The Colombian Elections and Authoritarianism
Setting the stage
On May 31th 2026, two presidential candidates came out on top in the first round of elections in Colombia. Now both of those candidates have to campaign to see who wins in the second round happening on June 21st 2026.
On one hand we have Iván Cepeda of the Pacto Historico. On the other hand, independent but with support from Salvación Nacional, we have Abelardo De La Espriella. Both candidates occupy very different positions on the political spectrum, and come from very different backgrounds.
Iván Cepeda, a leftist, has a history marred by political violence. His father was a communist, and his family was forced to flee Colombia when he was young. He lived in exile in Prague, then in Havana. They returned to Colombia, but remained a target of political violence. Later, Cepeda went to Bulgaria to study philosophy at Sofia University. In 1994, his father was assassinated by state and paramilitary agents.
From that point onwards, Cepeda has worked to advocate for peace, as well as justice for victims of political violence. He’s been a congressman since 2010, and is well known for being the facilitator of peace talks with paramilitary movements in Colombia, leading to the disarming of the FARC in 2017.
Abelardo De La Espriella, a right-wing lawyer, has a very different history. He was born in Bogotá, though grew up in Córdoba. His father was a lawyer, and a close friend to the former president Álvaro Uribe. Abelardo grew up in the upper class, and eventually moved back to Bogotá to study law. He has been involved with many high profile legal cases, some good, some questionable.
Abelardo is also an Italian and American citizen, is a millionaire with a few businesses to his name, and has no history of public service.
Due to Cepeda’s links with his father, as well as his political views, many people view him as a communist. Like in other parts of the world, there is a lot of anxiety associated with the term “communist”. But here in Latin America, there is a very close-to-home example to base that fear on: Venezuela.
Common phrases include “We will become like Venezuela”, “The dollar will reach $10,000 (pesos)” “he’ll expropriate all properties”.
There is also an anxiety about links to guerilla movements. For context, Colombia has had a long history of civil unrest with guerilla movements, rooted in a long history of political violence, civil war, and unrest. Like I mentioned before, Cepeda was a facilitator for peace talks with several guerilla groups. This, and the photos from those events, has led to many calling Cepeda a guerilla.
In terms of Abelardo, a comparison to fascism has been made. For one, he associates himself with the far-right, including admiring Trump and Bukele. He uses inflammatory speech, has used legal threats against journalists, has a history of representing figures aligned with paramilitaries.
Statements on both sides, accusations of communism and fascism, as well as anxieties about authoritarianism in Colombia, both are derived from fanciful statements, brief history, and a belief that correlation equals causation.
What matters is to look at the traits of authoritarianism, and investigate if the two candidates ― in their actions, history, and proposals — demonstrate those traits. To do this, it is important to give a clear view of several examples of authoritarianism, and how it came to be.
Some glimpses of Authoritarianism
A comprehensive history would not be within the scope of this essay, as going back to the early times of civilisation is a scope that would require me to spend 4 years of my life studying it in university. I don’t have that time, so instead I’ll look at some famous examples of authoritarianism, across different ideologies.
Hitler and Nazi Germany
One of the most famous dictators has to be Hitler, as he was responsible for bringing the practice of cruelly killing people to Europe. The rise of Hitler and Nazism is well studied, yet still steeped in misinformation and propaganda.
Adolf Hitler utilised various tools to gain power and impose his will on others. He was a deeply paranoid man, who believed in his heart that communists and Jews were responsible for Germany’s loss in The Great War (World War 1). He was charismatic, and a highly talented spokesman, skilled in propaganda. Hitler found a party that was languishing, unable to find a direction for itself, and turned it into his personal political machine. The National Socialist party (though after Hitler, it was about as socialist as North Korea is a democratic republic) could not survive without Hitler, and thus Hitler was free to do as he liked with it.
For Hitler, his main enemy was Jews. Jews, and Communists, were responsible for all the problems in the world. He also spoke of the superior Aryan Race, one which was being put down by the Jews, and betrayed by the Communists. Much of Hitler’s early thinking with this common enemy had to do with the Treaty of Versailles, signed at the end of WW1, which imposed such great punishments on Germany that it placed the young Weimar Republic in a delicate situation. One that Hitler could take advantage of.
Important tools in establishing Hitler’s dominance were propaganda, intimidation, and opportunism.
