The engineer had climbed the polls with populist gestures that resonated with voters tired of traditional politics.
A semana de las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia, tres candidatos encarnan visiones radicalmente distintas sobre el origen de los males del país y la dirección de su cura: la izquierda estructural de Petro, el orden institucional de Gutiérrez y el populismo austero de Hernández. En el fondo, la elección no es solo entre personas, sino entre diagnósticos: desigualdad sistémica, corrupción enquistada o exceso político como raíz del problema. Colombia se prepara para decidir no solo quién gobernará, sino qué historia contará sobre sí misma.
- Con una semana para el 29 de mayo, la carrera presidencial se ha concentrado en tres figuras que representan fracturas profundas en la sociedad colombiana.
- Petro enfrenta acusaciones de querer expropiar propiedades privadas, lo que lo obliga a defender su reforma agraria como transformación, no confiscación.
- Gutiérrez apuesta por golpear la corrupción con 'muerte política' para los corruptos y promete seguridad ciudadana frente al crimen organizado y el narcotráfico.
- Hernández sorprende con un ascenso sostenido y capta el respaldo de Betancourt, quien lo señala como el único capaz de frenar lo que llama fuerzas extremistas.
- El debate ya no es solo programático: es una disputa sobre cuál es el verdadero obstáculo al desarrollo colombiano y quién tiene legitimidad para removerlo.
A siete días de la primera vuelta presidencial en Colombia, la contienda se había definido en torno a tres candidatos con diagnósticos incompatibles sobre el país. Gustavo Petro, líder del Pacto Histórico, proponía una reforma tributaria para financiar gasto social y reducir el déficit, junto con una redistribución agraria que, según él, respondía a una desigualdad rural inaceptable. También planteaba renegociar los tratados de libre comercio. Sus rivales lo acusaban de querer expropiar; él respondió en debate televisado que jamás había usado esa palabra.
Federico Gutiérrez, exalcalde respaldado por los partidos tradicionales, centraba su campaña en la lucha anticorrupción: penas severas, pérdida de cargos, incautación de bienes y exposición del clientelismo electoral. Complementaba su propuesta con la creación de una unidad nacional contra el robo y el crimen organizado, y prometía ampliar la asistencia social a cinco millones de familias mientras apuntaba a un crecimiento del cinco por ciento del PIB para 2026.
Rodolfo Hernández, el ingeniero que irrumpió en la política, ganaba terreno con propuestas concretas y gestos simbólicos: eliminar las intermediarias en salud, incentivar el ahorro y la inversión inmobiliaria, donar su sueldo presidencial y bajar los aviones del Estado. Su ascenso culminó cuando Ingrid Betancourt, única mujer en la carrera, retiró su candidatura y lo respaldó, describiéndolo como el único capaz de enfrentar lo que llamó fuerzas extremistas.
Tres visiones, tres diagnósticos: desigualdad estructural, corrupción institucional o derroche político. La elección del 29 de mayo no solo definiría un presidente, sino cuál de esas lecturas de Colombia prevalecería.
Colombia's presidential election was seven days away when three candidates emerged as the clear frontrunners, each offering a starkly different answer to what the country needed next. On May 29, voters would choose their next president from a field of six, but the race had already crystallized around three figures whose polling numbers had separated them from the rest: Gustavo Petro on the left, Fico Gutiérrez representing the traditional right, and Rodolfo Hernández, the engineer-turned-politician whose recent surge had surprised observers.
Petro, running as the face of the Pacto Histórico—a coalition of leftist political groups—built his campaign around structural economic change. He proposed a significant tax reform designed to fund new social spending while shrinking Colombia's budget deficit. More ambitiously, he advocated for agrarian reform, arguing that rural families faced unacceptable inequality that required a fundamental shift in how land and resources were distributed. His vision extended to Colombia's trade agreements; if elected, he suggested renegotiating the country's free trade treaties rather than accepting them as fixed. These positions had drawn sharp criticism from opponents, particularly Gutiérrez, who accused Petro of planning to seize private property. Petro pushed back during a televised debate, insisting he had never used the word expropriation, attempting to reframe his proposals as reform rather than confiscation.
Gutiérrez, the former mayor now positioned as the candidate of Colombia's established parties, offered a different diagnosis. His campaign centered on fighting corruption with severe penalties—what he called political death and loss of office for those convicted of stealing from the state. In a Facebook post accompanied by video evidence, he promised to pursue corrupt officials through the courts, seize assets purchased with stolen money, and expose vote-buying schemes. Beyond anti-corruption, Gutiérrez proposed creating a National Unit Against Robbery to combat citizen insecurity, with particular focus on organized crime syndicates and drug trafficking networks. On the economic front, he promised to expand social assistance to reach five million families while targeting five percent GDP growth by 2026, framing poverty reduction as compatible with market-friendly policies.
Hernández represented something different still. The engineer had climbed the polls with a mix of practical proposals and populist gestures that resonated with voters tired of traditional politics. He outlined incentive programs for savings and real estate investment. On healthcare, he proposed eliminating the intermediary role of health insurance cooperatives and compensation funds, arguing instead for direct contracting of qualified medical personnel. But his most attention-grabbing proposals were the symbolic ones: he pledged to donate his presidential salary, cut lawmakers' pay, and ground the presidential aircraft. When Ingrid Betancourt, the only female candidate in the race, withdrew from the contest in the final week, she threw her support behind Hernández, describing him as the only candidate capable of confronting what she called extremist forces.
The three visions reflected fundamentally different assumptions about Colombia's problems and their solutions. Petro saw structural inequality rooted in land distribution and tax policy. Gutiérrez saw corruption and crime as the primary obstacles to growth and stability. Hernández offered a critique of political excess itself, suggesting that austerity and outsider leadership could break the cycle. With one week remaining before voters went to the polls, the choice between these competing diagnoses would determine not just who led the country, but which direction it would turn.
Citas Notables
I have never pronounced the word expropriation— Gustavo Petro, during presidential debate
We will pursue them, take them to court, and seize the assets they bought with money stolen from Colombia— Fico Gutiérrez, on Facebook regarding corrupt officials
He is the only one who could combat against extremist forces— Ingrid Betancourt, explaining her endorsement of Rodolfo Hernández
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Hernández's message gain so much traction when the other two candidates had more established political machinery?
He offered something neither of them could: the appearance of being outside the system entirely. A man saying he'd give up his salary and ground the presidential plane speaks to a specific frustration—that politicians themselves are the problem, not just their policies.
But aren't Petro's proposals more concrete? Tax reform, agrarian change—those are actual mechanisms for redistribution.
They are, but they're also threatening to people with property and wealth. Petro had to spend energy defending himself against accusations of expropriation. Hernández didn't have to defend anything—he was offering a feeling, not a program.
What about Gutiérrez's anti-corruption message? That seems like something all three could theoretically agree on.
In theory, yes. But Gutiérrez made it his entire platform. He was saying: fix the corruption first, then growth will follow. Petro was saying: redistribute wealth and corruption will matter less. Different diagnoses.
Did any of them actually address what caused Colombia's problems in the first place?
Not really. Petro pointed to rural inequality. Gutiérrez pointed to crime and theft. Hernández pointed to political self-dealing. They were looking at different symptoms of the same disease.
And Betancourt's withdrawal—was that significant?
It was a signal. She had been the only woman in the race, and she chose to exit rather than compete. By endorsing Hernández specifically as the anti-extremist candidate, she was essentially saying the real choice wasn't left versus right anymore—it was insider versus outsider.