After Colombia elected its first left-wing government under Gustavo Petro in 2022, the most recent elections brought far-right candidate Abelardo De la Espriella to power. This outcome forms part of a new wave of right-wing governments currently leading countries such as Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, and Ecuador, reflecting a regional shift that suggests an increasingly pronounced ideological alternation.
This phenomenon appears to be driven by a protest vote against left-wing governments. However, this rejection has been accompanied by the acceptance—and even the legitimization—of leaders with authoritarian traits, whose rhetoric and political trajectories may be highly controversial but who nevertheless establish an emotional connection with voters seeking promises of order, control, and certainty.
The recent presidential election was exceptionally close: De la Espriella won 49.7% of the vote, compared with 48.7% for Iván Cepeda, producing one of the narrowest results in the history of Colombian democracy. The electoral map also revealed a sharp territorial divide. While Bogotá and much of the country’s peripheral departments largely supported Cepeda, vast areas of central Colombia favored De la Espriella. This electoral geography echoed the results of the 2016 Peace Plebiscite, when the “No” vote prevailed across much of the country’s central region, revealing enduring political and territorial cleavages.
The election also highlighted the weakening of Colombia’s traditional right and its transition toward a less moderate conservatism. Paloma Valencia’s candidacy, backed by Álvaro Uribe, secured only 6.92% of the vote in the first round. The Democratic Center subsequently endorsed De la Espriella and declared itself part of the governing coalition.
One of the decisive factors behind De la Espriella’s victory was the rapid construction of his public image. Within just a few months, he went from trailing in the polls to establishing himself as a political showman through a campaign saturated with national symbols, military aesthetics, and emotionally charged narratives. Beyond policy proposals, his use of metaphors such as the “Tiger” and the “Pack,” combined with large-scale rallies featuring music, lights, and elaborate staging, allowed him to quickly forge a recognizable political identity and captivate a significant portion of the Colombian electorate.
His career has also generated considerable controversy. He has served as attorney for former paramilitary leaders, politicians implicated in corruption scandals, convicted fraudster David Murcia, and Álex Saab, the alleged frontman of Nicolás Maduro. He has also been accused of harassing journalists during his legal career. His public profile blends elements of an outsider with deep ties to traditional power structures.
Social media played a decisive role in the campaign. A wide range of influencers amplified his message and helped mobilize voters, while his campaign employed artificial intelligence tools to produce highly emotional content. By contrast, Cepeda’s campaign relied on more traditional strategies with less viral appeal. Nevertheless, between the first and second rounds, he achieved significant electoral growth.
De la Espriella’s symbolic repertoire draws heavily on other contemporary right-wing leaders such as Donald Trump, Nayib Bukele, and Javier Milei, emphasizing law and order, authority, and the restoration of state control. Colombia thus appears to be witnessing the emergence of a security-centered right similar to those seen in Ecuador and El Salvador, placing the fight against crime and the restoration of public order at the core of its political agenda.
His public image reinforces this narrative: a strongman leader emphasizing traditional values, religious identity, business success, and rhetoric that combines promises of restoring order with explicit calls to “punish” the left. Although such language can be interpreted as encouraging political confrontation, many of his supporters view it as a promise to restore authority and stability. While he moderated his rhetoric after his victory and pledged to govern for all Colombians, questions remain regarding the effective guarantees that will be afforded to the opposition.
This narrative is further reinforced by the concept of the “Miracle Homeland,” framed around a leadership style that promises rapid and decisive solutions to structural problems. Even so, doubts persist regarding the economic, political, and legal feasibility of several of his proposals. His platform prioritizes security through abandoning the “Total Peace” policy, launching an aggressive offensive against drug trafficking, and restoring territorial control. Economically, he advocates growth through reducing the size of the State and combating corruption, alongside policies focused on housing, healthcare, digital education, and rural development.
This new political landscape raises important questions regarding peace and armed conflict. Although the “Total Peace” policy failed to produce the expected results—partly because of the Petro administration’s lack of an effective strategy and the fragmentation of armed groups—the possible abandonment of negotiations with illegal armed organizations and the return to predominantly military approaches could reshape, and even intensify, the armed conflict in certain regions. Ten years after the signing of the Final Peace Agreement, its implementation continues to face structural challenges, and De la Espriella’s arrival leaves significant uncertainty over the future of reintegration programs, land redistribution, and guarantees for victims’ rights.
From a governance perspective, the outlook is equally complex. The new administration is expected to command only minority support in Congress, forcing it to negotiate with political forces controlling nearly half the seats in both legislative chambers. In addition, institutional checks and balances—particularly the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to limit executive decisions—will continue to play a significant role.
Social opposition is also emerging as a key actor in the new political environment. Since the announcement of the election results, various social movements have called for demonstrations, anticipating a period of heightened political conflict in response to the incoming government’s proposals. The razor-thin electoral result also confirms the depth of Colombia’s polarization and suggests the consolidation of a broad and robust opposition determined to prevent setbacks in social policies and the ongoing peacebuilding process.
Autor
Professor at the Higher School of Public Administration - ESAP (Bogotá). Doctor in Political Science from the Institute of Social and Political Studies of the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (IESP/UERJ).
