After Petro’s Win, Colombia Teeters Between Hope and Fear
When Colombians went to the polls Sunday to choose a new president, both choices on the ballot meant change and more than a little uncertainty about the future. It’s no surprise, then, that now that the results are in, Colombia finds itself on edge, teetering between high expectations and high anxiety.
The victory by Gustavo Petro, a former mayor of Bogota who once belonged to a radical leftist urban guerrilla movement, was above all a forceful rejection of the status quo. Petro promises profound change but speaks with the well-honed rhetoric of a smart, polished politician who has spent years as a legislator. Now that he is slated to be inaugurated in August, he knows he needs the support of the entire country, its business community and even foreign investors to have a successful presidency.
It’s hardly a mystery why Colombians were ready for change. They were already tired of enduring, grinding poverty and stubborn inequality by the time the coronavirus pandemic hit in 2020, making those humiliating scourges even worse. Around 40 percent of the population lives in poverty, and millions go hungry every day. The dominant forces in this election were anger and hunger.
And yet, Colombians also fear radical leftists. Only older Colombians will remember when Petro’s former guerilla group, the 19th of April Movement or M19, stormed the Colombian Supreme Court building in 1985, taking the justices hostage. Many of them died that shocking day. Petro was reportedly in prison at the time and was not a part of the assault team, but Colombians of all ages fear that his radical roots could presage policies that could turn their country into a Venezuelan-style dystopia. And most have little love for far-left radicals, as they showed in 2018, when they soundly rejected former rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerrilla movement, better known as FARC, whose candidates had run for office after the group signed a peace deal with the government.
Petro’s election, much like other recent victories by the left in Latin America, should not be taken as a sign that the people are suddenly embracing a sharp turn toward socialism. In a WPR podcast in 2020, I predicted that, because of the pandemic, “Inequality is going to get worse. The needs are going to be greater. … [I]t’s going to be a very serious challenge to the governing classes.” Back then, I noted that the demands for change would not be ideologically driven, but results-oriented: “Nobody wants to be Venezuela, but nobody wants to live in poverty, either.”
Petro’s proposals aim squarely at attacking the urgent issues of poverty and inequality, as well as enacting drastic, if costly, measures against climate change. He has vowed to establish far-reaching social programs, including universal health care and free higher education. He aims to upend the country’s unequal socio-economic structure by implementing a program of income redistribution built on boosting taxes for the wealthy.
The plans come with a daunting price tag, particularly because Petro, alongside Francia Marquez, an environmental activist and the country’s first Afro-Colombian vice president, also plan to ban new oil exploration, a move likely to slash government revenues.
But, despite all of his redistributive economic policies, Petro is not talking about dismantling the country’s market system. On the contrary. “We will develop capitalism in Colombia,” Petro said during his first speech as president-elect. Instead, he explained to his stunned audience, what he wants to dismantle is “feudalism.”
If Petro can slash poverty, reduce inequality and enact the rest of his progressive agenda without causing serious damage to Colombia’s economic growth, which has been fairly robust over several years, and without hollowing out Colombia’s democracy, which has been one of Latin America’s most resilient, then his presidency will be a triumph. But those are a lot of “ifs,” and many Colombians are very nervous about how this presidency will turn out.
If Petro succeeds in slashing poverty and inequality, and if democracy and economic growth continue, the rest of Latin America could see Petrismo as a blueprint to emulate.
The business community worries that his policies will sap the strength of the economy, turn away investors, and hurt not only companies’ profits, but employment levels, as well. Others worry about the nation’s finances, fearing that the potential oil revenue collapse and sharp increases in spending could together put Colombia on a dangerous fiscal path. Then there’s the fear of what might happen to Colombia’s democracy, which has withstood decades of stiff headwinds, including violent insurgencies and the maneuvers of politically ambitious drug lords, and managed to survive.
In some ways, this election offered further proof of the strength of Colombia’s commitment to democracy. Many feared violence from the losing side. But when election authorities released the early vote count, showing Petro with a substantial lead, the losing candidate, Rodolfo Hernandez, accepted defeat and offered his support to the incoming president. Outgoing centrist President Ivan Duque congratulated Petro, and even former President Alvaro Uribe, a stalwart of the right, tweeted his acceptance of the results, declaring, “To defend democracy, it is necessary to abide by it. Gustavo Petro is the president.”
However, many Colombians still worry that Petro might follow in the footsteps of other elected Latin American leftists. Venezuela, where leftist Presidents Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro steered the country into economic and humanitarian disaster and dismantled democracy, is the most extreme example. But several leftist elected leaders across the region have betrayed strong authoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies, gradually seizing the levers of power, rewriting constitutions to extend their mandates and creating economic crises in their countries.
Petro, seeking to reassure the nation, has insisted that he is fully committed to leaving office when his term ends, as required by the Colombian constitution, which restricts presidents to serving a single term. However, his critics say that during his turbulent time as mayor of Bogota, Petro displayed a disturbing, despotic oversensitivity to criticism, acting as if differences of ideas were personal attacks, lashing out at perceived opponents and rejecting pushback even from within his own party. Others worry about Petro’s plans to declare a state of emergency to tackle poverty, seeing this as a sign that he is likely to try to go around Congress—where his party, Humane Colombia, has meager representation—to enact his agenda.
On foreign policy, Petro plans to repair relations with Venezuela and to recalibrate ties with the United States. Colombia has long been one of Washington’s closest allies in the Western Hemisphere. However, the degree to which those relations will change remains a key question as Petro prepares to take office on Aug. 7.
With a considerable segment of the country skeptical of his ideas, Petro will face an uphill battle to create the change he promises for Colombia. If he succeeds in slashing poverty and inequality, and if democracy and economic growth continue, the rest of Latin America could see Petrismo as a blueprint to emulate. The odds for success, however, are steep.
Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist and a regular contributor to CNN and The Washington Post. Her WPR column appears every Thursday. You can follow her on Twitter at @fridaghitis.