Propaganda, disseminated in the form of easy to remember slogans that targeted emotions and aimed at the least intellectual person in the target audience. To the extent that, during Hitler’s trial following his attempted Beer Hall Putsh, he used the time to spread his ideas. Hitler gained support despite going to prison. Slogans such as “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” (One people, one empire, one leader) were spread to encapsulate the message of the party. His famous Mein Kampf was written while he was in prison.
Hitler himself was painted as a perfect leader, all hail the führer and all of that. Despite not even being German, he was able to project himself as a man of Germany, the savour of the Aryan Race, and the only one strong enough to solve what he called the Jewish Problem.
Intimidation was done through the SA, special strong arm squads whose aims were to intimidate opponents, protect Hitler, and create an illusion of strength through violence. The SA would eventually turn into the private paramilitary arm of the Nazi Government. In the end, this led to the weakening of the Weimar Republic’s multi-party system, as the only other party to be able to contend with the intimidation tactics was the Communist Party.
One example of opportunism lies in the Reichstag Fire. The home of the German parliament in Berlin was victim of an arson attack, which the Nazis immediately blamed on the communists. By this point in time, Hitler was Chancellor of Germany, though his power was put in check by both the Reichstag, and the President. However, using this attack, Hitler was able to convince the President to sign an emergency decree that suspended civil liberties and allowed for a ruthless confrontation against communists. All communist delegates to the Reichstag were arrested, and thus did poorly in the following elections. The Nazis were able to form a slim enough coalition with the other parties to pass a law allowing for Hitler to rule by decree. Other parties were banned, and the Reichstag became an enabling body for Hitler. After the death of the President, Hitler would assume power over the presidency as well.
Lenin, Stalin, and the USSR
Unlike Hitler, the Communists in Russia did not have to do much work to dismantle democracy. Quite frankly, democracy in Russia didn’t really exist. The first ever election held in Russia did not even result in a government, as the Constituent Assembly was dissolved after a day.
Looking into the rise of the Bolsheviks, I can see why there are people solely dedicated to the study of this part of Russian History. It’s very complex, and shows how leftist infighting has existed for quite a while. However, there is something to be said about the ideals of Lenin, and how they led to the authoritarianism in the USSR.
Bolshevism was led by Lenin, who had very radical ideas on how to achieve Marxism. His idea was that the revolution must be led by strong-willed, professional and dedicated leadership, who would eventually cede power to the socialist party to take up the idea of democratic centralism. His idea was that professional revolutionaries were needed to maintain dominance over the objectives of the revolution, lest it be steered away in different directions.
Lenin spoke of a dictatorship of the proletariat, and called for a strong central state organ, fielded by representatives elected by the workers. This was never truly realised, as pressures both internally (the Russian Civil War) and externally (the capitalist states funding the Russian Civil War) acted as perfect excuses to delay on the pursuit of freedom and democracy until those issues were dealt with. He believed that communism would eventually lead to a central world government, but he also called for the independence of minority states ― believing that them unwillingly being part of the government would cause unnecessary tension. Of course, he wanted those states to return to the fold of Russia, but with the spirit of internationalism.
For Lenin, his ideals involved strong leaders that would guide the masses. His enemies were numerous but singular, the bourgeois. His government weakened other parties, calling them traitors, and eventually a faction within the government managed to establish a secret prison system, which came to be known as the Gulags. Lenin publicly did not express support for this, but privately wanted his enemies executed.
There are some things that did improve under his rule. He aimed for education campaigns, and gave more rights to women (including third trimester abortion). He also aimed to separate the church and the state, but did it by executing priests so not great.
Stalin is where the story of the USSR takes a far dip into what it became. Lenin himself did not trust Stalin, and called for his removal as the General Secretary of the Communist Party. Unfortunately, by that point in time, Lenin’s absence from party affairs due to illness had let Stalin gain a considerable amount of control over the party, and Lenin’s Testament was suppressed.
Whether Lenin was ever going to stop being an authoritarian, we’ll never know. Because he died, and Stalin took over instead. He suppressed all other factions, and consolidated power into himself. He also had his rival assassinated in Mexico.
Stalin implemented a command economy, instituted an industrial and agricultural reform that was so brutal and insane that millions died, but Russia came out of it as a major industrial power.
