'President Petro needs to create enemies to blame for his inability to govern,' says Miguel Ángel Pinto.

Senator Miguel Ángel Pinto spoke with EL TIEMPO about the accusations leveled against him by the President, who on Thursday blamed him for the murder of a Pacto activist in Miranda, Cauca. He says the referendum is a campaign strategy and warns that the health reform will fail again if there is no fiscal support.

No, absolutely nothing has happened. I've never had any problems with President Gustavo Petro. On the contrary, despite his remarks a year ago, when the health care reform collapsed, I've always been respectful. The President appointed me as the leader of the decision-making Commission VII. I don't know what information he was given, but the commission is made up of members from all parties, and each person is autonomous, independent, and makes their own decisions. We agreed that these reforms were very poorly designed. The government never wanted to sit down with us to negotiate; it always wanted to impose. That's not how Congress works. I haven't convinced the congressmen with any kind of "tinto," as they say, but with legal and constitutional arguments and studies that we have conducted with the utmost seriousness.

What the President has proposed is absurd. The President needs to create enemies to blame for his own inability to govern . He doesn't have a single achievement to show the country. Of course, he's in a political campaign and has to find enemies to identify.

On Friday, he already tried, in a lesser tone, to say that he didn't say what he meant to say, that it was a consequence of what had happened. We're going to initiate legal action; we're going to sue him for slander and aggravated libel. The only person responsible for that death, as well as the person responsible for the deaths of all our uniformed personnel, more than 50 of whom, is him as the head of state in charge of security. This demonstrates the failure of 'total peace.' It's an absolute failure of the government's policies, and he is the only person responsible for those deaths. Additionally, we're going to sue him for the threat he made to the Senate, stating that "he will respond with death to all those who vote against the referendum."

He has placed a tombstone on the back of each of the senators of Commission VII, who have been vilely attacked by the President. This is a security issue that worries congressmen. But it is also a warning to journalists, judges, and magistrates. To anyone who dares to say no to the dictator Petro. The President wants powers that are subservient to his entourage; he is exercising the powers of a dictator. He has removed his mask and revealed his true colors.

There has been a debate. More than eight public hearings were held across the country on labor reform. Three technical roundtables were held on labor reform. The government was conspicuously absent from the entire debate. They refused to participate. And they arrive on the day of the debate on the report, where the debate and voting will take place, to say there was never a debate, even though we held public hearings. Today we are debating health reform 2.0. We've already completed half of the scheduled hearings, two technical roundtables, and one more to go. That's part of the debate. The government isn't even present; they want to impose a text. Those in the government are not democrats; they don't want to debate or discuss. They only want a statutory Congress. Some are brought to their knees by buying votes, and those who don't sell out are threatened with death if they vote no to the referendum.

It's the opposite. That reform was introduced by the Liberal Party's caucus in the Senate at the beginning of the legislative session. The Conservative Party introduced one in the House of Representatives, where it was shelved. The Historic Pact never allowed debate on the reforms we presented, which recognized workers' rights. There's one from the Green Alliance, where I gave a positive report. But they never allowed debate on those bills. Why? Because they wanted to include it in the government's bill to turn it into a banner, to use workers as an electoral tool. They've never been interested in the workers of Colombia. If they were, we would have approved the reform we introduced two years ago. Now that theirs is failing, the initials of the Liberal Party are reappearing. I just gave another positive report, but the government doesn't want it approved. It wants to go to a referendum because it needs to use the workers' banner for electoral purposes.

They were working on this task beforehand. The government introduced an unconstitutional labor reform, fraught with procedural flaws and using statutory laws. An ordinary law amending the Constitution had never been seen before in Colombia's history. They introduced it with the sole purpose of having Congress overturn it, shelve it. And if Congress, with its majority subservient, approved it, they would have the Supreme Court overturn it, and then they could claim that the Supreme Court was the one in which they were carrying out their coup. They had it planned.

Openly. They're campaigning; they needed the referendum; they were looking for an excuse. That's why they're filing poorly drafted bills to give them the excuse to hold the referendum and force us into an early campaign. While they're playing politics, destroying all institutions, ignoring the Courts and Congress, destroying the health of Colombians, and failing to fulfill all their campaign promises, we're building and legislating.

We believed the government was endorsing this parliamentary initiative, recognizing workers' labor rights, when it sent its message of urgency and insistence. We believed it had their support and that the governing bloc would support it. But after Thursday's intervention, where he said he didn't care, that he was interested in the referendum, that he was going just because he was going, it means he has no interest in this project, which is currently being discussed in Committee VII. It seems he only wants the referendum. I regret that more than a trillion pesos of public funds are being spent on a government political campaign, when that trillion pesos could easily solve the problem of medicines and healthcare. They are prioritizing the campaign over what's happening with healthcare. Look, this message of insistence forces Committee VII, which is currently debating healthcare reform, to halt that debate in order to prioritize the issue of labor rights. Until we vote on the labor law, we cannot continue with the hearings and the debate on health care.

Well, if the National Government doesn't tell us, as it has never wanted to tell us, how much the health reform costs, what the sources of funding are, what will happen to the UPC and its adjustments, and if it isn't open to making the necessary modifications to this project, which is as poorly designed as the original, I have always said there will be no other option but to shelve it.

The government has made its calculations. It's going to run a political campaign with this. I think they've already calculated that it will be a total failure. The questions are very poorly designed, very ambiguous, they say nothing, and they lead nowhere because, among other things, if they get the votes, they'll have to return the bills to Congress in the direction they're oriented. There's no text that can be considered a popular mandate. The government has measured this; I don't think they have the votes, I don't think it's enough, and that's why they gave the message of insistence on the mini-reform that's in Commission VII to withdraw from the consultation. They're measuring their political strength.

They want the Senate to sink it. They want to take over Congress, shut it down, find enemies to claim they haven't let the President govern, so he can play the victim and claim he couldn't do anything because Congress hasn't wanted to support him. They want to blame everyone for their ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and inability to govern.

A group of congressmen and Liberal leaders have been proposing that I participate in an internal referendum and then move on to an interparty referendum. I've expressed that we have a very complicated and tight legislative agenda. We're going to focus on legislating between now and June, when the term ends. After that, we'll make political decisions; we're not even campaigning yet. But I'm thinking about it.