The election of Gustavo Petro to preside over Colombia as of August 7 marks a real turning point in the eventful history of the country, which adds two centuries of conservative or liberal heads of state. This alternation in power has blown up, but also the very widespread belief in the accommodating nature of Colombian society and its chronic disinterest in politics, disillusioned by the empire of violence, the periodic challenge of drug trafficking and inequalities always on the rise. Faced with all this, popular mobilization has prevailedvery dynamic in 2019 and 2021 in the face of the disastrous management of the social crisis by Ivan Duke, outgoing president, and Petro’s social democratic proposal, as determined to forge his figure as a reformist leader as to distance himself from any hint of radicalism. The nuance is important because within the new wind in favor of the left that is blowing in Latin America, the differences are notable and Petro is distinguished by his realism.
Since the intellectual and politician was assassinated in 1949 Jorge eliecer gaitan and the ‘bogotazo’ broke out, its own mistakes and repression prevented the left from having a recognizable voice in the institutions. The proliferation of guerrilla movements -Petro was a member of the M-19-, the activity of the FARC for more than half a century and the intimidation, if not the murder of figures of progressive thought, prevented the left from disputing power with the ‘establishment’ . A mixture of distrust in the face of renewal speeches and a feeling of impotence resulted in endemic abstention in each electoral call. On Sunday, on the other hand, the participation reached 58% and Petro surpassed his opponent, the businessman, by 700,000 votes. Rodolfo Hernandezso similar in its purposes to Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro.
Such an infrequent mobilization can only be explained by the hope of the left-wing electorate to finally taste victory, and by the conservative fear of losing the presidency: participation made Petro’s victory possible, but also the good result obtained by Hernández, an ‘outsider’ of politics. The results return the image of a deeply fractured society in which The division for the peace sealed with the FARC survives by President Juan Manuel Santos and in which, in a more diffuse but no less effective way, the former president Alvaro Uribevery conservative, maintains its influence in all areas of politics and the economy.
Petro’s best letter of introduction is his detailed knowledge of the characteristics of an extremely dual society, with pockets of lacerating poverty and entrenched imbalances. He knows what the social texture of Colombia is not so much because of his youthful guerrilla militancy as because of his performance as mayor of Bogotá (2012-2015), but such a thing does not remedy the suspicion of the elites, who fear that the social capitalism or efficient capitalism that the president-elect preaches will eventually erode some or many of their privileges. Difficult days are expected, but also politically intense: Petro lacks sufficient strength in Parliament to sustain its programand he will have to make use of the skill shown during his years as a senator to get the best out of a divided Congress, without a defined opposition leader and where it is not impossible for him to obtain the necessary support to carry out his agenda.