COLOMBIA and the world was stunned when the NO vote won the referendum on the peace agreements on October 2, 2016. The referendum was held to vote YES or NO on the historic Final Agreement for the Termination of the Armed Conflict and the Construction of a Stable and Lasting Peace that was signed between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People's Army (FARC-EP) and the government of Colombia on August 24, 2016.

This Agreement was widely hailed as one of the defining peace agreements of the new century that brings curtains on one of the longest armed guerrilla actions in Latin America. It was to end a 52-year old armed conflict, which left more than 2,20,000 dead and displaced millions more from their homes. Socialist Cuba played an important role in bringing both the signing parties to the negotiating tables and the discussions lasted for more than five years. Fittingly it is Cuba, along with Norway, which stood as one of the two guarantor countries to the agreement, as Havana hosted the final signing ceremony of the agreement.

All appeared sailing well until the results of the referendum came out. Everybody expected the results of the referendum to be a foregone conclusion – a victory for the YES to the peace agreement. So, the actual results were shocking. Contrary to all popular expectations, it was a victory for the NO campaign, albeit with a narrow margin. Media reported that even the NO campaigners themselves were surprised with the result!

The victory of the NO campaign sent shock waves not only in Colombia, but also throughout Latin America. It was projected as yet another setback to the Left and progressive forces, signifying once again the resurgence of the right-wing in the continent. Many were worried about what would happen to the hard negotiated peace agreement – whether the ceasefire would still stand or hostilities between both the parties will restart.

Immediately after the referendum, the delegations of the National government of Colombia and the FARC-EP, after meeting in Havana with the guarantor countries and the Head of the Special Mission of the United Nations in Colombia, had issued a joint communique on October 7, 2016. In that joint communique, they reiterated their commitment to the Final Agreement and lasting peace, bringing relief to millions of Colombians yearning for peace. Noting the result, they stated: “We recognise however that the majority of those who participated in the Plebiscite of October 2 voted against, albeit with a narrow margin...The proposals for adjustments and clarifications resulting from this process will be discussed between the National Government and the FARC-EP”. This communique had given hope that the peace agreement is going to stand.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE REFERENDUM?

In the Referendum, the 'NO' to the Peace Agreement won by a narrow margin of 56,000 votes out of the 1.25 crore votes cast. A whopping 63 percent people absented from voting, not many due to political reasons. For instance, nearly 4 million people could not vote due to hurricane Mathew, which was passing by the Colombian Caribbean region on the day of the vote. Many of the opinion polls conducted prior to the referendum day indicated that they would have overwhelmingly voted yes, had they ventured out to vote. Much of rural population in Colombia lack proper documentation, preventing them from voting any time, which is another reason for the low voting percentage. These rural people constituted yet another substantial section, who were keen on peace and would have voted YES.

An analysis of the referendum result done by Colombian psephologists shows that all those regions that were in the conflict zones voted YES for the peace agreement, while those that were not affected and were having ties with the illegal narco trade and mafia voted NO. The poorest, rural, Afro-descendent, indigenous regions voted YES to the peace agreements, while the elite dominated regions voted NO.

WHO CAMPAIGNED FOR NO AND WHY?

The NO campaign was led by the elite in the country, particularly the land owners. In Colombia, 53 percent of the exploitable land is in the hands of 2,300 people. The Peace Agreement states that landless and poor peasants of the country will be handed over 10 million hectares of secure land holding rights. Of course, most of the land that is going to be handed over to the poor and landless is not going to be seized from the landlords. It is either the land that is lying fallow due to the virtue of being in the conflict region for such a long period of time or for some other reasons. In other words, there is nothing in the agreement to say that private land is going to be seized and handed to the poor. Even within these limitations this is indeed a major announcement that is going to benefit landless and the poor. The elite did not want the poor to benefit. They intended to grab the land that will now become available all for themselves. This is one of the reasons why they had opposed the peace agreement.

The peace agreement also contains another provision about diverting the hitherto war related expenditure on social development and welfare of the country. It was calculated that around 7 to 8 million dollars of daily spending of war-related expenditure can now be made available for spending on developing health, education and other social welfare infrastructure urgently necessary for the country people. The elites are extremely unhappy with these proposals. They not only want the State to keep away from investing in social welfare, but instead want it to divert these resources to help augment private capital's capacity to increase its predatory profit earning drives.

The leader of the NO campaign was Alvaro Uribe, the right-wing former president of Colombia. He had led the most vicious campaign propagating lies of Goebbelisian proportions. A victory of the YES campaign, for example was stated as leading to the establishment of 'castro chavista' political regime, where 'individual liberties will be restricted' and 'taxes would increase'.

