The recent elections in Colombia and Peru offer important warning signs for democracies across Latin America. Although each country experienced its own political dynamics, both became arenas where tensions common to much of the region’s democracies were on full display. These elections unfolded amid high levels of political polarization, fragmented party systems, and the growing prominence of populist and anti-establishment leaders. They were also shaped by disinformation campaigns and by the spread of electoral fraud narratives aimed at undermining confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.
In Colombia, an intensely polarized political environment led two ideologically opposed political projects to capture most voter support, producing the closest presidential election in the country’s history. With a record 63.5% voter turnout in the runoff, less than one percentage point separated President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella from his challenger, Iván Cepeda. According to the electoral observation missions of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the European Union, the elections were administered efficiently and transparently, with a vote-counting system that produced preliminary results quickly and reliably.
Despite these institutional strengths, however, both the electoral authorities and the technical administration of the election came under extraordinary pressure from political actors and the broader information environment, particularly on digital platforms. Fraud allegations—amplified by political polarization and the widespread circulation of misleading content—sought to cast doubt on electoral procedures, the impartiality of public institutions, and the credibility of the results.
Peru presents a revealing contrast. Like Colombia, its presidential runoff produced an exceptionally narrow outcome: only 0.27 percentage points separated the winner, Keiko Fujimori, from Roberto Sánchez. Yet Peru’s election unfolded in a very different political context. With 35 candidates competing in the first round, political fragmentation and protest voting dominated amid greater institutional instability.
The electoral administration—particularly during the first round—also revealed significant operational shortcomings that increased legal disputes and uncertainty throughout the process. The absence of a preliminary vote-counting system further delayed the announcement of official results for several weeks. These problems deepened public mistrust and reinforced fraud narratives and disinformation campaigns that had already begun circulating before the operational failures became evident.
Despite the political and organizational differences between the two elections, both cases illustrate how election denialism has emerged as a growing threat to democratic stability and legitimacy across Latin America. Considered together, these elections demonstrate that fraud narratives do not require credible evidence to gain traction or shape public debate. On the contrary, they can spread rapidly and attract support from broad segments of society and influential political actors—even in countries with strong, technically sound electoral institutions.
Peru experienced genuine operational problems, longer delays in announcing results, and an even narrower final margin than Colombia. Nevertheless, its political leaders ultimately accepted the outcome and respected the decisions of the electoral authorities. Colombia presents the opposite picture. Despite fewer legal disputes and a more robust institutional framework, key political actors have continued—and in some cases intensified—their challenges to the integrity of the electoral process, creating potentially dangerous conditions for the country’s political stability.
Taken together, these elections remind us that the quality of democracy depends on more than conducting technically efficient elections. While it remains essential to safeguard every stage of the electoral process through rigorous procedures, professional administration, and clear legal frameworks, these measures alone cannot prevent the spread of fraud narratives, combat disinformation, or avert broader political instability. Protecting democracy therefore requires safeguarding the entire electoral ecosystem.
Electoral legitimacy and public confidence depend on autonomous and impartial institutions, responsible political parties committed to respecting democratic rules, informed and engaged citizens and civil society organizations, independent and pluralistic media, and regulatory frameworks capable of effectively addressing disinformation.
Latin America is not starting from scratch when it comes to electoral integrity. The region has built a solid institutional tradition that has enabled significant democratic progress over recent decades. Yet today’s challenges demand renewed efforts, stronger commitments, and coordinated responses. The experiences of Colombia and Peru offer warning signals that deserve urgent attention if the region hopes to prevent the erosion of electoral integrity—one of the fundamental pillars of democratic governance.
Autor
Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). PhD in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States. Former Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Chile.
