Once a government is established it takes on the role of protecting and serving a society in a fair and just form. While there are multiple stands a government can take, the most well known is a democracy. It entitles the people to voice their opinions and be a part of the bigger picture. In most Latin American countries democracy is evident, even in countries that were once under other rule. Throughout the transition to a democracy many occurrences take place that will later shape the nations view on what is right and wrong. In both Chile and Argentina a transitions occurred to a democracy, but in two different ways; one, a ruptured transition and the other pacted. Both countries face the issue of truth and accountability in society; an issue
…show more content…
Similarly in Chile, Pinochet remained powerful “in the same parliament he had suppressed years before” (Collins 76) due to the immunity he enacted in his constitution with the regime. This allowed his influence to stain the new Chilean government, dragging on his rule. If the Colombian government allows FARC members to hold official positions in office it will lead to an experience similar to that of Pinochet. For that reason, the Argentinian pursuit of removing all past members of government before the establishment of a democracy is ideal. That is to say that the section allowing members of the FARC to possibly take roles in the Colombian government must be eradicated. While mistakes are sometimes made, and forgiveness is essential, the extent to which these crimes were committed leaves no room for amnesty. The extreme flaw of allowing amnesty for some crimes labeled political vs. core enables the exploitation of a broad spectrum of offenses. This needs to be changed in order for true justice to be served and or the beginning of any sort of reconciliation amongst Colombian’s. Taking from Argentina’s experience with truth …show more content…
The importance of truth commissions and the far reaching impact on justice and accountability are astounding in Argentina. The power within the Argentinian people “helped innovate the two main accountability mechanisms… truth commissions and high-level human rights trials,” (Sikkink 23) enabling them to have the voice they needed for due justice. The establishment of a truth commission in Colombia would elevate the power of the people beyond the referendum. Since the referendum is an afterthought it only leaves the people with two choices, for or against peace with the FARC. First, the government should have listened to the opinions of its people and negotiated with them before reaching out to the FARC. Second, they leave the people with no say except for peace or no peace. This is immensely problematic as they have little choice or say in the matter. What options do the people have besides choosing peace even though it will stain their society forever. If they choose to vote in opposition they are only creating a more dangerous and untamed society. This limits the voice of the people to a mere word and there is little they can do about it; however, the people can follow in the footsteps of some Argentinian leaders and start organizations that not only give a broader voice to the people, but allow them to
Similarly in Chile, Pinochet remained powerful “in the same parliament he had suppressed years before” (Collins 76) due to the immunity he enacted in his constitution with the regime. This allowed his influence to stain the new Chilean government, dragging on his rule. If the Colombian government allows FARC members to hold official positions in office it will lead to an experience similar to that of Pinochet. For that reason, the Argentinian pursuit of removing all past members of government before the establishment of a democracy is ideal. That is to say that the section allowing members of the FARC to possibly take roles in the Colombian government must be eradicated. While mistakes are sometimes made, and forgiveness is essential, the extent to which these crimes were committed leaves no room for amnesty. The extreme flaw of allowing amnesty for some crimes labeled political vs. core enables the exploitation of a broad spectrum of offenses. This needs to be changed in order for true justice to be served and or the beginning of any sort of reconciliation amongst Colombian’s. Taking from Argentina’s experience with truth …show more content…
The importance of truth commissions and the far reaching impact on justice and accountability are astounding in Argentina. The power within the Argentinian people “helped innovate the two main accountability mechanisms… truth commissions and high-level human rights trials,” (Sikkink 23) enabling them to have the voice they needed for due justice. The establishment of a truth commission in Colombia would elevate the power of the people beyond the referendum. Since the referendum is an afterthought it only leaves the people with two choices, for or against peace with the FARC. First, the government should have listened to the opinions of its people and negotiated with them before reaching out to the FARC. Second, they leave the people with no say except for peace or no peace. This is immensely problematic as they have little choice or say in the matter. What options do the people have besides choosing peace even though it will stain their society forever. If they choose to vote in opposition they are only creating a more dangerous and untamed society. This limits the voice of the people to a mere word and there is little they can do about it; however, the people can follow in the footsteps of some Argentinian leaders and start organizations that not only give a broader voice to the people, but allow them to