That day coincided with October 5th, my wife’s birthday, so she didn’t have a celebration. Instead, she felt more melancholic. That’s what I remember. In the afternoon, a group of people gathered at my house for what was going to happen. Although I had participated in the Yes campaign and had personally traveled to some places in the country campaigning for the Yes side, we didn’t expect the result that occurred. However, I had some friends, people I associated with, who were more skeptical, but I was one of the optimists. Maybe because I had been in the provinces, where there was an atmosphere that was more, more favorable. On the other hand, we saw the result of the No side as something truly catastrophic: a return to socialism and civil war, more or less. But that was the expectation. So, it wasn’t a joyful night. We didn’t see happiness coming from any perspective, but quite the opposite. Apart from that, it was a tense afternoon because the results weren’t clear. As we saw them being delayed, at first we thought they were waiting for better results coming from the regions. Then we realized that the results weren’t as good and that, well, we were losing. It was possible because the plebiscite was a plebiscite that could be won or lost. That’s how it had been programmed eight years earlier. So, well, what was to come was already planned, and it wasn’t something that would derail from an institutional point of view. There were suspicions that the intentions of the left were worse than they ended up being. And in fact, I believe they were and were moderated by the pressure from the United States and other factors. But it was a complicated day.
However, the next day, I went out into the streets, I went downtown. And I realized that for many people, it was the opposite, they were celebrating. So, I said, well, indeed, there were people who felt oppressed and were not happy with what was happening. Now, why did the No side win and the Yes side lose? We will never know exactly because in a plebiscite of this kind, where two or three percentage points make a difference, it’s difficult to determine. But my opinion is that it was mainly due to a certain change in the rules of the game regarding communications and advertising. Although political parties were already allowed and there was a plural press, opposition press, and opposition media. What the opposition did not have access to was television campaigns, and television was very powerful. It was the means of communication. They were not the media we have today, but compared to radio or newspapers, television was very strong. So, apart from the quality, which has been widely discussed, the Yes campaign was a repetition of the campaign that the government had always had for 16 years, while the No campaign was new. Besides possibly being better, a new element emerged. The opposition burst onto the television screens, jumping from the streets’ newspapers to television. So, it was a phenomenon that could have turned the result around. I believe that indeed, the results a month before the plebiscite could have been even closer, even in favor of the Yes side. If they hadn’t allowed, for example, the plebiscite for the Constitution, which did not provide access for those against the Constitution to have a television slot, and that’s why the result was much better. If it had been like that, the Yes side would have won without a doubt, but its legitimacy would have been debated.
Contrary to what is said today, within the same government, there was an atmosphere and even pressure from certain groups to ensure the highest level of normality and transparency. In other words, what was wanted was an unquestionable outcome, trusting that the Yes side would win, probably, but they said, “Let’s win, but let’s win in a completely fair game, in front of international observers that cannot question the legitimacy and that it be a democratic process.” Then the democratic establishment would follow, the National Congress had to choose, regardless of how the first president was elected.
So, I believe there was an effort, perhaps overly confident, to do things in an absolutely transparent manner to provide legitimacy. If the risk had been known, maybe the temptation would have been not less transparency but more security in time. But this change, the novelty, generated enthusiasm, combined with the joy and the approach of the campaign. It wasn’t destructive, it didn’t result in a threatening or attacking situation. And it was new. I think that produced the change in people’s mood and a 4 percent of people who turned around, and that was enough for the No side to win. And that’s how history is created, often by small details. That was October 5th.