In the same electoral campaign that will go down in history for its polarization and for its open and undue political participation in favor of his candidate, Senator Iván Cepeda, President Gustavo Petro is also breaking another foundational dike in Colombian democracy: the official recognition of the presidential election results.
A week after the defeat of Petrismo against Abelardo de La Espriella and three long days after the scrutiny ended and the result was made official –Abelardo beat Cepeda by 700,000 votes and both are going to the second round on June 21–, President Petro still has not issued a public statement recognizing the decision of the majority of Colombians and insists on his narrative of an alleged fraud. Cepeda has also not officially recognized De la Espriella’s victory, although the political cost of trying to disregard the elections –which for many revived the ghost of Chavismo’s methods to stay in power in Venezuela– led him to rectify just hours later, when he had to come out and acknowledge that there was no evidence of fraud.
Despite both indicating that they would await the declaration of the scrutinies, an event that finally occurred on Thursday, both Petro and his candidate continue to remain silent about the legitimacy of the victory of the candidate of Defensores de la Patria. There have only been tacit recognitions, such as that made by Aida Quilcué in her statements in the Senate, and other pragmatic ones, such as the strategic suspension of the idea of promoting a constituent assembly, a project that is at the heart of President Petro but that frightens the political center due to the enormous risks it implies due to the express intention of undermining the system of checks and balances established by the 1991 Constitution.
“Not recognizing the results, the defeat, implies a disregard also for the legitimacy of the adversary and represents a risk that could lead to political violence,” warns analyst Jairo Libreros. He adds that it is, however, a strategy consistent with the narrative of fraud, which has been totally dismantled both by the good functioning of the electoral system and by international observers, but which still persists in the head of state’s messages to his bases.
Far from fulfilling his role of representing all Colombians, the president continued to use official acts to defy the calls of institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office and the Council of State to not intervene in politics and now personally attacks the opposition candidate.
Without official recognition of the results and with several attempts to sow doubts about the legitimacy of the electoral process, some question whether the country is not seeing a preview of what is to come in the second presidential round if Iván Cepeda is definitively defeated.
Despite the evidence of solidity and transparency, the left continues to foster the narrative against the Registraduría, which, through the head of the entity, Hernán Penagos, has dismantled point by point the alleged arguments of fraud. “The Registraduría technicians have reviewed the 5,300 polling stations that the Government wanted to be verified. In 5,119 of them, a candidate obtained less than 300 votes, that is, much less than the potential number of voters in a standard polling station in Colombia. In the others, higher votes have been obtained, which is absolutely normal, because there are censuses of 500, 800, and 1,000 voters in different polling stations, such as, for example, at the Corferias polling station in Bogotá,” explained the Registrar, who called on party representatives and auditors to not distort this information.
The evidence kills the narrative of the president and his candidate, even if the campaign says they do recognize the results. “That the official scrutiny showed a 99.94 percent coincidence with the preliminary data is precisely a demonstration of the technical and institutional solidity of the Colombian electoral system, also endorsed by more than 1,500 international observers. This should be a reason for citizen confidence and not anxiety,” said Erick Rincón, dean of the Faculty of Jurisprudence at the Universidad del Rosario.
Democracy and institutions would be at risk given the possibility that the narrative of disregarding the results will also be replicated in the second round. De la Espriella made a call to the international community to keep an eye on Colombia next June 21. “We require the support of the international community, because in this new stage of the process, President Petro and his candidate decided to violate the law, disregard the election results, and use the public budget to try to change things in their favor,” he said.
“The Government is responsible for governance; it is not just another guest at the elections,” warned Alejandra Barrios, director of the Electoral Observation Mission (MOE), in an interview with this newspaper.
Libreros adds that what happened during the last week is of great concern. “It is a fracture to the legitimacy of the electoral process, which indicates that the peaceful transfer of power is at risk.”
Several candidates, including Sergio Fajardo, spoke along the same lines: “It does a lot of damage (…) There has never been, on my part, a disregard for authorities. I have always been respectful and continue to be respectful. What President Petro has done, by questioning the electoral result, is a very great damage and is part of a confrontation that Colombia does not deserve and that is harmful from whatever angle you look at it.”
Gabriel Cifuentes, a columnist for EL TIEMPO, pointed out that while it is true that Petro and Cepeda’s statements about the results have little legal relevance, as neither of them declares the election, at the same time there is a very problematic political issue.
