Lunch this Sunday with our selection of opinion columns

A new set of op-ed columns has been published this Sunday, offering critical perspectives on recent developments in Colombian politics and economic policy. Among them is a detailed analysis of former governor Elsa Noguera’s tenure, which highlights concerns over her effectiveness and the broader implications of the so-called “modelo Char,” a political model that uses state resources to benefit an elite group. Another piece questions the legality and transparency behind the appointment of a managing director for Bogotá, raising doubts about whether constitutional requirements have been met. A third column explores how language policies can reinforce social exclusion, arguing that the state's role in shaping public discourse risks marginalizing vulnerable groups. Finally, an assessment of economic performance notes short-term gains but warns of long-term sustainability issues. The column titled “El ‘libro blanco’ de Elsa Noguera,” authored by Laura Ardila, examines the legacy of Noguera’s time in office, from 2020 to 2023. It suggests that while she may have been effective in advancing projects aligned with the interests of her political allies, her governance did not necessarily serve the public interest. Instead, it points to a pattern where state power is leveraged to support private initiatives, often benefiting a small, closed-off group. This approach, referred to as “modelo Char,” is described as a system where the government acts more as a facilitator for business than as a public servant. José Gregorio Hernández contributes an article questioning the legitimacy of the newly appointed manager for Bogotá. He raises several legal and administrative concerns, including the lack of clear legal basis for the position, its classification as either national or local employment, and whether the necessary financial commitments were included in the budget. Article 122 of the Constitution requires that all public positions have clearly defined functions and be funded through appropriate budgets. Hernández challenges whether these conditions have been fulfilled, suggesting that the move could represent a breach of established norms. Marta Orrantia’s piece, “Diccionario de exclusiones,” argues that the issue extends beyond mere linguistic changes or policy adjustments. She contends that the broader project aims to redefine public space in ways that limit diversity and impose a singular vision of values. According to Orrantia, when the state fails to recognize certain identities or treats culture as a commodity, it risks fostering intolerance and violence. Her critique emphasizes that such actions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society, who are left without adequate protection or representation. Carlos Enrique Cavelier analyzes the economic situation, focusing on the speech delivered by Leonardo Villar during the Asobancaia conference. While Villar acknowledges short-term improvements, such as historically low unemployment rates and above-average GDP growth, he warns against complacency. He highlights the unsustainable nature of current economic practices, noting that excessive internal demand driven by uncontrolled spending leads to inflation and undermines export competitiveness. Villar provides specific figures showing a sharp rise in wages for less-skilled workers, which he argues makes it increasingly difficult for industries to remain competitive globally. These diverse viewpoints reflect ongoing debates within Colombia’s political and academic circles. They underscore the complexity of contemporary governance, where economic performance, institutional integrity, and social equity intersect. As discussions continue, the focus will likely shift toward addressing the underlying structural challenges that shape both policy and practice.