A Colombian voter, wearing a poncho with the colors of the Colombian flag, casts his ballot. File photo.
By Misión Verdad – May 14, 2026
Just weeks before the first round of the presidential election in Colombia, the political scene is shaping up as a battlefield where old rivalries, new dynamics fueled by digital networks, and a struggle for ideological hegemony that transcends national borders converge.
The relationship between President Gustavo Petro and former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, historically marked by confrontation, has experienced fluctuations that reflect programmatic differences driven by electoral positioning strategies. The right is fragmented between two candidacies—Paloma Valencia and Abelardo de la Espriella—who are competing for the same electorate. Meanwhile, leftist Iván Cepeda’s candidacy is enduring a right-wing campaign aimed at stalling his rise in the polls.
Petro versus Uribe: Back-and-forth accusations
The tension between Petro and Uribe went through a pragmatic truce but has recently escalated to new levels of confrontation, fueled by public statements, interviews on digital platforms, and judicial accusations. In March, Petro’s interview with the streamer Westcol on the platform Kick drew 840,000 live viewers, indicating the president’s dominance in the youth digital ecosystem. Days later, Uribe participated in a similar live stream with the same content creator, but the audience was significantly smaller—approximately 184,000 viewers. This gap highlighted differences in the two leaders’ capacity for digital mobilization.
The verbal exchanges have also intensified. In April, Uribe called Petro a “gossipmonger” after Uribe’s trip to Ecuador amid tariff tensions between the two countries’ governments. He claimed that the Colombia-Ecuador border is controlled by “the narcoterrorist group FARC, which is pressuring people to vote for Cepeda.”
The Colombian president responded by questioning Uribe’s presence in Ecuador during a diplomatic crisis. Uribe has relied on Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa to exert pressure on Petro’s government over the actions of armed groups on the Colombia-Ecuador border. Moreover, Uribe is facing charges of witness tampering and procedural fraud, with a first-instance sentence of 12 years’ house arrest declared in July 2025. The sentence was later revoked on second instance in October of the same year. The case is currently pending appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice.
Although Uribe’s Democratic Security policy, part of the US-led Plan Colombia, led to a violent escalation, he has not been directly judged for the thousands of deaths and disappearances by security forces and paramilitary groups under his two presidential terms. Amid his exchange of accusations with Petro, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) reported that the number of victims of extrajudicial executions, known as “false positives,” has increased from 6,402 to 7,837 cases in the country.
These extrajudicial killings happened throughout Colombia between 1990 and 2016, a period extended by the JEP to include many more cases that were not part of the initial period. However, the 6,402 cases—82% of the new figure—occurred between 2002 and 2008, a period when Uribe was president.
The exchanges between the two political leaders reignite polarization that permeates the electoral campaign, where each accusation is intended to mobilize the leader’s own base and delegitimize the opponent. The digital strategy, with interviews on platforms like Kick, reflects a shift in Colombian political communication, where young audiences and streaming formats have become key arenas for the battle for influence.
The back-and-forth accusations have kept the campaign in a state of permanent turmoil. The vote for Iván Cepeda is presented as a referendum on Petro, and the vote for the right is presented as a return to the “security and order” of the Uribe era, but without a unifying candidate.
Paloma Valencia versus Abelardo de la Espriella: contest for the right-wing vote
The Colombian right has two candidacies with different profiles, but an overlapping electorate. Paloma Valencia, a senator for 12 years representing Uribe’s party, the Democratic Center, became the official candidate of Uribismo after winning the Great Consultation for Colombia in March 2026 with 45.70% of the votes. She represents the continuity of Álvaro Uribe’s political project. From her mentor, she inherits the fight against the JEP and the Peace Accords between the Colombian State and the FARC.
Valencia is the granddaughter of former President Guillermo León Valencia, a lawyer and philosopher from the University of the Andes, with a master’s degree in Creative Writing from New York University. Valencia has built a parliamentary career based on opposing Petro’s government, defending “Democratic Security,” and reforms such as the Panela Law and the Formality Ladder. Her political discourse is center-right, with an emphasis on institutionalism and dialogue with moderate sectors. However, she maintains a hardline stance against the current government’s social reforms.
On the other hand, Abelardo de la Espriella embodies a disruptive right. The lawyer has a known track record of defending controversial cases and was a noted advisor to the paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) during the peace negotiations with Uribe’s administration in 2005 and 2006. He presents himself as a millionaire outsider, with a hardline discourse advocating reduced State power and lower taxes. His campaign, funded with his own resources and widely supported through digital networks, has maintained second place in polls such as AtlasIntel (April 2026), with 27.9% of the voting intention, ahead of Valencia (23.5%).