Unlike Lenin, Stalin implemented a policy of socialism in one country. This was partly because no other country managed to develop communism, thus leaving Russia very, very alone. Thus, Stalin felt he had to conserve socialism in his country in order to preserve the revolution. He made great use of labour camps, executions, and turned into a paranoid man. He didn’t even trust his doctors in the end.
More than anything, his use of propaganda, his wartime leadership, and his reforms created a cult of personality. During his funeral, hundreds of thousands came to see his body, and a crowd crush killed many.
Cuba, Venezuela, and West Asia
I want this section to be much smaller because it would take too long to go over the history of several more countries. More than anything, I think that Hitler and Stalin have a good overview of things, with some missing aspects being looked at in the following countries. By West Asia, I am referring to the region also known as the Middle East.
Cuba
Cuba highlights something that I have not yet mentioned, and that is the role of the United States of America. Following the war between the US and Spain, Cuba became an independent country. However, the USA was permitted to intervene in Cuban affairs. In the history that followed, Cuba became a US colony in all but name, and wealthy Americans held control over much of the economy. In the end, Fidel Castro managed to overthrow a Cuban dictator (Batista), with backing from the US. When Castro revealed the communist nature of his revolution, the support was withdrawn, and the US became quite hostile to the regime.
Sanctions placed on Cuba helped push its government to seek closer relations to the USSR, leading to more sanctions, more tension, and the dropping quality of life of the Cubans. Castro himself adopted the ideas of a one-party communist state. He had this great feeling of power around him, survived multiple assassination attempts, and did the usual oppression strategies.
Today, Cuba faces great challenges. The island appears to be in a slow (less than a snail’s pace) process of democratisation, though it remains a one-party state. However, the US fuel embargo places great pressure on the island, and hurts civilians more than it hurts politicians. Such an embargo can also be used as anti-American propaganda, and thus achieve the opposite of its intended effect.
Venezuela
It all started with Chávez. He was elected president, and had enough support to launch a constituent assembly that rewrote the constitution, based on left-wing populism. For a while, things went well, minus a coup attempt and the restricting of free-media. However, Venezuela built a lot of its social programs off the back of oil wealth, and importations, and was unable to resolve the problems of corruption. Unlike even the gulf states, Venezuela failed to diversify its economy. The financial crisis hit the country hard, and it has never been able to recover from that moment.
Chávez died, and his successor, Nicola Maduro, really began the process of turning the country into a dictatorship. Suspicious elections, the limitation of free-media, disappearances, the barring of opposition parties, extrajudicial executions, and more have plagued the country. There is also the idea of conquering territory from neighbouring Guyana
So far, despite the US kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro, conditions in Venezuela are slow to improve. The acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, has made some changes, including releasing some political prisoners. However, much of the former government remains in control, and there is always time for dictatorship to continue. Only this time, so long as Trump gets oil from Venezuela, the US is unlikely to be too angry about it.
West Asia
Countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and more, all have their own complex histories of authoritarianism. Indeed, it is a diverse region. There are two important themes: Monarchism, and theocratic rule.
Similar themes come up. The use of religion as a tool to oppress, supreme leadership held in the hands of those who are painted as special in some way, propaganda, killings, and disappearances. There is also the theme of economies that are heavily reliant on one or more resources, especially oil and gas. There is also a theme of large sums of wealth being spent on projects that make little to no sense, such as with The Line in Saudi Arabia.
In Iran, nationalism is used to great effect. People who may not like the government will still defend it due to attacks on their homeland. It’s very easy to do so, when there is constant pressure from external forces. There is also strict control over the internet and high militarisation.
The role of the USA
The USA has long had a strange history with authoritarianism. Of course, originally, it was founded on the belief that democracy was possible. Since then; however, the country has been inconsistent with how it applies that belief elsewhere.
For example, after the Spanish-American War, the USA gained control over Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. It also had strong control over Cuba. That is not freedom for those nations, and the impacts of such control still ripple outwards to this day.
The USA also prioritised anti-communism over anything else during the Cold War. South Korea, and South Vietnam were both highly oppressive regimes, like their Northern counterparts. Pinochet in Chile had backing from the USA. Both the American and Russian governments swapped who they supported in the Ethiopian civil war.
