Colombia THE GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM
Constitutional Development
Since declaring its independence from Spain in 1810,
Colombia
has had ten constitutions, the last of which--adopted in
1886--
established the present-day unitary republic. These
constitutions
addressed three important issues: the division of powers,
the
strength of the chief executive, and the role of the Roman
Catholic
Church. The issue of a strong central government versus a
decentralized federal system was especially important in
the
nation's constitutional development. The unitary
constitutions of
1821 and 1830--inspired by President Simón Bolívar
Palacio--gave
considerable power to the central government at the
expense of the
departmental governments
(see Gran Colombia
, ch. 1).
Between these
Bolivarian constitutions and the 1886 version, however,
three
additional federal constitutions granted significant
powers to
administrative subdivisions known as departments
(departamentos) and provided for the election of
departmental assemblies
(see Consolidation of Political Divisions
, ch. 1).
In settling the federal-unitary debate, the 1886
Constitution
specifies that sovereignty resides in the nation, which
provides
guarantees of civil liberties. These include freedoms of
religion,
speech, assembly, press, and education, as well as the
rights to
strike, petition the government, and own property within
limits
imposed by the common welfare. (The 1853 constitution
already had
abolished slavery, instituted trial by jury, and enlarged
the
franchise to include all male citizens over the age of
twenty-one.)
The Constitution, by noting that labor is a social
obligation--
protected by the state--guarantees the right to strike,
except in
the public service. The Constitution, as amended, also
gives all
citizens a legal right to vote if they are at least
eighteen years
old, have a citizenship card, and are registered to vote.
The
Constitution prohibits members of the armed forces on
active duty,
members of the National Police, and individuals legally
deprived of
their political rights from participating in any political
activities, including voting. Individuals holding
administrative
positions in the government also are barred from political
activities, although they can vote.
A second constitutional issue has been the strength of
the
chief executive's office, especially the presidential use
of
emergency powers to deal with civil disorders. The 1821
constitution authorized the president to appoint all
governmental
officials at both the national and the local levels. The
1830
constitution further strengthened executive powers by
creating the
Public Ministry, which enabled the president to supervise
judicial
affairs. The 1832 and 1840 constitutions allowed the
president to
assume additional powers during a national emergency. The
federal
constitutions of 1853 and 1863, however, limited
presidential
control by granting many powers to the territorial
departments, by
allowing offices to be filled by election rather than
appointment,
and by depriving the president of authority to assume
additional
emergency powers. The 1886 Constitution establishes three
branches
of government--the executive, legislature, and
judiciary--with
separation of powers and checks and balances. Nonetheless,
policy-
making authority rests almost exclusively with the
executive branch
of government, specifically with a president who is both
with chief
executive and head of state.
The 1886 Constitution restored strong executive powers
primarily through the president's ability to invoke a
state of
siege under Article 121 and a state of emergency
(estatuto de
emergencia) under Article 122. The president may
declare a
state of siege for all or part of the republic in the
event of
foreign war or domestic disturbance. Such a declaration,
however,
requires the signatures of all of the government's
thirteen
ministers. A 1961 constitutional amendment also requires
that
Congress remain in permanent session during a state of
siege,
although it may not contravene the president's decrees.
Under a
state of siege, a president may issue decrees having the
same force
as legislation and may suspend laws incompatible with
maintaining
public order or waging war.
The relationship of the Roman Catholic Church to the
state was
a third constitutional issue. The 1832 and 1840
constitutions had
affirmed the extraordinary position of the Roman Catholic
Church.
In contrast, the 1853 and 1863 constitutions, which
guaranteed
religious freedom and prohibited religious bodies from
owning real
estate, abolished the church's privileged status. The 1886
Constitution, as amended, guarantees freedom of religion
and
conscience but affords the Catholic faith preferential
treatment.
Article 53 authorizes the government to conclude
agreements with
the Holy See regulating functions between the state and
the Roman
Catholic Church on the "bases of reciprocal deference and
mutual
respect." The preamble to the amendments adopted by a
national
plebiscite in 1957 also notes the privileged position of
the Roman
Catholic Church, stating that the "Roman, Catholic and
Apostolic
Religion is that of the nation" and as such is to be
"protected"
and "respected" by the public powers of the state.
Nevertheless,
Article 54 of the Constitution prohibits Catholic priests
from
holding public office in areas other than education or
charity.
The Constitution has undergone extensive and frequent
amendments, the most significant of which included
legislative acts
in 1910, 1936, 1945, 1959, and 1968; a national plebiscite
and
legislative decrees in 1957; and economic reform in 1979
(see Role of the Government in the Economy
, ch. 3). The amendment
process was
relatively simple, which may explain why it was used so
extensively. Congress initially passed an amendment by
adopting an
act in two consecutive sessions, the first time by simple
majority
and the second by a two-thirds majority. The 1936
amendment
requires a majority of those present and voting in the
first
session of the bicameral Congress and a majority of the
total
membership of both houses in the second session.
Amendments adopted in December 1968 reaffirm a
president's
ability to declare a state of emergency and allow the
executive to
intervene selectively in specific areas of the economy to
prevent
crises or facilitate development plans. A president must
obtain the
consent of the ministers before making such a declaration
and
specify, in advance, a time period not to exceed ninety
days. It
may be called only to deal with a specific economic or
social
crisis, during which the president is limited to issuing
decrees
dealing with the problem named in the announcement of the
state of
emergency. The president may also use these emergency
measures to
raise revenue, adopt short-term economic plans, or
override any of
the semiautonomous government agencies involved in the
crisis.
