Colombia Runoff Pits 2 Candidates Shaped by Paramilitary Ties as Violence Hits 2016-Peace-Deal High
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jun 20
Colombia Runoff Pits 2 Candidates Shaped by Paramilitary Ties as Violence Hits 2016-Peace-Deal High
3 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jun 20
Summary
Sunday’s runoff will send either Iván Cepeda, 63, or Abelardo de la Espriella, 47, to the presidency, with both candidates’ biographies deeply tied to Colombia’s paramilitary war.
Cepeda built his career exposing paramilitary crimes after his senator father was murdered in 1994, while De la Espriella rose as a lawyer defending AUC leaders during the group’s demobilisation.
The clash matters because the winner takes office on Aug. 7 amid Colombia’s worst violence since the 2016 peace accord and sharply different security plans.
De la Espriella, who led polls after the first round, wants a hard-line military offensive; Cepeda backs a revised version of President Gustavo Petro’s “total peace” talks, a strategy security experts say has broadly failed.
Paramilitary history remains politically potent because those forces once fielded more than 30,000 fighters, and successor groups such as the Gulf Clan still dominate trafficking routes and armed violence.
One candidate defended paramilitaries, the other's father was killed by them. Can Colombia's election break its cycle of revenge?
With the current peace strategy failing, will Colombia's next president unleash the military or double down on negotiations with armed groups?
Colombia’s 2026 Runoff: Polarization, Peace at Stake, and the Future of Democracy
Overview
Colombia faces a pivotal moment as its presidential runoff election takes place on June 21, 2026. The country is deeply polarized, with voters split between two sharply contrasting visions for Colombia’s future. On one side, Ivan Cepeda champions a progressive agenda rooted in social movements and unions, pushing for economic and social reforms. On the other, powerful right-wing opposition and business sectors stand firmly against these changes, having a history of mobilizing against government policies, especially those involving taxation and regulation. This stark ideological divide highlights the high stakes and uncertainty surrounding the election’s outcome.