To this day as well, the USA will work with authoritarian regimes if it works in their favour. Saudi Arabia is one example. The current governments in El Salvador and Ecuador are further examples. Heck, even Venezuela now, as Trump is happy to leave Delcy Rodriguez alone so long as she sends the country’s oil northwards.
More than anything, the USA has acted as a perfect scapegoat. Aggressive actions such as illegal sanctions and random bombings give dictators the opportunity to push the levers of a common enemy and strong leadership. Blockades that hurt populations more than leaders. Shipments of weapons to protest movements which don’t arrive. Overthrown regimes where things either don’t change, or get worse.
The US strategy to authoritarianism is one that needs careful consideration, balance, and foresight. It should be one that can help a nation recover and build towards something new. The US has rarely had those qualities, and they can be found especially lacking in the Trump Administration.
The road to authoritarianism
There are several lists that you can find related to how to detect the rise in authoritarianism.
For example, the following by Horizons Project
Divide and rule: Foment mistrust and fear in the population.
Spread lies and conspiracies: Undermine the public’s belief in truth.
Destroy checks and balances: Quietly use legal or pseudo-legal rationales to gut institutions, weaken opposition, and/or declare national emergencies to seize unconstitutional powers.
Demonize opponents and independent media: Undermine the public’s trust in those actors and institutions that hold the state accountable.
Undermine civil and political rights for the unaligned: Actively suppress free speech, the right to assembly and protest and the rights of women and minority groups.
Blame minorities, immigrants, and “outsiders” for a country’s problems: Exploit national humiliation while promising to restore national glory.
Reward loyalists and punish defectors: Make in-group members fearful to voice dissension.
Encourage or condone violence to advance political goals: Dehumanize opposition and/or out-groups to justify violence against them.
Organize mass rallies to keep supporters mobilized against made-up threats: Use fearmongering and hate speech to consolidate in-group identity and solidarity.
Make people feel like they are powerless to change things: Solutions will only come from the top.
There is also the Ten Steps to fascism as written by Naomi Wolf:
Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
Set up an internal surveillance system.
Infiltrate and harass citizens' groups.
Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
Target key individuals.
Control the press.
Cast criticism as espionage and dissent as treason.
Subvert the rule of law.
In my personal view, I have outlined my own list, based on some core principles, as well as some bonuses that can appear that aren’t covered in all aspects.
Those are, as follows:
A common enemy: The use of some kind of internal or external, easy to hate, threat that can unite large swathes of the population
Appeal to strong emotions: By focussing on emotions like fear or hate, one can reduce the capacity of the population to think critically
Perfect Leader: Create a leader that all must trust, whereby only they can resolve the problems facing the country through their unique skills ― especially regarding corruption, spirituality, or strength
Disdain for government or institutions: Weaken the government and institutions so they are unable to hold things in check
Disdain for free press: Also includes prolific use of propaganda
Emergencies: Emergencies are used to take control and exercise power
Militarism: Strong army that can act on a whim, militarised police, and paramilitaries to enact the will of the leader
Disregarding human rights: Ignoring human rights, as well as a hatred for organisations that promote them
Special or secret prisons: Creation of an extensive prison system to throw anyone who disagrees with the regime
Weakening of elections and opposition: Cast doubt in electoral system, eliminate opposition through intimidation, control, imprisonment, or death
Ultranationalism and the nation in decline: Call upon slogans that promote ultranationalism and that claim the nation needs saving
Bonus:
State and religion: Could be mixed like in Iran, Saudi Arabia, old Monarchism, and the current United States. The opposite can be seen, with a complete distaste for religion like in the case of the Nazi’s and Bolsheviks.
Support from rich and powerful: Applicable to fascism, the rich prefer a fascist to a communist
A desire to invade other countries: As in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Iran, Venezuela, and Trump’s USA
Comparisons
Keeping in mind all that has been said, I can now compare the current Colombian presidential candidates to the two mighty figures of old, and see how they stack up. Keep in mind that I likely have some inherit bias from the algorithms that serve me and my way of thinking. Also keep in mind that this is to the best of my knowledge as of June 9th, 2026.
A common enemy
Hitler: He used the Jews, and the Communists, as a common enemy to fight against. There was also the Queer community, and anyone in disagreement with Hitler’s policies. They were to be eliminated from society completely.
Stalin: The capitalists, and Western countries, all served as common enemies. For a time, the Nazi’s had that role as well. All were to be fought, and eventually, destroyed.