He is implicated in a scandal involving 760 million pesos allegedly intended to bribe congress members during Uribe’s government to benefit the DMG pyramid scam. His campaign promises a “Miracle Homeland” based on managerial efficiency and “democratic authority”—the post-Uribe phase of democratic security. His aggressive temperament and history of lawsuits raise doubts regarding his respect for the independence of State powers if he wins the presidency.
The similarities between the two candidates lie in their opposition to Petro’s government, rejection of the ongoing social reforms, and commitment to a security-focused discourse. However, the differences are marked. Valencia bases her discourse on institutionalism and the support of the Democratic Center. Meanwhile, De la Espriella questions “traditional politics” and presents himself as an anti-establishment alternative.
This tension has manifested itself in mutual attacks. In April, an artificial intelligence video showing Uribe alongside Juan Manuel Santos and other politicians generated an angry reaction from Uribe, who labeled De la Espriella as “destructive.” De la Espriella, however, has sought to ease tensions, stating that he holds no grudges and calling for unity ahead of the second round.
The dispute for the right-wing vote has intensified into a digital dirty war. Accounts aligned with De la Espriella have attacked Valencia as a candidate of “the usual suspects,” while Uribismo responds by calling De la Espriella a covert ally of Petro. This fragmentation may weaken the already volatile right wing in a potential runoff. However, polls project that either candidate could defeat Iván Cepeda in a potential runoff.
Cepeda versus fear: the challenge of overcoming misinformation
Iván Cepeda, the Historical Pact candidate and central figure of the Colombian progressive left, leads the polls with around 38-39% of the voting intention. His trajectory as a human rights defender, senator, and facilitator of peace processes has positioned him as the political heir to President Petro’s project. His government program, “The Power of Truth,” proposes deepening social reforms, completing implementation of the Havana Agreement, advancing toward total peace with the armed group ELN, and promoting an agrarian and environmental revolution.
However, his advance in the polls is facing a media and political offensive from the right. Uribe has accused Cepeda of “visiting prisons in search of false witnesses” against him. Meanwhile, fear-mongering narratives are being used to associate Cepeda’s candidacy with economic instability, legal insecurity, and supposed links to extremism. In April 2026, Cepeda publicly clarified his ideological evolution: “I was born in politics in the Communist Party, but anyone who thinks those labels mean the same today as they did in the sixties or seventies is living out of time,” in an attempt to deactivate the ghost of communism that the opposition uses to mobilize adverse votes.
Cepeda’s main strength is that he represents the “Ethical Revolution,” and his discourse is less confrontational than Petro’s while maintaining a clear roadmap toward the continuity of social programs. His base is solid in working-class sectors and among urban progressives.
In recent weeks, explosion attacks have left fatalities, injuries, and disruptions to mobility in Colombia. In response, Cepeda has expressed concern that these incidents are occurring in the country’s southern regions, where there is broad support for his political project. He added that “they seek to create a climate of fear that favors the interests of far-right sectors bent on destabilizing the country and hindering the democratic development of the electoral process.”
Cepeda’s strengths lie in his discursive coherence, connection with social movements and victims of conflict, and ability to articulate a proposal for transformative continuity. His weaknesses include the polarization he generates among moderate sectors, the dependence on Petro’s popularity, and his difficulty in expanding his base beyond the core of Petro’s supporters. These weaknesses are notable given the economic and social challenges faced by Petro’s government. Despite this, Cepepda’s advantage in the first round and his competitiveness in second-round scenarios keep him as the favorite. The right-wing offensive seeks to reverse this trend through misinformation and fear-mongering.
This year’s elections in Colombia reflect a reconfiguration of a political spectrum in which the right has doubled down on chaos and fear, arguing that “Petroism” is soft on organized crime. Cepeda, known for his fight against paramilitarism and defense of victims, is presented by his opponents as a danger to democracy, attempting to revive the stigma of the “dirty war” against the left. Meanwhile, digital communication stands as the central axis of the dispute.
This electoral process has regional implications. A victory for Cepeda would foster a certain balance against the United States’ hegemonic onslaught over the hemisphere and, in a way, deepen South American integration. Meanwhile, a right-wing victory could benefit the US attempt at domination and generate tensions with non-aligned neighboring governments.
In any scenario, Colombia remains a political barometer for Latin America, where internal battles for memory, justice, and development model transcend borders. These define Colombia’s postponed struggle to be a geopolitical pole amid a global realignment.
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/SC/SF
Misión Verdad
Misión Verdad is a Venezuelan investigative journalism website with a socialist perspective in defense of the Bolivarian Revolution
