The Story
Colombia is holding the first round of a presidential election that will reverberate far beyond its borders. The contest is not merely a change of leadership; it is a referendum on the future of peace in a country still scarred by decades of armed conflict. The leading candidates offer starkly opposing visions: one path seeks to continue negotiations with armed groups and prioritize social reforms, while the other promises an all-out war against drug-running guerrillas and a crackdown on crime. The outcome will signal whether Colombia aligns with the rightward shift sweeping much of Latin America—and aligns its security policies with the Trump administration—or remains a leftist outlier in the region.
This election comes at a critical juncture. The 2016 peace agreement with the FARC rebels dramatically reduced violence, but it did not end it. In recent years, new armed groups have filled the power vacuum, competing for control of lucrative drug trafficking routes and illegal mining operations. The campaign itself has been marred by violence, including the assassination of a presidential hopeful a year ago. While election day itself passed without major incidents, the underlying tensions remain high. The winner will inherit a country where the state's monopoly on force is still contested in large swaths of the countryside.
Context & Background
To understand why this election matters so much, you need to know the history. Gustavo Petro, the current left-wing president, was the first leftist to lead Colombia in its modern history. His administration bet on dialogue with armed groups, pursuing peace talks and offering incentives for disarmament. He also championed ambitious social and economic reforms aimed at reducing inequality. However, his popularity has waned as violence has crept back up and his reforms stalled in congress. The constitution bars him from seeking re-election, so he has thrown his support behind Ivan Cepeda, a senator from his coalition.
The right-wing opposition is led by two main candidates: Paloma Valencia, a conservative senator, and Abelardo de la Espriella, a more radical figure. Both reject the negotiation approach. De la Espriella has explicitly aligned himself with the policies of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, promising to build massive prisons and resume aerial bombing of narco-trafficking groups. Valencia advocates a return to a hardline security agenda that echoes the priorities of former President Álvaro Uribe, who waged a military offensive against the FARC in the 2000s. Their rise reflects a broader regional trend: Chile, Ecuador, and Argentina have all swung to the right in recent elections, and Brazil's 2026 presidential race could further consolidate that shift.
The international dimension is crucial. Donald Trump has made aligning Latin America with his MAGA agenda a priority. Both Valencia and de la Espriella have signaled they would do just that, adopting Trump's tough-on-crime rhetoric and seeking closer security cooperation with Washington. In contrast, if Cepeda wins, he would likely strengthen ties with the remaining leftist governments in the region, particularly Mexico under Claudia Sheinbaum. This election is therefore not just about Colombia's domestic future; it's a proxy battle for the ideological direction of Latin America and its relationship with the United States.
Different Perspectives
Supporters of the right-wing candidates argue that Petro's negotiation strategy has failed. They point to rising murder rates, extortion, and the continued expansion of drug cartels as evidence that dialogue only emboldens criminals. For them, a Bukele-style crackdown—with mass arrests, mega-prisons, and military operations—is the only way to restore order. They see the left as naive and dangerously soft on crime, and they frame the election as a choice between security and chaos.
Backers of Cepeda counter that a militarized approach has been tried before and did not end the conflict. They argue that the Uribe-era offensive weakened the FARC but failed to address the root causes of violence: poverty, inequality, and state absence in rural areas. For them, sustainable peace requires social investment, land reform, and negotiations that bring armed groups into the political process. They warn that a hardline approach could escalate violence, lead to human rights abuses, and alienate communities that are caught in the crossfire.
International observers are watching closely. The US government, under Trump, has made clear its preference for a right-wing ally in Bogotá. European and UN officials, who helped broker the 2016 peace deal, are concerned that a reversal could unravel years of progress. Meanwhile, China and Russia have economic interests in Colombia's oil and mining sectors, and they are likely to adapt their strategies depending on who wins. The election is a microcosm of a global debate: is security best achieved through force or through addressing the underlying drivers of conflict?
What's Not Being Said
Most coverage focuses on the left-right ideological clash, but the deeper story is about the fragmentation of political power. Colombia's traditional two-party system has collapsed, and the current election features a crowded field of outsiders, populists, and regional strongmen. This fragmentation makes governance difficult, regardless of who wins. The next president will face a divided congress and a polarized electorate, which could paralyze any ambitious agenda.
Another underreported angle is the role of the armed groups themselves. They are not passive objects of policy; they are active players in the election. Many groups have issued threats against candidates and communities, and they have the capacity to disrupt the vote or influence outcomes through intimidation. The peace process has been undermined by the proliferation of splinter groups that were not party to the 2016 deal, and the next government will have to decide whether to negotiate with them or fight them—a choice that has no easy answer.
Finally, the environmental dimension is often overlooked. Colombia is one of the world's most biodiverse countries, and much of the violence is concentrated in the Amazon and other ecologically sensitive regions. Illegal mining, deforestation, and cocaine production are driving environmental destruction. The next president's approach to security will directly affect the fate of these ecosystems. A hardline military response could displace communities and accelerate environmental damage, while a negotiated settlement might offer a chance for sustainable development—but only if it includes strong environmental protections.
What Happens Next
The first round will likely narrow the field to two candidates for a June runoff. Polls suggest a tight race, with no candidate commanding a majority. The most probable scenario is a contest between Cepeda and one of the right-wing candidates, possibly de la Espriella. In that case, the election will become a binary choice between continuation of Petro's policies and a sharp turn to the right.
If the right wins, expect an immediate shift in security policy: increased military operations, suspension of peace talks, and a push for closer cooperation with the US on drug interdiction. Domestically, this could lead to a spike in violence in the short term as armed groups resist the crackdown. Internationally, it would strengthen the rightward bloc in Latin America and give Trump a key ally in the region.
If Cepeda wins, he will face enormous pressure to deliver results on security and the economy. He will need to balance the demands of his leftist base with the reality of a divided congress and a skeptical electorate. His government would likely continue negotiations with armed groups, but with a stronger emphasis on social programs and international cooperation. The wildcard is Brazil's presidential election later this year: if the left wins there, it could provide a counterweight to the region's rightward trend and give Cepeda a powerful ally.
For Content Creators
Covering this election responsibly means avoiding simplistic narratives. Don't frame it as a battle between "good" and "evil" or reduce it to a personality contest. Instead, explain the structural forces at play: the legacy of the peace process, the persistence of armed groups, and the geopolitical context. Use maps and data to show where violence is concentrated and how different policies have affected those areas in the past.
Another angle: interview Colombians from different regions and social classes. Their lived experiences—whether they live in a city like Bogotá or a rural conflict zone—will reveal the real stakes of the election. Avoid relying solely on official sources or pundits. Finally, be transparent about your own biases and the sources you use. This is a complex story with high stakes, and your audience will appreciate nuance over sensationalism.
