The recent decision of Colombian insurers, through the Federation of Colombian Insurers, Fasecolda, which is the entity that brings them together, to deny insurance to the vehicles involved in the blockades during the trucker strike at the beginning of August raises a complex debate that It transcends economic spheres and reaches the heart of the relationship between the State and companies.
On the one hand, it is understandable that insurers seek to protect their interests. By denying coverage to vehicles used in illegal activities, such as blocking public roads, companies hide behind mitigating risks and complying with their legal obligations.
This measure could dissuade future drivers from participating in similar actions, or become a tool of terror to maintain public order and inhibit the freedom to protest.
However, it is essential to analyze the possible adverse consequences of this decision. By denying insurance to an entire sector, a situation of vulnerability is created that could affect numerous transporters who did not directly participate in the blockades, but who now find themselves in a precarious situation.
For the moment and in order not to generate a greater crisis in land transport, it is necessary to find a balance between the need to protect the interests of insurers and guarantee the rights of transporters.
Authorities must carefully evaluate the implications of this decision and explore alternatives that allow those responsible for the blockades to be punished without affecting those who did not participate.
Of course, saying that the transporters that did not participate in the strike blockades will be affected is a somewhat desperate solution because, as is well known, the license plates of the vehicles involved in the blockades are meticulously recorded. by people who enter the protest and do so under high government orders. That has happened before and it happens now.
A possible solution could be the implementation of more precise mechanisms to identify vehicles involved in protests, such as the use of security cameras and tracking systems.
Ultimately, this case reminds us of the importance of finding fair and equitable solutions to social conflicts. It is essential to promote dialogue and negotiation between the parties, as a whole.
The insurers’ decision poses a dilemma that requires deep reflection on the role of the State, companies and citizens in building a more just and equitable country.
We must seek solutions that not only protect individual interests, but also promote the common good. Ultimately, the insurance companies’ decision raises profound questions about civil liability, labor rights, fair fuel prices and the search for equitable solutions in a sector that faces enormous challenges every day.
