Civil Disobedience

Iván Cepeda did not recognize the election results on the day of the preliminary count, he then had to accept them reluctantly once the official tally was completed, and now he questions the legitimacy and legality of the outcome while calling for civil disobedience. Unfortunately, the drama surrounding the elections did not end with the final results. In an interview with María Jimena Duzán, former candidate Cepeda stated: “That man does not represent us. He is not our president. We refuse to obey his orders,” a statement that has further fueled the controversy over recognizing the new government. What is civil disobedience? Why does Cepeda consider the president illegitimate? Does what Iván Cepeda proposes make any sense?

As with many other issues, Cepeda is ambiguous when asked what his civil disobedience entails. It is difficult for the senator-elect to specify what the abstract concepts he employs actually mean in practice. Much like the famous “national grand agreement”, a euphemism he used for the constituent project promoted by some sectors of the left, Cepeda has been unable to explain what the civil disobedience he advocates would actually involve.

Does it mean that he will stop paying taxes because he does not recognize the government? Will he encourage protests every day until Abelardo’s term comes to an end? Will he ignore red traffic lights? It seems that not even Cepeda himself knows the real implications of his call for civil disobedience. What he has made clear, however, is that if Abelardo does not meet the conditions he considers necessary, he will not recognize him as president.

Cepeda argues that Abelardo De La Espriella’s American nationality would disqualify him from serving as president, and he calls on his supporters not to obey the orders of the president-elect. Although dual citizenship may raise legitimate concerns, it does not under any circumstances justify Cepeda’s call for civil disobedience.

The Constitution and the Constitutional Court are the only authorities that can establish the requirements for the presidency, and Abelardo’s dual citizenship is not a disqualifying factor. In democracies, losers cannot invent requirements and impose them on winners in order to determine who is a legitimate ruler. Legitimacy comes from popular majorities and the strength of institutions, not from conditions invented by the losing candidate.

Iván Cepeda’s actions are irresponsible and anti-democratic. Whether he likes it or not, Abelardo De La Espriella is his president. The senator-elect appears to confuse not feeling represented by Abelardo with refusing to recognize him as president. This sets a dangerous precedent, especially in a country as violent as Colombia.

Cepeda seeks to broaden the meaning of concepts and take refuge in semantic debates to avoid providing precise definitions. But in the real world, his rhetoric and his words pose a risk to Colombian democracy and generate fear among those who did not vote for him, as well as among many who did.