The security/military industrial complex in Colombia flourished till date as the armed conflict continued. Now that the peace agreement is signed, they are apprehensive about the future of their industry – the industry of private armed munitions – and the profits it generates. Their opposition to the peace agreement is yet another example of a reflection of the naked greed for profits that a capitalist thrives for, even at the cost of peace and human lives.

In the name of armed conflict, the ruling classes had physically eliminated many working class, peasant leaders who were not even connected with the armed groups. Through these methods, they tried to terrorise people and keep them away from class and mass movements. As we had already noticed, Colombia is a country with highest land concentration in the hands of few individuals. Similar economic and social tensions are waiting to erupt under the brims of the Colombian society. The end of armed conflicts, they fear, will open up the possibilities of the growth of social movements and struggles that were witnessed in other countries in Latin America.

Another important feature in the peace agreement that had riled the elite is a provision that states 'members of political and economic groups that have never worn a uniform or walked on the mud in a trench, but have intervened and/or used the war as a political or economic advantage', along with 'all participants in the conflict, combatants and non-combatants – members of political groups, economic groups, agents of foreign governments, and others – will have to appear to account for their responsibilities, if they have them, before the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). They argue that armed combatants are shown leniency, which they should not.

The divisions in the ruling classes are also reflected in the YES and NO campaigns. Both Uribe and Santos represent the political interests of the ruling classes, but took diametrically opposite positions on the referendum question. Santos represents that section of the national bourgeoisie who wants to showcase peace to attract foreign capital for their ‘model of capitalist development’. The opposite side also wants to exploit the national resources, but first all by themselves, before thinking about foreign capital. As the question does not adversely affect their hold on State power, they fought it out in the referendum vote.

It becomes clear from all the above discussion that the peace agreement is more than about ending armed conflict in the country. It is also about the rights of the landless, peasants, other marginalised sections in the society and sharing of resources. Moreover, one of the defining features of this peace agreement is: this is for the first time anywhere in the world that a peace agreement talks about a 'gender commission', where all the agreements are reviewed from the perspective of the rights of women and people of diverse sexual orientations. It is precisely because of these reasons that the ruling classes see the peace agreement as a threat to their hold over the socio-economic system in Colombia and thus want to derail it.

WHAT NOW?

Though stung by the victory of the NO in the referendum, Colombia witnessed huge rallies for peace in the immediate aftermath. Hundreds of thousands of citizens in almost all the major cities of Colombia spontaneously took to the cities to express their support to the peace process. Eminent cultural, sports, literary icons and who's who of the Colombian society joined the people. This widespread popular support once again demonstrated the strong urge for peace among the people. It needs to be remembered here that even the NO campaigners never were against peace per se, put only against certain conditions in the peace agreement (what they were, was discussed above).

Santos, president of Colombia had already started the process of discussing with the NO campaigners. He had a round of discussion with Uribe, his predecessor, on their demands and what needs to be done. Similar discussions are going on with the representatives of the FARC in Havana. Another heartening development is that the government will formally start peace talks with the country’s second largest guerrilla army, the National Liberation Army (ELN) in Quito, Ecuador from October 27. The basis of these talks will be the peace agreement signed with the FARC.

Enrique Santiago, legal advisor to FARC, states that the result of the referendum is not binding on the president as it is more of a 'political value' than of any 'legal value'. He argues that the Colombian Constitutional Court ruled last July on the law calling the referendum stating that the result will have 'no legal effect with respect to the Peace Agreement'. Moreover, according to him, as it was signed under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, it has proper legal force under international law as a Special Agreement and is mandatory for implementation.

On the other hand, Alvaro Leyva, who has advised various governments in Colombia on peace processes, states that the ruling by the Constitutional Court that originally facilitated the plebiscite 'also granted President Juan Manuel Santos room to call another vote'.

Then, there were reports that President Santos, had announced during a televised address: “the ceasefire with the FARC only runs until October 31”, to which FARC Commander Jimenez asked: “And after that, the war continues”? This exchange had taken place on October 4. Immediately after the exchange, FARC asked people to mobilise for peace and the call received huge popular response. It is this popular pressure that got reflected in the joint communique that both the government and the FARC issued on October 7. This pressure is all the more necessary to ensure implementation of the agreement.

FARC used the opportunity, when President Santos was awarded Nobel Peace Prize to congratulate him stating it was 'a recognition for the Peace Agreement built during six years of hard work' and was also 'for the Colombian people'. FARC also expressed the hope that this award will help 'strengthen peace that all desire'.

The signing of the peace agreement is a victory for the Left in Colombia and for all the progressive forces in the continent. However, the defeat in the referendum serves as another warning – the Left should never be lethargic or caught off-guard.

Always on vigil!