“If Cepeda loses in the second round and the results are disregarded, we would be entering an unprecedented phase of political and social instability. With that same argument, the M-19 emerged in 1970; with that argument, the idea of a national constituent assembly could be reactivated; with that argument, massive mobilizations could be called that would lead us to a new social outburst,” said Cifuentes, who drew attention to the candidate’s lack of statement to distance himself from what Petro said.
For Humberto de la Calle, former constituent and former senator, several factors have made the country “march backward in search of democracy” after the election day. He mentions, for example, “the anticipated and unproven attacks on the electoral body” and the strategy of stirring up the “ghost of fraud, with unknown intentions.”
And multiple voices, from the private sector, academia, and other branches of power, have called for defending democracy and for the president, two months before leaving the Casa de Nariño, to be worthy of the dignity he holds, the highest in our country.
“Electoral controversies must be handled through the institutional channels provided by the Constitution. Trust in institutions is an asset that Colombia must always protect,” said Natalia Gutiérrez, president of the Gremial Council, who highlighted the transparency of Sunday’s election day.
The alerts have reached Washington, which this week finally appeared on the electoral radar with “President Donald Trump’s full support” for an eventual victory by Abelardo De la Espriella. The State Department, through Undersecretary Cristopher Landau, warned that the U.S. is not only attentive to the activation of the vote-buying machinery that has been denounced on the Caribbean Coast but also to an eventual attempt to disregard the electoral results. President Petro and his Minister of Politics, Armando Benedetti, have been ‘enrolled’ since late last year on the feared ‘Clinton List’ and appear to be direct recipients of the White House’s warnings.
Petro, in campaign
Some have framed the uncertainty regarding the recognition of the results as a political game by a president fully committed to the campaign. Erick Rincón adds that this stance by the Casa de Nariño “responds to a strategic calculation aimed at the second round on June 21: maintaining an atmosphere of uncertainty can function as a mobilizing factor for the allied electorate.”
As never before, the head of the Executive has made evident his interest in having his “anointed one” elected. This was already noticeable during his tour of the Caribbean a week before the first round, but it became completely clear this Friday, with his appearance in a public square from Córdoba.
Petro delivered his harshest speech of the entire electoral contest and made clear emphasis on directing his accusations at Abelardo de la Espriella.
“Sad is the country that with its own popular vote brings those who wielded chainsaws, dismembered, and put the people in crematories. Sad is the country if it intends to bring the defenders of genocides to the Casa de Nariño. Sad is the people who want to bring the defender of paramilitarism to the presidential chair,” he said in the public square.
He also spoke of Trump’s support for De la Espriella and assured that there was a betrayal by the American president of his commitment not to participate in the Colombian electoral contest. “I do not accept it, they can put me on the OFAC list 10,000 times. And if they want to take me to prison, try it, but I will not lower my voice, because here, before they want to take me to prison, they will also want to assassinate me if the specters of death win again and govern from the Casa de Nariño,” was another part of the speech.
For experts, the speech given in the public square on Friday raises even more alarms if combined with the stances discrediting the elections and the non-recognition of the results. They assert that it is a scenario of institutional instability that has no precedents in the modern history of the country.
“President Gustavo Petro is out of control and there is a matter of national security order. He lost control of himself and the issue requires institutional consideration,” said analyst and columnist Pedro Medellín, who drew attention to the tone the President has taken in public squares and which intensified on Friday.
Two weeks before the definitive elections, the president is working hard to try to save the campaign of a candidate whom he himself has taken it upon himself to ‘sell’ to public opinion as an extension of himself, without his own momentum. His announcement to directly lead the campaign, in open violation of the rules, ultimately did not end in his supposed resignation, but several of his most loyal allies have finally left official bureaucracy to continue in open proselytizing activity in favor of Cepeda, whose advisors are beginning to suggest to him, still timidly, that he try to mark greater distances from Petro’s controversies.
What analysts warn is that the result of the June 21 votes cannot be exposed to the political strategies of any sector, and for this reason, they call on the President of the Republic – who, since demobilizing from the guerrilla in the early 90s, has been elected at least six times by the same electoral system he now questions – to prioritize the interests of the country and all Colombians over electoral calculations.
As experts and even the Council of State itself stated in its order to Gustavo Petro not to disseminate campaign content on his social networks, the presidential figure is constitutionally enshrined as a symbol of national unity, but the Colombian president is failing to fulfill this role and is helping to increase polarization.
MATEO GARCÍA AGUDELO AND JUAN SEBASTIÁN LOMBO DELGADO
Political Redaction