Colombia’s presidential election has become more than a contest between two candidates. It has become a test of whether a country that has endured decades of violence, political upheaval, and deep social divisions can preserve its institutional traditions while facing a growing wave of anti-establishment politics.
According to El País, far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella entered the final stage of the presidential race as the candidate with the strongest chances of winning the runoff election. His possible victory has raised questions over the future of the social reform agenda that emerged after Colombia’s 2016 peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and whether the country’s long-standing commitment to institutional stability can withstand a campaign increasingly defined by political confrontation.
The significance of the election extends beyond who occupies the presidential palace for the next four years. The result will determine whether the opening created by the 2016 peace agreement remains politically viable and whether Colombia’s tradition of accepting electoral outcomes and maintaining democratic rules survives a campaign where opponents have increasingly questioned each other’s legitimacy.
Colombia’s political divisions have deep historical roots. Historian Jorge Orlando Melo has described the country’s ideological struggle as a conflict between two competing traditions: one centered on religion, family values, and confidence in capitalism, and another focused on social change, state intervention, and reducing inequality.
The reformist tradition gained strength during the early twentieth century through the Liberal movement before becoming associated, for many Colombians, with armed insurgency as political conflict intensified. Over time, the association between reform and guerrilla movements made social change more politically difficult, while Colombia’s traditional parties maintained influence through a system built on negotiation and institutional agreements.
The 1991 Constitution and the earlier National Front arrangement helped stabilize political competition by expanding rights and creating mechanisms for democratic participation. However, the country continued to struggle with inequality, corruption, and violence while avoiding the military dictatorships, hyperinflation, and institutional collapses experienced by several other Latin American nations.
The 2016 peace agreement changed that political landscape. Under the government of President Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia reached a historic agreement with the FARC after more than half a century of armed conflict. In exchange for disarmament, the agreement included commitments to social reforms, particularly in rural areas.
The agreement also removed a major barrier for Colombia’s political left by separating electoral reform movements from the legacy of armed struggle. That shift helped pave the way for the rise of Gustavo Petro, who became Colombia’s first left-wing president in decades after winning the 2022 election.
Petro’s government promised significant changes, including reforms to land policy, social security, and labor rights. However, his administration faced resistance from opposition parties, lawmakers, and parts of the traditional political establishment. Several experienced center-left figures who initially joined the government later left disappointed with its direction, according to El País.
Meanwhile, opposition to Petro combined with frustration toward traditional politicians created an opening for De la Espriella, a political outsider who built his campaign around stronger security measures and criticism of the political system. His rise reflected both opposition to the current government and broader dissatisfaction with Colombia’s established political class.
De la Espriella’s potential victory would represent more than a return of conservative politics. El País reported that his campaign represents a newer form of right-wing politics, one that combines anti-establishment messaging with promises of restoring security through tougher measures.
The election has also exposed the persistence of old divisions over the relationship between left-wing politics and armed groups. Although the FARC demobilized after the 2016 peace agreement, memories of decades of violence remain powerful among victims of the state, paramilitary organizations, and guerrilla groups.
A widely shared image during the campaign reflected this continuing tension by framing the election not as a contest between candidates, but as a confrontation between De la Espriella and “the guerrilla.” While that interpretation does not reflect the current political reality, its circulation demonstrated how deeply historical fears continue to influence public debate.
However, the main force driving the election appears to be broader dissatisfaction with inequality and distrust of institutions. Political scientist Juan Carlos Rodríguez Raga of the University of the Andes told El País that Colombians are increasingly divided not only by policy preferences but by the belief that the system favors powerful groups.
Research conducted in 2023 found anti-elite sentiment to be one of the strongest shared attitudes across different social groups. Issues such as taxation, subsidies, corruption, and political favoritism have contributed to a widespread perception that government structures benefit the same established interests.
De la Espriella has built much of his campaign around this sentiment, presenting himself as a challenger to traditional elites. His message has resonated with voters who feel excluded from political decision-making, even as his critics raise questions about his background as a criminal defense lawyer who represented controversial figures.
The election also comes at a moment of institutional strain. Colombia has historically stood apart in Latin America for maintaining democratic continuity, peaceful transfers of power, and financial stability. But recent years have tested that tradition.
During Petro’s presidency, tensions emerged between the executive branch and other institutions, including Congress, economic groups, courts, and the central bank. Petro has accused opponents of attempting to block his agenda through what he described as a “soft coup,” while critics have raised concerns about pressure on institutional independence.
The first round of the presidential election also highlighted those tensions when Petro questioned the results without presenting evidence, according to El País. De la Espriella responded by calling on the military to activate constitutional mechanisms if the president attempted to ignore the public will.
Political analysts, however, have cautioned against viewing the election solely through the lens of institutional collapse. Political scientist Sandra Borda argued that some of the harsh rhetoric reflects the dynamics of a polarized runoff election rather than an inevitable democratic breakdown. She noted that Colombia’s institutional system, including congressional checks, has historically limited drastic changes from any government.
The outcome could nevertheless influence the direction of Colombia’s social policies and its position within a broader regional trend. Across Latin America, right-wing populist movements have gained momentum in countries including Argentina, El Salvador, and Chile, often challenging existing approaches to state spending, social programs, and political institutions.
If De la Espriella wins, Colombia would become part of that wider political shift. If his opponent achieves an unexpected victory, the country would continue along the reform path that began after the peace agreement.
For a nation that survived decades of armed conflict, narcoterrorism, and deep political divisions while maintaining democratic institutions, the election represents another major test. The central question facing Colombia is not only who will govern next, but whether its long-standing ability to navigate crises without breaking its political system will endure.
