It is not a surprise to notice the strong polarization that Colombian politics has been experiencing, a situation that is closely linked to social networks as pointed out by the South Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han, and that entered the country especially as a result of the plebiscite for the peace. There we discovered how the Colombian right made people go out to vote, berraca!
Since then, the quality of our democratic debate has plummeted until it falls into the worst possible scenarios: the president’s rental of a house in Davos, a media call to the neighbors, an (edited) speech by the president drunk, and even who does the first lady’s hair, turned out to be the topics that are discussed nationally.
Are we that serious?
The worst thing is that it seems that the government feels good in this ring of “tell me what to say” with the opposition. It is the scenario that Petro likes the most, because she remains on the public radar constantly, it helps her avoid other more complex uncomfortable issues and, because in the infighting of the debate, he feels like a fish in water.
A ring where the opposition continues to insist on trivializing public discussion, bringing fake news, personal allusions and inconsequential, but popular issues to the field.
A very diverse opposition that is found above all from outside in the media, influencers, opinion generators and a dissimilar group of political figures who also have their dose of histrionics and activism like that of a certain Green Party parliamentarian.
It should be noted that we have also seen in Congress serious and rigorous personalities who have served on some issues as a counterweight to the government on issues such as health, corruption or total peace, such as: Katherine Miranda, Kathy Juviano, Humberto De la Calle and David Moon. But for the most part the opposition leaves much to be desired and the misinformation it generates further polarizes and debases the political environment.
Could it be that Alejando Gaviria’s already famous phrase that a bad government often generates a bad opposition is going to be fulfilled?
What is happening is that many of the central problems on the country’s agenda are not being discussed adequately and the quality of the debate does not allow consensus to be built.
On the issue of health, we are witnessing the accelerated deterioration of the system without progress in the reform, but neither are measures being taken to solve its difficulties. We are in an institutional limbo where the most affected are the citizens.
Security issues in the territories are also not advancing and the effects of total peace are not felt. There is no model of relationship with the territories and there is constantly friction with mayors and governors, as in the Pan-American Games or in the recent climate crisis, where more than solutions there is a witch hunt for culprits and few solutions.
The war of media narratives distances the possibility of building processes of practical responses to everyday problems, and removes diverse social actors such as universities, NGOs, unions and other social organizations from the field.
The “virtual street” that the Colombian debate has become can lead us to an environment of greater polarization and ineffectiveness of the government. that sends general messages about the ideas of what the president wants and that disputes the opposition, but does not land on public policies in the territories.
As we are going in this rarefied environment, we will end calamitously in 2026 with more polarization, populist candidacies and activists and influencers launched in the political arena, a path that we already know has ended in Latin America.
We need more reflection and strength of thought tanks, but, in addition, responsibility of the national leadership that cannot continue allowing the national debate to go off the rails.