Cepeda: The far-right: Uribistas, and now Abelardistas. It must be noted that Cepeda has never spoken of eliminating these factions, but instead triumphing over them electorally.
Abelardo: For him, it’s the extreme left. He claims they are connected to narcotrafficking, and paramilitarism. He has claimed that he wants to “gut” the radical left within the framework of the constitution and the law.
Appeal to strong emotions
Hitler: He used hatred for his enemies, while creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.
Stalin: Created an atmosphere of fear with his purges.
Cepeda: Strong emotions aren’t a part of his campaign, he’s mostly been a calm and well-spoken campaigner. To the point that he’s been criticised for being boring. Though fear of an eventual Abelardo government has cropped up, mostly organically.
Abelardo: Has fostered a hatred for the “extreme left”, using typical far-right tactics employed in Argentina, the USA, UK, and more.
Perfect Leader
Hitler: One people, one empire, one leader. Hitler was painted as the strong leader who could save Germany from the communists and Jews.
Stalin: Used purges to show himself as strong, and used the Second World War to create a strong image of himself as a wartime leader. Also, the idea of Marxist-Leninism is that strong and dedicated leaders are needed to bring about communism.
Cepeda: Not really shown as a perfect leader, for him and his vice-presidential candidate, the image created has been one based on their previous work for peace and communities.
Abelardo: He has made various claims towards being the perfect leader. Creating a sense of machismo, claiming that he has never “drank from the teat of the state”. In terms of corruption, he’s claimed to rely only on his own money, that he won’t take a presidential salary, as well as having a proposal to create an anti-corruption office that answers only to the president.
Disdain for government or institutions
Hitler: The Nazi German government was one of inefficiency and infighting. While he gutted many parts of the government, he also had multiple departments for the same thing, given contradictory commands, leading to chaos. Hitler used that chaos so that his subordinates were too busy fighting with each other rather than on usurping him. He weakened or destroyed democratic institutions.
Stalin: Carrying over from Lenin and the revolution, the government became highly centralised, with no democratic checks and balances.
Cepeda: The only thing that could be considered a threat to the government was the idea of a Constituent Assembly to modify the constitution, but his campaign has now abandoned that idea. He does propose replacing the election authority, this has concern. Not sure if it’s possible without the constituent assembly, though.
Abelardo: Proposes shrinking the state by 40%, eliminating ministries and institutions that he deems as non-important. The constitution prohibits most of this. He also seeks to rule by decree, with a pledge to enact 90 decrees from his first day in office.
Disdain for free press
Hitler, and Stalin: Both used centralised propaganda, and eliminated the free press.
Cepeda: Has shown little to no animosity towards the free press, aside from calling out lies.
Abelardo: Has used judicial harassment against journalists. Two organisations have expressed concern about this. He has also made negative comments towards interviewers. There is also the prolific use of AI within his followers, for things such as editing videos to make Cepeda look like he’s saying bad things, as well as lies, all of which muddies the campaign.
Emergencies
Hitler: Used the emergency of the Reichstag Fire to take control.
Stalin: Used a murder of a state official as a pretext to initiate his great purges.
Neither Abelardo nor Cepeda have spoken about using emergencies, of course. Although Abelardo is at most risk of doing so, since he wants to achieve national security within his first 90 days and thus needs the army to have full powers. Also since he admires some aspects of Bukele’s system in El Salvador, a country which has been living under a state of emergency for years. Both candidates have spoken a great deal about assassination attempts on the campaign trail, though.
Militarism
Hitler: Part of his campaign involved remilitarising Germany after the Treaty of Versailles, and the use of his party’s paramilitary unit to intimidate the opposition.
Stalin: Came from a history of fighting, he himself robbed banks in order to fund the Bolsheviks. The USSR used its military to project strength, and defend itself from outside aggressors.
Cepeda: Has no plans to significantly militarise. There is a false association between him an a former guerilla group, due to his work as a mediator for peace talks with said group. His proposals for the military involve placing human rights front and centre.
Abelardo: Copies the dictator strategy of using the military salute as a symbol of his campaign. He plans to strengthen the military with the help of the USA and Israel, and he has an interest in allowing for gun ownership in Colombia a la USA.
