Colombia is preparing for a tense and polarized presidential runoff on June 21.
After a first round full of surprises, the right-wing outsider Abelardo de la Espriella – an openly pro-Trump candidate – obtained the highest number of votes, narrowly surpassing Iván Cepeda, the progressive senator backed by outgoing president Gustavo Petro.
With about 43.7-44% for de la Espriella against 40.9-41% for Cepeda, according to data reported by Reuters, the country faces two opposing visions: an uncompromising security policy, strongly aligned with the United States, or the continuation of “total peace” and left-wing social reforms.
As noted by the New York Times, the result strengthens the right-wing wave sweeping Latin America.
The results of a night full of tensions
No one reached 50% in the first round, despite a record turnout for this phase, around 58%.
Paloma Valencia, the traditional center-right candidate, stopped below 7% and immediately pledged her support to de la Espriella. Reuters highlights that the gap between the two main contenders was about 668,000 votes.
The left’s reactions quickly raised the temperature. As Newsweek points out, Petro and Cepeda contested the preliminary results, alleging irregularities and hundreds of thousands of “added” votes, but without concrete evidence. “Only when the scrutiny commissions have fully clarified what happened will we comment on tonight’s results,” said Cepeda, as reported by the Associated Press.
International observers, however, described the vote as orderly and transparent.
Abelardo de la Espriella: the pro-Trump outsider promising order
Abelardo de la Espriella, 47 years old, a lawyer and entrepreneur with no previous elective experience, has emerged as the big newcomer.
Nicknamed “El Tigre,” he presented himself from the start as a Donald Trump admirer, promising a closer strategic alliance with the United States on security and the fight against drug trafficking.
During the campaign, his style was theatrical and direct: speeches behind bulletproof glass, yellow national team jerseys as symbols, and catchy slogans.
As highlighted by CNN, his central proposals include military repression of armed groups, the construction of ten mega-prisons in the jungle modeled after El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele, tax cuts, expansion of oil exploration, and downsizing the state.
Right after the vote, he declared, as reported by Politico: “In 21 days we will forever change the history of Colombia.” And again: “We will defend the homeland with reason or with force,” explicitly inviting Washington to monitor the runoff.
As Bloomberg writes, his message of “toughness,” economic liberalization, and strong ties with Trump has galvanized the vote of those disappointed by Petro’s unfinished mandate.
Iván Cepeda: the continuer of Petro’s progressive line
Iván Cepeda, 63 years old, senator, philosopher, and human rights activist, represents the continuation of the Petro project. Son of an assassinated communist leader, he was among the architects of peace with the FARC and the “total peace” strategy.
His promises focus on social inclusion: distribution of one million hectares of land to conflict victims, increased taxes on high incomes, expansion of welfare and public health, and above all, the continuation of negotiations with armed groups. He has described his opponent as a representative of “mafioso fascism.”
As the New York Times points out, his more reflective and political approach might struggle to ignite voters as much as Petro’s charisma, but the progressive candidate maintains a solid core among popular sectors.
Two opposing projects for a divided country
The runoff pits two radically different diagnoses. De la Espriella considers “total peace” a failure because it strengthened criminals and proposes a clear break, a policy of military confrontation and assertive international alliances.
Cepeda acknowledges mistakes but insists on dialogue to address the structural causes of the conflict – poverty, exclusion, inequalities – fearing that a muscular approach would reproduce old cycles of violence.
Ten years after the peace agreement with the FARC, Colombia remains a country marked by deep contradictions. Violence has returned forcefully: armed groups, dissidents, and criminal gangs control vast areas, resort to drone attacks, systematic extortion, and cause new population displacements.
The assassination of candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay during a rally last year made the campaign’s insecurity climate palpable.
Economically, the balance is mixed. Under Petro, the economy recorded growth, the minimum wage increased significantly, and some social protections were expanded, but about one in three Colombians still lives in poverty.
As noted by the BBC, the government pushed ambitious reforms but left a high debt and many legislative initiatives blocked as a legacy.
Cocaine production has reached record levels, and armed groups have exploited negotiations to strengthen territorially. For many voters, the absolute priority today is a return to everyday security.
International implications
The outcome of June 21 will have direct repercussions on foreign relations.
De la Espriella, with his clear pro-Trump stance, has promised greater operational cooperation with Washington against the cartels, in line with the American administration’s approach in the region.
Cepeda, in continuity with Petro, defends a more autonomous foreign policy and criticizes external interventions in the “war on drugs.”
Colombia, the world’s leading cocaine producer, remains a key strategic partner for the United States. The vote will also influence relations with Ecuador and the broader balances of Latin America, a continent that in several countries is shifting to the right.
A tight head-to-head
De la Espriella enters the runoff as the favorite according to analysts and markets, thanks to the consolidation of conservative votes, although until recently, the Guardian notes, polls showed Cepeda ahead in voting intentions. However, the campaign will be very tough.
Whoever wins will have to govern a country still marked by decades of conflict, with an economy needing stability and a population demanding concrete results both on security and improving living conditions.
