Columns & Blogs

The question may seem absurd since Trump was legally elected as president. 

Advances in information and communications technology offer great solutions to human development and democratic participation. 

It is time to escape the bubble that popped with Trump's victory. It would be more comforting to think that millions of voters were tricked by a professional of contraption, as it was less painful for many to conclude that the results of Bexit or the Colombian plebiscite on peace were just tricks of the winning campaign so that people voted with anger.    

Promoting the debate about a fair evaluation of merit should be an important task for the human rights movement since several demands from minority and historically excluded groups, such as access to higher education or affirmative action policies in employment, find opposition in nominally meritocratic arguments.

Two important judicial elections silently advance: of five magistrates to the Constitutional Court and seven members of the National Discipline Commission. The first implies the modification of the Courts' majority, and with that, the possible renovation of jurisprudence. 

Many have criticized the government's decision to call a plebiscite on October 2nd. Popular ratification was not judicially necessary. Even some, like Montealegre or Ferrajoli, claim that it was judicially questionable. For these reasons, several, including the president, have suggested that eventually, a new accord should not be subject to a popular referendum. 

The support of many Christians to the peace process will depend on them abandoning their opposition to the accord based on what they have called "gender ideology." 

Despite the progress the international community has achieved in terms of tackling climate change, a great contradiction exists between what is stated in international accords and what happens in practice. This is particularly evident in the steady financing of fossil fuel infrastructure at the expense of people’s lives.

When Oscar Wilde entered prison to pay his sentence for sodomy, he stopped being the popular and witty poet of the end of the 19th century.

A peace accord that does not count with a broad social and political backing will be hard to implement in the practice, even if it finds judicially appropriate ways. 

If those who see themselves as spokespeople of the NO campaign developed their argument against the Havana accord because it "modified the Constitution", they must honor their words and not make regressive proposals on the Constitution they said to defend. But exactly the opposite is happening with their arguments regarding what was agreed in terms of land reform, under a supposed defense of private property.

After a month of observing and participating in joint meeings between the speakers of the NO and YES, Ihave two conclusions and two mixed feelings.