Disregarding human rights
Hitler: Modified the law to allow him to do anything and persecute anyone, leading to the famous concentration camps.
Stalin: The state-mandated economy did not care about how its plans would affect people, thus millions starved in order to industrialise the country.
Cepeda: The opposite. His campaign calls for strengthening human rights, and his entire political career has been about helping the victims of human rights violations.
Abelardo: His want to persecute the criminal elements of Colombia has the chance to, like in history, lead to negative outcomes for certain people. This includes instituting life sentences in Colombia, something which is unconstitutional. He also wants to withdraw the country from the UN. Among the agencies he wants to dismantle are the JEP (Special Jurisdiction for Peace) which has investigated and revealed the truths of human rights violations in Colombia’s past (state, paramilitary, or guerilla) and condemned those responsible.
Special or secret prisons
Hitler: Concentration Camps. An open secret in German society.
Stalin: The gulags in Serbia, and interment camps.
Cepeda: None.
Abelardo: Wants to build 10 mega-prisons, and 10 rehabilitation centres. Not secret, but definitely special.
Weakening of elections and opposition
Hitler: Used violence to weaken opposition, and the Nazi party used several strategies to force re-elections of the Reichstag, gaining more and more power. Final tossing of the electoral system.
Stalin: Eliminated the opposition within the communist party. Lenin had previously destroyed the electoral system in Russia.
Cepeda: Has cast doubts onto the preliminary results of the elections, given the fact that the software is owned by a private company that has done suspicious work in Honduras. It thus took him a week to acknowledge the results, after the official scrutiny was completed. He has also accused the opposition of buying votes, and is pursuing legal action to that degree.
Abelardo: Has worked with the USA and Ecuador to enact strategies that interfere with the elections (for example: A well-timed call with the president of Ecuador as he was about to remove the sanctions against Colombia, endorsements from the USA with hints of invasion if Colombia doesn’t go the way they want). He has also spoken about gutting the radical left. The majority of the signatures he presented to the electoral board for his candidacy as an independent were thrown out.
Ultranationalism and the nation in decline
Hitler: Hitler spoke a lot about pride for Germany, about the German people being a superior race, and about how the Jews were betraying the country and bringing it down. He aimed to create a grand empire with living space for the Aryan people.
Stalin: While Russia itself wasn’t painted in an ultranationalistic manner, those ideas became stronger as WW2 happened, and under the ideal of Socialism in one country. In this case, the party was more important than the country.
Cepeda: Not much here. Rather than saying Colombia is declining, he speaks more about an ethical revolution to build a better Colombia for all.
Abelardo: His ideas, including his slogan, call to those nationalistic ideals. “Firm for the homeland”. If you read his manifesto on his website, you will see a lot of the same ideas. Plus the idea that Colombia is in a decline.
Other Comparisons
For these, it’s useful to expand our scope to other countries, and see how they compare.
State and religion
USA, Iran, and ancient Monarchies: Religion is intrinsically tied to the state. The leader is also a religious figure of some sort, like a messiah, or having a special link to God.
Hitler, Lenin, Fascism, and Communism: In Fascism, religion is seen as only useful so long as it reinforces the movement. However, both movements see religion as a threat to their power, so their aim is to eliminate it.
Thus, great care should be taken in regard to movements that wish to embrace or abolish religion using the state apparatus. There is a reason that the USA was founded on the idea of a secular state.
Cepeda: Religion is seen as a right, regardless of what religion you follow. It is not mixed with the state, Colombia continues to be secular.
Abelardo: Used to be an atheist, but he converted to Catholicism. He has campaigned in churches. He aims to bring religion into the education system, to replace more philosophical or sociological ways of thinking.
Support from rich and powerful
Russia: Putin has a model of agreement with the oligarchs in Russia. He gives them relative freedom, and they don’t threaten him.
Worldwide: In many countries, the leaders also happen to be the wealthiest. Gulf States, for example.
Cepeda: Laughable, nobody is pouring that much money into his campaign.
Abelardo: He has support from business moguls, but more than anything, he himself is a multimillionaire that claims to self-fund his campaign. He spent more on campaigning in the first round than any other candidate.
A desire to invade other countries
Neither Colombian candidate has shown a desire to invade another state. The focus is internal.
The centre and its failures
A common idea in seeing the ways that the far-left and the far-right can go is to claim that the political centre―either true neutrality, liberalism, or conservatism―is the best direction to go.
