Fear makes voters receptive to hardline promises
As Colombia approaches a pivotal presidential election, the country finds itself caught between the weight of its democratic traditions and the gravitational pull of fear — a tension as old as politics itself. A right-wing candidate, channeling the tough-on-crime energy that has reshaped governments across Latin America, has risen sharply in polls while armed groups escalate violence and flood the information space with disinformation. The question Colombia now faces is one every democracy must eventually answer: when citizens feel unsafe, do they reach for institutions, or for the promise of force?
- A right-wing presidential candidate is surging in Colombian polls by exploiting deep public anxiety over violence, drawing direct comparisons to El Salvador's Bukele and threatening to upend the incumbent left's hold on power.
- Armed groups have dramatically escalated their operations ahead of the vote, deploying coordinated drone swarm attacks that signal a new and more sophisticated phase of conflict touching ordinary civilian life.
- Disinformation campaigns are flooding Colombia's information environment, eroding public trust in institutions and making it increasingly difficult for voters to distinguish fact from manufactured fear.
- The electoral race has fractured into a genuine three-way contest, with the left defending its record, the right promising a crackdown, and moderate voices competing for voters caught between ideology and survival instinct.
- The feedback loop between armed group violence and political radicalization is tightening — instability delegitimizes the sitting government while creating fertile ground for hardline outsider candidates.
- With weeks remaining before the vote, the trajectory points toward an election decided less by policy platforms than by which candidate voters trust most to make them feel safe again.
Colombia is entering its presidential election under conditions that seem almost designed to test democratic resilience. A right-wing candidate has climbed steadily in the polls, capitalizing on public anxiety about violence and disorder in a way that echoes the rise of El Salvador's Javier Bukele — a hardline figure who reshaped his country's politics by promising security above all else. The incumbent leftist government, once confident in its position, now faces a genuinely competitive race.
The security environment has deteriorated sharply as campaigning intensifies. Armed groups across Colombian territory have escalated their operations, deploying drone swarms in coordinated attacks that represent a troubling leap in tactical sophistication. Alongside the physical violence, these groups are running disinformation campaigns that muddy the electoral debate and deepen public distrust — a dual strategy that compounds fear while making it harder for anyone to understand what is actually happening.
The dynamics create a dangerous feedback loop. Real violence generates fear; fear makes voters receptive to hardline promises; and coordinated falsehoods erode faith in the institutions that might otherwise offer reassurance. Armed groups benefit from this chaos — destabilization delegitimizes sitting governments and creates openings for candidates who promise to break the system rather than work within it.
The election has fractured into a three-way contest, with the left defending its record, the right pressing its law-and-order message, and centrist voices competing for voters who are divided not just by ideology but by their raw assessment of who can restore order. Drone attacks, once rare in Colombia, are now a recurring feature of daily life — not abstract political violence, but the kind of threat that shapes how people move through their cities.
What unfolds in the coming weeks will reveal whether Colombian voters choose institutional continuity or decide that fear and frustration have made the hardline alternative worth the risk.
Colombia is heading into a presidential election shaped by three competing forces: a surging right-wing candidate drawing comparisons to El Salvador's Javier Bukele, an incumbent leftist government facing electoral pressure, and a security crisis that seems to worsen by the week. The right-wing contender has climbed steadily in polling, capitalizing on public anxiety about violence and disorder—a familiar playbook in Latin America, where tough-on-crime messaging resonates when citizens feel unsafe.
The timing is brutal. As campaigning intensifies, armed groups operating across Colombian territory have escalated their operations dramatically. They are deploying drone swarms in coordinated attacks, a tactic that signals both sophistication and desperation. These groups are also flooding the information space with disinformation campaigns, muddying the electoral debate and deepening public distrust. The effect is compounding: real violence creates fear, fear makes voters receptive to hardline promises, and coordinated falsehoods make it harder for anyone to know what is actually happening.
The electoral landscape itself has fractured into a three-way race. The left, which has held the presidency, faces a genuine challenge from the right's law-and-order messaging. But the center and moderate voices are also in play, creating a genuinely competitive field rather than a coronation or a clear two-sided contest. Voters are divided not just by ideology but by their assessment of which candidate can actually restore security.
What makes this moment distinctive is the feedback loop between violence and politics. Armed groups have every incentive to keep the country destabilized—it delegitimizes sitting governments and creates openings for candidates promising crackdowns. The disinformation campaigns serve the same purpose: they erode faith in institutions and democratic processes, making voters more likely to embrace outsider candidates promising to break the system. Whether this is coordinated strategy or simply the natural behavior of groups seeking to maximize chaos is unclear, but the result is the same.
Civilian security has deteriorated measurably. Drone attacks, once rare in Colombia, are now a recurring feature of the conflict. Armed groups are not just fighting each other or state forces—they are making their presence felt in ways that touch ordinary life. This is not abstract political violence; it is the kind of threat that shapes how people move through their cities and what they believe government can or should do.
The election will be decided not just by campaign messaging or traditional party loyalty, but by whether voters believe the incumbent left has lost control of the security situation, and whether they are willing to bet on a right-wing outsider to restore order. The armed groups' escalation in the weeks before voting suggests they understand this calculus too. What unfolds in the coming weeks will reveal whether Colombian voters prioritize continuity and institutional stability, or whether fear and frustration push them toward the hardline alternative.
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why is a right-wing candidate gaining ground now, specifically? What changed?
The security situation deteriorated sharply. When people feel unsafe—when drones are attacking and armed groups are visible—they stop thinking about ideology and start thinking about who can make it stop. The left has been in power, so they own the problem.
But couldn't the left argue they're fighting the groups, that security takes time?
They could, and probably are. But voters don't experience time the way politicians do. They experience the drone attacks now. And a candidate promising swift, harsh action sounds more credible when you're afraid.
What role is disinformation playing? Is it just noise, or does it actually shift votes?
It's not just noise. It makes people distrust all institutions—the government, the media, even the election itself. When you don't know what's true, you're more likely to vote for someone promising to blow it all up and start over.
Are the armed groups deliberately timing their violence to influence the election?
That's the question no one can answer with certainty. But whether it's intentional strategy or just the natural chaos of their operations, the effect is the same: they're destabilizing the country right when voters are deciding who to trust.
What happens if the right-wing candidate wins?
Then Colombia follows a pattern we've seen elsewhere—a hardline government, probably more aggressive security operations, and a bet that force can solve what politics couldn't. Whether it works is another question entirely.