The most important constitutional amendments resulted
from the
Sitges Agreement and the subsequent San Carlos Agreement,
drawn up
by Liberal and Conservative leaders together at meetings
in 1957
(see The Rojas Pinilla Dictatorship
, ch. 1). These
amendments were
designed to impose bipartisan, noncompetitive rule for a
sixteen-
year period lasting until 1974. In May 1957, the two rival
parties
had united in the National Front coalition, which was
envisioned as
a bipartisan way to end la violencia and
dictatorial rule.
With the backing of the military, the National Front
displaced the
repressive regime of General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (June
1953-May
1957). Although the military continued in power for a
one-year
transition period, the constitutional framework for a new
governing
system was institutionalized when the Colombian people
overwhelmingly ratified the Sitges and San Carlos
agreements in a
national plebiscite in December 1957. The two parties
governed
jointly under the bipartisan National Front system from
1958 until
1974
(see The National Front, 1958-74
, ch. 1).
The 1957 amendments essentially changed the nature of
the
government from a competitive system characterized by
intense party
loyalties and political violence to a coalition government
in which
the two major parties shared power. The first three
National Front
presidents succeeded in keeping the peace between the
parties and
in committing the country to far-reaching social and
economic
reforms. By the mid-1960s, la violencia had been
reduced
largely to banditry and an incipient guerrilla movement.
In
addition to ending la violencia, the National Front
provided
security and stability for the governmental system. The
old
patterns of blind partisanship and interparty hostilities
declined
markedly and were replaced with dialogue among leaders of
the two
parties.
Under the 1957 amendments, the National Front mandated
three
principles of government. First, it alternated the
presidency
between the two parties in regular elections held every
four years
(alternación). Second, it provided for parity
(paridad) in elective and appointive positions at
all levels
of government, including cabinet and Supreme Court (Corte
Suprema)
positions not falling under the civil service, as well as
the
election of equal numbers of party members to local,
departmental,
and national assemblies. And third, it required that all
legislation be passed by a two-thirds majority in
Congress. The
1957 amendments also give women the same political rights
as men,
including the right to vote.
The 1968 constitutional reforms provided for a
carefully
measured transition from the National Front to traditional
two-
party competition. They also provided some measure of
recognition
for minority parties that previously were prohibited from
participating in the government. The 1968 amendments
additionally
allowed for the "dismantling" (desmonte) of the
National
Front coalition arrangement by increasing executive powers
in
economic, social, and development matters.
The constitutional changes, particularly the abolition
of the
two-thirds majority requirement in both houses of Congress
for the
passage of major legislation, also affected the powers of
Congress
and its relationship with the president. Henceforth, the
executive
could more easily attain adoption of its legislative
programs,
although Congress could approve, delay, or veto an
executive branch
initiative. Other congressional changes included the
creation of a
special committee to deal with economic and social
development
plans; the extension of a representative's term from two
to four
years; and the adoption of amendments dealing with matters
such as
the length of sessions, meeting times, and the size of
quorums. The
1968 reforms also ended, beginning in 1970, the parity
requirement
for legislative seats at the municipal and departmental
levels.
Although the Sitges and San Carlos agreements'
provisions for
alternating the presidency and maintaining party parity in
Congress
ended in 1974 when both parties ran candidates for the
presidency,
parity in the bureaucracy continued for another four
years.
Beginning in 1978, presidents could select their cabinets
and
appoint other officials without consideration for party
parity.
Nevertheless, cabinet positions continued to be divided on
the
basis of Article 120 of the Constitution, which requires
the
president to give "adequate and equitable representation"
in
governmental positions to the major party not controlling
the
presidency. Liberal president Julio César Turbay Ayala,
who took
office in 1978, and Conservative president Belisario
Betancur
Cuartas--elected in 1982--both gave half of their cabinet
positions
to rival party members. Although the practice ended after
President
Virgilio Barco Vargas assumed office in August 1986,
another
president could decide to revive it.
The 1968 amendments led to other important changes in
the
governmental system, such as widening the scope of
governmental
authority, particularly in the area of the economy. The
revised
Article 32 guarantees free enterprise and private
initiative but
puts the state "in charge of the general direction of the
economy."
This amendment allows the government to intervene in the
production, distribution, utilization, and consumption of
goods and
services in a manner responsive to economic planning for
integral
development. It also authorizes the government to promote
development and organize the economy, including
controlling wages
and salaries in both the public and the private sectors.
In 1988 the provisions of the 1886 Constitution, as
amended,
still governed Colombia. That February, however, President
Barco
responded to a wave of attacks by drug traffickers and
guerrillas
by launching an effort to rewrite the Constitution and
make it a
more effective weapon in the fight against violence. He
also wanted
to streamline the state to permit authorities to better
deal with
political and drug-related crimes. The leaders of various
political
parties and factions signed a political agreement, called
the
Nariño House Accord (Acuerdo Casa de Nariño), that
signaled a
consensus on the need to hold a national plebiscite on
October 9,
1988, on the institutional reforms proposed by Barco. In
announcing
the agreement, Barco singled out as major problems the
eroded faith
in judges, the decreased credibility of Congress, and
people's loss
of hope about public administration. A national plebiscite
had not
been held in Colombia since 1957, when a constitutional
provision
banned referenda as a means of reforming the Constitution
on major
social, political, and economic issues.
Municipal elections held in March 1988 determined the
party
composition of a fifty-member panel, called the
Institutional
Readjustment Commission, whose purpose was to ask voters
to approve
constitutional changes in the planned October plebiscite.
The
Nariño House Accord was suspended in April 1988, however,
as a
result of a decision by the Council of State (Consejo de
Estado)--
the highest court on constitutional and administrative
matters--
that the holding of a plebiscite would have raised a
constitutional
problem. According to the ruling, only Congress may revise
the
Constitution (a procedure that takes two years).
Data as of December 1988
|