Indeed, for most times of governance, the centre is quite useful. They don’t rock the boat, ensuring slow but steady progress in either direction. However, when push comes to shove, these forces have shown themselves to be useless, if not detrimental, in responding to pressure from the two extremes.
Take Nazi Germany. The centre parties in 1933, when facing pressure from the Communists and Nazis, could do little to strengthen their base. More than that, their own infighting and failures to solve key issues, led to them eventually promoting Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, and with him having some Nazi officials in cabinet positions. This gave Hitler the chance to eventually seize power, with shaky support from the conservative-centres.
Furthermore, there was the policy of appeasement from the British Conservative-led government, which let Hitler take over several countries, and which only ended with his invasion of Poland.
In Russia, there was the Provisional Government that acted between the fall of the Tsarist Russia, and the October Revolution that put Lenin in charge. While they were a progressive block, they had a coalition of so many elements that I’m surprised it could ever function. More than that, they failed to act decisively in ways that made them unpopular and only sped up the fall of Russia. For example, they continued Russia’s involvement within the First World War, a war which was part of the reason the Tsar had been overthrown in the first place.
More recently, we’ve seen this with the Democrats in the United States. Their refusal to field a progressive candidate, and to yield on policy decisions that are widely unpopular with the voting base, allowed Trump to win in the 2016, and 2024 elections. There is also their incompetence within congress, where just enough democrats vote with the republicans to enact unpopular policies without damaging the image of the party as a whole. Then there is the New York City Mayor election, whereby the party was reluctant to support Mamdani despite him winning the primary. It is only now that Mamdani remains popular with well-implemented policies that the Democrats support him, only through their use of him to promote the wider party.
There is also the Labour Party in the UK, whose policies have been highly unpopular and strangely matching with more conservative values. Especially when it comes to trans rights. They have been unable to stem the rise of alternative parties like ReformUK and the Greens.
In Colombia
Disappointment began with the decision of a centrist politician, Juan Daniel Oviedo, to become the vice-president for the right-wing candidate, Paloma Valencia. This decision cost him a lot of his support, and his relationship with his husband. The Paloma and Oviedo united under the idea of creating a new centre in Colombia. Ultimately, it did not do much in the first round of the elections, the two earned around 6% of the total vote.
There is also Claudia Lopez, centre-left, who only managed to gain a little over 200,000 votes in the election.
And Sergio Fajardo, the main centrist, who did manage to pull a million votes. He showed in 2022 that he was more willing to watch whales than to support anyone within the second round of elections. This time, he had a coffee with Paloma Valencia, just to scold her and tell her why he was the superior centrist.
Now, in the second round, there is much disappointment. Paloma Valencia wasted no time in shaking off the centrist ideals, and supported Abelardo almost immediately. A decision that Juan Daniel Oviedo did not support.
As for Oviedo, he has been rather useless about things, stating that he can’t support Abelardo due to his machismo and homophobia, but also refusing to support Cepeda.
Sergio Fajardo is much the same, refusing either side, although he initially indicated that supporting Abelardo was impossible.
Claudia at least says not to support Abelardo, but she has her criticisms of Cepeda that make it impossible to support him.
In an election with 3 million votes at stake, all this indecision is uncomfortable. And it only gets worse.
The politicians in the centre have laid out strict guidelines that Cepeda should follow if he wants their support. There is this idea that he should “seduce” them, and their voters. They have looser guidelines for supporting Abelardo. This might be a political strategy to apply pressure, but it’s one that plays a dangerous game.
Meanwhile, the political parties have made their own moves. Up to and including the old Liberal party announcing their support for Abelardo. A move that is unpopular even within the party.
Both candidates have negatives. Both have shown some authoritarian colours. But there is one that is more of a danger to Colombia, and it’s not the one whose proposals reflect something you’d see in Europe. And it’s definitely not the one with a 3 page government plan.
Leftism and infighting
A problem on the left is that nobody can ever agree on how to do anything. The ideals are easy to agree upon, but nothing else is.
Up to and including in Russia. The communist elements were split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Trotsky, exiled by Stalin’s government, spent the rest of his life arguing about how Stalin was doing everything incorrectly.
