{"id":57026,"date":"2026-06-12T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/?p=57026"},"modified":"2026-06-12T15:45:36","modified_gmt":"2026-06-12T18:45:36","slug":"colombia-toward-a-national-fracture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/colombia-toward-a-national-fracture\/","title":{"rendered":"Colombia: Toward a national fracture?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last Sunday, the first round of the presidential election was held, and Colombians were left in shock. In just three weeks, on June 21, the runoff election will pit the two ends of the ideological spectrum against one another in a country facing severe\u2014and dangerous\u2014political polarization, alongside a worsening internal security situation. On one side stands the candidate furthest to the left, Iv\u00e1n Cepeda; on the other, the candidate furthest to the right, Abelardo de la Espriella.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result came as a complete surprise. While those on the left had taken Cepeda\u2019s first-round victory for granted (he won 43.7% of the vote), the opposition camp believed that Paloma Valencia, the candidate of the Democratic Center party (who obtained 6.9%), led by former president \u00c1lvaro Uribe V\u00e9lez, would be the one challenging for the presidency in the runoff. Both sides misread the outcome. Abelardo de la Espriella, of the Defenders of the Homeland party, also secured 43.7%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An optimistic reading and a pessimistic reading<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There are two possible interpretations of what the election results could mean for the country<\/a>. On the one hand, an optimistic reading suggests that, given Colombia\u2019s electoral tradition, this polarization will not have a devastating impact. On the other hand, a pessimistic reading warns that the country could suffer serious consequences for its democratic stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the optimistic view, it is important to remember that since the end of the only military governments Colombia experienced in the twentieth century\u2014those of Gustavo Rojas Pinilla and the Military Government Junta between 1953 and 1958\u2014the country has had fifteen presidents over the course of 68 years. This represents an exceptional record of civilian stability within the Latin American context. Even Gustavo Petro, the first left-wing president in Colombia\u2019s history, took office on August 7, 2022, without incident. This contrasts sharply with the storming of the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021, by supporters of Donald Trump angered by Joe Biden\u2019s victory, or the invasion of the Plaza of the Three Powers in Bras\u00edlia on January 8, 2023, by supporters of Jair Bolsonaro dissatisfied with the victory of Luiz In\u00e1cio Lula da Silva.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This political tradition should be a source of reassurance. However, there was one election that did trigger a serious national crisis. In 1970, following the electoral victory of Misael Pastrana Borrero, supporters of General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla\u2014who campaigned with a populist message\u2014claimed that electoral fraud had occurred. They took to the streets, and President Carlos Lleras Restrepo declared a state of siege. Shortly thereafter, in reaction to that alleged fraud, the M-19 emerged\u2014the guerrilla group in which Gustavo Petro would later become a member.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does today\u2019s climate of polarization resemble that of 1970, the only election in which the country\u2019s democratic stability was genuinely at risk? Are we once again going to irresponsibly revive the specter of electoral fraud?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without a doubt, we must weigh, on the one hand, Colombia\u2019s long tradition of elected civilian governments, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary, and on the other, the profound political polarization of the present. From there, we must try to determine which force will ultimately carry greater weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is extreme political polarization inevitable?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Following the announcement of the election results by the official authorities, a climate of tension emerged that has generated considerable concern. On the one hand, President Petro irresponsibly cast doubt on the transparency of the electoral process, a message later echoed by his party\u2019s candidate, Iv\u00e1n Cepeda. On the other hand, both Cepeda and, later, Abelardo de la Espriella delivered inflammatory speeches after learning that they would face one another in the runoff, embracing a friend-versus-enemy logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These polarizing narratives, combined with the extreme fragmentation of the party system\u2014which has fostered a highly personalized form of political leadership lacking effective checks and balances\u2014and the deterioration of public order at the hands of both politically motivated and criminal armed actors, could prove explosive. We must never forget El Bogotazo<\/a><\/em> of April 9, 1948.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason, public opinion must mobilize and demand restraint from both candidates in their use of language. Under no circumstances\u2014and especially not in the country\u2019s current situation\u2014is hate-filled rhetoric responsible. At the same time, it is essential that we build what the assassinated Conservative leader \u00c1lvaro G\u00f3mez Hurtado once called \u201cagreements on the fundamentals\u201d: a shared commitment to respecting the 1991 Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers; recognizing electoral results; and accepting the legitimacy of the winner of the democratic process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The unprecedented contest between political extremes is testing Colombia\u2019s democratic stability amid a context of growing polarization.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":502,"featured_media":56987,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16802,16806],"tags":[15635],"gps":[],"class_list":["post-57026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-polarizacion-en","category-colombia-en","tag-debates"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/502"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57026"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57026\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57030,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57026\/revisions\/57030"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56987"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57026"},{"taxonomy":"gps","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gps?post=57026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}