Early polls on the road to the 2026 presidential election show that the country, far from bucking the global trend toward extremism, appears to be falling into the trap of forcing itself to choose between more extreme options. In the middle, dozens of candidates with more moderate proposals and rhetoric that could lead to reconciliation in national politics continue to struggle to maintain relevance.
In the emerging era of globalization, the politics of identities and emotions are replacing the politics of ideas and rational debates. For this reason, it is not entirely surprising that the popularity and validity of the most extreme agendas in the electoral debate is growing, while all voices in the middle risk losing relevance. If presidential elections were held in Colombia tomorrow, everything indicates that the decision would be between a continuation of the divisive Pitrista project and a more extreme version of the right that seeks to defend some of the worst memories in national history.
While the global political trend of agitating and radicalizing the leadership in Colombia appears to be having an impact, we must insist on the need to promote values such as moderation and decency in politics. The more powerful the trend toward electing the person who shouts the loudest and the person who offends his rivals becomes stronger, the more we must demand that the basic values of democracy, such as tolerance and civility in debate, do not fall into obsolescence.
The path to building a transformed nation cannot be by choosing discourses of power that call for the crushing of rivals, nor by entrusting the reins of society to those who believe that all their critics are “Nazis” who oppose the collective will of the people. For this reason, it is disturbing that the latest opinion polls favor projects that insist on defending the worst values of Colombia’s political past, such as the militaristic vision of the bullet as the solution to all of the country’s problems, while on the other hand, even the worst mistakes of the Petro government are celebrated through elaborate and divisive narrative lines. Now, more than ever, we must understand that the presidential race is not about who will win the most aggressive rhetoric in the race, but about who has the most sustainable program for governing a nation laden with many complexities and challenges for four years. Charlatans often excel during campaigns, but are ineffective at leading in adverse times.
Even if they do not win the applause of the angriest voters or the cheers of the public square, leaders who call for moderation are best able to provide the tools that can achieve reconciliation in a nation like ours, after eight exhausting years of deep division. Although waves of demagoguery around the world have brought fashions such as calling rivals “left-handed bastards,” as Miley did in Argentina, or calling all vital sectors fascist, as President Pietro does daily, we must insist on the republican principle of knowing how to live in disagreement with civility. The undemocratic idea, promoted by the current government in Colombia, which claims that all those who oppose its policies are allies of drug trafficking and defenders of “Nazi” theses, must disappear.
Populism is an expert at creating storms to exploit with its extremist calls, and if our country needs anything, it is the opposite: it needs to build bridges between parties and leaders who rarely communicate for anything other than the exchange of grievances. It is particularly urgent to create public debate in the search for better agreements, as well as respectful disagreements. Colombia does not have to constantly choose between extremists who live only with deep wounds and whose lesser priority is to make the ideal of a more tolerant and civil state possible.
@fernandoposada_