Leftist infighting leads to the left being unable to mount strong opposition to anything, since they can’t agree on how. Or, if they do agree, it only lasts for some time. This structure can create the climate for some strong leader to come along, suppress everyone else, and take charge.
It can also be annoying. There is a little joke: People who turn to the right because they were annoyed by leftists are weak. Most leftists are annoyed by other leftists.
Even when it comes to Mamdani, someone with a strong approval rating, you’ll see opinions from online communists about how he’s just another traitor, another capitalist politician that would never really push socialism. It’s incredible, really.
In Colombia, the left have managed to merge and form a more broad coalition, aside from the more moderate parts. Time will tell if it holds.
The right, AI, and uniting with hate and fear
“They’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs.”
The far-right has this incredible ability to find enemies in just about everyone, and thus unite a large swathe of people under the banner of defeating all of those enemies.
This has become more powerful, and more dangerous, with AI. It’s little wonder why the right in general has embraced the technology with such fervor. It allows them to promote a sense of paranoia, that enemies are all around, on a scale and speed that has never been seen before.
It is something that is all consuming, though, and self-defeating. Eventually, you run out of external enemies to blame. Eventually, you look to the side and realise you’re standing with someone else who you do hate.
The politics of white supremacy in the US will eventually, if it wins, eat itself alive. They will find themselves back to the days of Nazi Germany, with a perfect Aryan race, which excludes a great chunk of people with white skin. Just like the immigration days of old, the US will find itself hating Italian, the Irish, and other people who are not perfect, in their view. All while covering up for their own imperfections.
After all, Hitler wasn’t a “perfect Aryan man” himself.
What does it all mean?
The exercise of claiming that someone is or isn’t an authoritarian usually comes in the form of highly simplified rhetoric: quick headlines and comparisons. An inability to look at differing factors, to see the whole story of someone’s rise to authoritarianism, to just boil it down to their personality or their political affiliation, is just as dangerous as someone promoting authoritarianism.
At the same time, one must acknowledge their own biases. I lean leftwards, always have and always will (barring brain trauma induced stupidity). That does not mean I can’t do as plenty of leftists have done, and criticise our own movement, for its paralysis, and its bias for strong leaders who can easily steal away the movement.
Unfortunately, in terms of the latter half, we cannot bring about great social change in the current climate. Many countries around the world, including powerful ones, are actively hostile towards progressivism. Many populations not as well-educated as we’d like, or too isolated to empathise with people who they have never and will never meet. Individualism has created a class of people who think it is an insult that they pay taxes for the benefit of society.
Both Cepeda and Abelardo have shown traits associated with dictatorships. There is one who has shown more of those traits, and whose personality, inspirations, and background makes the idea so much more possible. I have presented the facts as best as I can, you decide.
In the end, we’re looking at a world where two highly polarised sides will fight tooth and nail, over and over, until the end of time. There is no quick and easy, nor popular, fix to this. Good education is one means to achieve this, but by itself it is not perfect. We are still humans, after all. Emotions still override logic.
Electoral reform is another possibility. First past the post has shown its weaknesses, and forced people to choose between the least bad of two options, nullify their vote, or vote in blank. This is not conducive to society. Ranked choice voting would help a lot, in this regard.
Media reform is needed as well. News stations should not be allowed to have a bias one way or another. People should not be permitted to live within their echo chambers. Social media algorithms have to be neutralised in terms of politics. The bias of an owner cannot be reflected in the news, content, and discussion that we see.
I believe that AI should be destroyed as well. That technology only serves to create more echo chambers, weaken education and critical thinking, and muddy the information that we have.
Unless that comes to pass, we’ll just end up rolling the wheel round and round in circles, paralysed.
Better education means that we can have proper discussions about economic, foreign, and other types of policy. It means and increase of ideas within all aspects of politics.
Electoral reform means that regardless of where you stand, left, right, centre, you have more freedom to choose. That means no more voting for one candidate out of fear that another will win. It means that your choice matters more than ever before.
Media reform means that debates can happen without so much polarisation. It means that you can hear alternative ideas, and perhaps you might agree with one or two of them, though not all. It means you have greater knowledge of what is happening.
No AI means that you can be more confident in what you’re seeing, what you’re hearing, and what information you have access to.
All of these things benefit everyone. Not just one political side.
Until then, we’ll just have to keep having this discussion about authoritarians.
Comments
Post a Comment