The transition from the government of Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, to the administration of far-right leader Abelardo de la Espriella reflects more than a shift in political direction. It also reveals a society exhausted by confrontation, frustrated by unfulfilled promises, and increasingly willing to support strong leaders in the hope of restoring order.
This is one of the central themes of La democracia fatigada (The Weary Democracy), the new book by veteran lawyer, politician, and diplomat Humberto de la Calle, unveiled yesterday in Bogota.
During the event, the former Colombian vice president and former head of the government delegation in peace negotiations with the FARC analyzed the country’s growing political polarization and warned of the risks facing a democracy under constant strain.
His reflection stems from a fundamental concern: the erosion of public trust caused by one government can pave the way for another that, despite championing an opposing ideology, reproduces some of the same institutional weaknesses.
Published by Penguin Random House, the essay examines the challenges facing a democracy in which public frustration, hostility between political opponents, and distrust in institutions threaten to displace reasoned political debate.
‘La democracia fatigada’: Humberto de la Calle on Colombia’s political polarization
In La democracia fatigada, De la Calle argues that Colombia’s political shift cannot be interpreted solely as a move from left to right. In his view, it also reflects mounting social frustration, insecurity, and distrust that have made confrontation one of the defining features of national politics.
Gustavo Petro’s election to the presidency in 2022 marked a historic milestone for Colombia’s left, which had traditionally been excluded from executive power. His platform promised social reforms, greater equality, and a transformation of the country’s economic and political structures. However, difficulties in implementing some of his proposals, clashes with Congress, and tensions with other institutions contributed to a deterioration in his relationship with a segment of the public.
“Petro revived conflicts from the 1940s and, after modernizing them, brought back a confrontation that did nothing to improve citizens’ living conditions, which was what most people expected,” he said during a discussion with lawyer and columnist Andres Caro.
That discontent subsequently helped fuel the rise of Abelardo de la Espriella, whose rhetoric has emphasized security, state authority, and the need for decisive action against criminal organizations. His victory partly reflects a desire among a segment of the electorate to bring Petro’s political cycle to a close.
“The book deals precisely with the ailments of the system, which are not unique to Colombia and which foster populism as a tool for both the right and the left,” he said, adding that in this context, “emotions replace reason.”
In this regard, De la Calle urged his audience to recognize the more complex relationship between the two administrations. Ideological alternation does not, by itself, guarantee an improvement in democratic quality. If politics continues to revolve around perpetual confrontation and the delegitimization of opponents, a change of president may alter the state’s priorities without resolving the underlying problems fueling polarization.
When institutions no longer serve as a check on power
One of the book’s central arguments is that democracy can deteriorate without a coup or an explicit constitutional rupture. Risks also emerge when democratically elected leaders use their mandate to weaken institutional checks and balances, challenge judicial independence, or portray their opponents as enemies of the nation.
This concern extends beyond Colombia’s borders. In democracies around the world, leaders from widely different ideological backgrounds have resorted to rhetoric that pits the people against the elites, questions the legitimacy of institutional checks, and concentrates authority around a single presidential figure.
In this context, the separation of powers, freedom of the press, and respect for pluralism are not legal formalities but essential safeguards against the will of a temporary majority becoming a tool of exclusion. Democracy requires competitive elections, but it also needs institutions capable of limiting power and protecting the rights of those who do not share the government’s views.
The rise of social media and the transformation of political communication have added further challenges to this landscape. The rapid circulation of messages, the spread of misleading information, and the rewards given to increasingly aggressive rhetoric can deepen divisions and leave less room for public deliberation.
Referring to technofeudalism — a concept developed, among others, by German-Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han — De la Calle warned that “the world as we knew it will not return once the current noise subsides.” “We will no longer own goods; we will only be subscribers controlled by a handful of major technology companies that control big data.”
The Challenge of Overcoming Polarization
De la Calle’s reflections point to a problem that Colombia will not solve simply by replacing one political bloc with another. If the erosion of support for Petro’s government contributed to De la Espriella’s rise, the new administration will have to demonstrate that its promise of order is compatible with respect for civil liberties, institutional independence, and political pluralism.
Security and government effectiveness are legitimate demands, but they cannot be used to justify weakening democratic checks and balances. Likewise, defending institutions loses its force if they fail to respond to the needs of a public that is becoming increasingly impatient and distrustful.
La democracia fatigada ultimately poses a question that extends beyond Colombia: What happens when citizens lose faith in both their leaders and the rules that govern democratic coexistence? For De la Calle, part of the answer lies in restoring the ability to disagree without turning political opponents into irreconcilable enemies.
After describing the Petro administration as “disastrous,” the veteran politician did not hesitate to level similar criticism at the De la Espriella government, although he acknowledged that it had been in office for only a short time. Nevertheless, he warned that the administration “is displaying troubling signs of authoritarianism” and recalled that the current president “won the election by a narrow margin, thanks to the overseas vote, and does not have a mandate to wage the culture war he advocates.”
Finally, against what he himself described as a “pessimistic” backdrop, De la Calle called for a response that preserves the fundamental principles of democracy — emphasizing respect for the separation of powers and recognition that power is plural — while also finding ways to ensure that institutions once again provide credible answers to a divided society.
De la Calle, a key architect of Colombia’s landmark political agreements
Born in 1946, Humberto de la Calle has spent decades in key positions in Colombia’s political and institutional life. A lawyer by training, university professor, diplomat, and political leader, he has served as interior minister, vice president of Colombia from 1994 to 1996 under President Ernesto Samper, and ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS). He has also taken part in some of the country’s most consequential constitutional debates.
His career is closely tied to Colombia’s 1991 Constitution, which emerged from a process of institutional transformation amid political violence and drug trafficking. As interior minister, he took part in the development of the new constitutional framework, which expanded mechanisms for citizen participation and strengthened the recognition of fundamental rights.
However, one of the most significant chapters of his career was his role leading the Colombian government’s negotiating delegation in talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The process culminated in the signing of the peace agreement in November 2016, bringing more than half a century of conflict between the state and the country’s main guerrilla group to an end.
That experience cemented his reputation as an advocate of political negotiations and institutional solutions to conflict. It also gave him firsthand insight into the difficulties of building consensus in a society marked by deep ideological divisions and historical wounds.
