coup”.
This term has been coined by the North American political scientist Gene Sharp, to designate a series of non-violent tactics, with the “objective of destabilizing a government and provoking its fall” using institutional mechanisms. Apparently this gentleman was linked to the CIA and Israeli governments in training young people in the practice of his theory. In it he establishes five steps in the execution of the strategy of overthrowing governments elected by popular vote. Beyond Sharp’s conspiratorial manual, what is certain is that the military coups used until the 1990s have become for the world bourgeoisie a risk that would lead to the opposite effect. That is, they tend to stir up the class struggle, since many dictatorships were overthrown by radical action of mass mobilization, and today in several countries where they existed, the current struggles raise as a slogan “Dictatorship never again!
The opposition bourgeoisie, has the policy of wearing down and discrediting the masses, in order to lay the groundwork for the electoral dispute of 2026. A fall of the government by institutional means cannot be ruled out, but for now there is support for the government from both U.S. and European imperialism, which is a fundamental factor in the course of the polarization. Finally, who defines its course will be the class struggle and the policy of the government itself. In this case, since it is sustained by strong aspirations for change, it will depend on its capacity to respond to the popular will. It goes without saying that if there is a real coup attempt, the socialists will be on the front line of the struggle to defeat the coup plotters.
Published in ES 754 June-July 2024
