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.

The creativity evidenced by drug traders and consumers reminds us that prohibition got it all wrong by making “a drug-free world” its main objective. 

Several buses of people wearing weekend clothes stopped in the highway at the entrance of San Basilio de Palenque.

Democracy demands that we accept the results of ballot boxes, even when we don't agree with them.

Visiting the San Francisco de Asís hospital in Quibdó is enough to understand why the tax reform is right to include taxes destined to public health.

The homophobic mobilization wants to use the changes in the peace accord to eliminate any mention of the LGBTI population in the text and to introduce judicial elements that reduce the equality in rights that we have won in democracy. 

-