Is the Right returning to Colombia? Understanding the political scenario
- João Pedro Nascimento
- Jun 2
- 5 min read
Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.
The 2026 presidential election in Colombia has consolidated itself as one of the most polarized and tense contests in the country’s recent history. The first round revealed a society deeply divided between the continuation of the progressive project initiated by President Gustavo Petro and a right-wing shift represented by lawyer and businessman Abelardo de la Espriella. The result also opened a political crisis after Petro publicly questioned the legitimacy of the preliminary vote count.
With more than 99% of ballots counted, De la Espriella finished the first round in the lead, contradicting most electoral polls, which had pointed to an advantage for government-backed candidate Iván Cepeda. The right-wing candidate advanced to the runoff alongside Cepeda, while conservative candidate Paloma Valencia finished in third place. None of the candidates reached the 50% required to win in the first round, sending the decisive vote to June 21.
Just hours after the results were released, Petro published statements claiming he does not recognize the preliminary count. According to the Colombian president, the electoral system underwent suspicious changes in the vote-counting algorithms during the final week before the election. Petro alleged that around 800,000 electoral records had been added to the system without appearing in the official census and claimed that the private company responsible for the count had modified the software multiple times. For the president, these irregularities raise doubts about the legitimacy of the result. So far, however, no conclusive public evidence has been presented to confirm the accusations, and the National Electoral Council continues to uphold the validity of the count. The election included one of the largest electoral observation missions ever recorded in the country, with thousands of national and international auditors and observers monitoring the process.
The dispute takes place in an extremely delicate context for Colombia. Petro’s government, the first left-wing administration in the country’s history, promoted important changes in Colombian social and foreign policy. There was a significant increase in the minimum wage, expansion of social programs, strengthening of Latin American integration, and progress in labor and agrarian reforms. Petro also sought to reposition Colombia regionally, moving closer to governments such as those of Brazil and Mexico and adopting a more independent stance toward the United States.
At the same time, the government faced economic and institutional difficulties. Increased social spending expanded the fiscal deficit, and part of the reforms was blocked by a fragmented Congress. However, the main political wear came from public security. Even after the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian state and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, dissident groups continue operating in several regions of the country, especially linked to drug trafficking, illegal mining, and territorial control. The rise in violence, political attacks, and armed confrontations increased the sense of insecurity among voters, making crime the central issue of the campaign.
It is precisely in this scenario that Abelardo de la Espriella grew politically. A millionaire lawyer, businessman, and media figure, he has never held public office but built an image as an anti-establishment outsider. For years, he worked as a lawyer for controversial figures, including drug traffickers, paramilitaries, and Colombian celebrities. An open admirer of Donald Trump, Javier Milei, and Nayib Bukele, De la Espriella based his campaign on a discourse of radical anti-crime policies and strong rejection of the left.
His proposals include a military offensive against criminal organizations, the construction of mega-prisons, harsher criminal penalties, and the end of peace negotiations with armed groups. The candidate even declared that “any criminal who does not surrender will be eliminated,” a phrase that summarizes his defense of an extremely aggressive security policy. He also promises to reduce the size of the state by around 40%, expand economic liberalization, and promote what he calls a “cultural counterrevolution” against agendas associated with the left. Throughout the campaign, he accumulated statements considered misogynistic, homophobic, and violent, but this did not prevent his electoral growth.
On the other side, Iván Cepeda represents the continuation of Petro’s political project. A left-wing senator and an important participant in the peace negotiations with the FARC, Cepeda defends deepening the current government’s social reforms and maintaining the “Total Peace” policy, based on dialogue and negotiations with armed groups. For him, Colombian violence cannot be solved exclusively through military repression, but requires social solutions, state presence, and the reduction of regional inequalities.
Cepeda also proposes strengthening labor rights, expanding social programs, and maintaining Latin American regional integration as a central axis of Colombian foreign policy. One of the most controversial points of his campaign is the defense of a possible Constituent Assembly if structural reforms continue to be blocked by Congress. Critics argue that the proposal could generate institutional tensions and open space for a concentration of power, while allies argue that it would be a legitimate way to overcome the historical blockade imposed by traditional political elites.
The runoff places two completely different national projects against each other. On one side is the continuation of the progressive experience initiated by Petro. On the other is a rupture proposal marked by a discourse of order and political and cultural conservatism. The votes of Paloma Valencia and the traditional conservative sectors are expected to become decisive in the second round. At the same time, Petro’s challenge to the vote-counting system increases institutional tensions in a country that has historically lived with political violence, ideological polarization, and fragile trust in democratic institutions.
References
CRISTINA, Sandra. De la Espriella ganó hasta en Venezuela: así votaron los colombianos en el exterior en la primera vuelta presidencial | El Colombiano. El Colombiano. Disponível em: <https://www.elcolombiano.com/internacional/resultados-elecciones-colombianos-exterior-primera-vuelta-2026-DF37236577>.
CUETO, José Carlos . Quem é Abelardo de la Espriella, candidato de direita inspirado em Bukele e Milei que liderou o 1o turno na Colômbia - BBC News Brasil. BBC News Brasil. Disponível em: <https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c4g71j8lmexo>.
EL COLOMBIANO. Las elecciones del 31 de mayo tendrán la mayor observación electoral registrada en Colombia | El Colombiano. El Colombiano. Disponível em: <https://www.elcolombiano.com/informes-comerciales/las-marcas-hablan/las-elecciones-del-31-de-mayo-tendran-la-mayor-observacion-electoral-registrada-en-colombia-NH37127390>.
LEÓN, Juanita. Colombia va a una segunda vuelta entre dos proyectos excluyentes. La Silla Vacía. Disponível em: <https://www.lasillavacia.com/silla-nacional/colombia-va-a-una-segunda-vuelta-entre-dos-proyectos-excluyentes/>.
RANGEL, Laura Sanabria. Luego de votar Petro insistió con engaños en que el sistema electoral es opaco. La Silla Vacía. Disponível em: <https://www.lasillavacia.com/detector-de-mentiras/enganoso/luego-de-votar-petro-insistio-con-enganos-en-que-el-sistema-electoral-es-opaco/>.
Comments