Abelardo de la Espriella’s government is illegitimate: Keep up the struggle in the streets!
After the election results from June 21 were confirmed by the vote count, on Wednesday, June 24, Iván Cepeda formally acknowledged his defeat and accepted Abelardo de la Espriella’s victory. Thus, Cepeda assumes the role of parliamentary leader of the opposition, and Petro prepares for the transition to the new government. For his part, De la Espriella is announcing the members of his cabinet and his first measures, thereby already shaping a government of the usual suspects, subservient to U.S. imperialism and complicit in the genocide against the Palestinian people.
What about the fraud?
Cepeda’s acknowledgment of his defeat and his call for calm and a “National Agreement” are a bucket of cold water poured on the protests that, from election day itself, have taken Petro’s own allegations of fraud and the Historic Pact campaign’s claims as their banner of struggle, fundamentally expressing rejection of the far-right’s victory in the elections. The numerous allegations of irregularities—such as the tampering with ballot forms and vulnerabilities in the electoral software—were quickly dismissed by the Registrar’s Office in its rush to complete the vote count as soon as possible. Here and there, some votes were added to or subtracted from both campaigns, giving the appearance of a clean election.
Faced with the reality of a vote split down the middle, Petro’s supporters persist in a kind of denial, from which they refuse to believe that the rise of the far right is a real phenomenon—fueled, of course, by the power of the bourgeoisie itself, but also by the mistakes of the progressive movement. For many, the right’s victory is inexplicable from the perspective of reformist logic and its commitment to bourgeois democracy, and therefore can only be explained as a massive electoral fraud. The expectations of Petro and the Cepeda campaign to overturn the narrow margin of votes from the preliminary count were quickly dashed by the final tally.
The truth is that the real fraud took place throughout the entire campaign, where the old practices of vote-buying, patronage, and the deployment of the political machinery of the old traditional bourgeois parties were combined with blatant voter intimidation by business leaders and a media campaign that made massive use of lies, manipulation, and interference by foreign governments in favor of De la Espriella’s campaign.
The “Tiger” is a peddler of illusions, but he is not made of paper
In his triumphalist speech on the night of June 21, amid the most grotesque spectacle, he filled the void in his platform with a contrived discourse on national unity, security, and respect for differences. After invoking his “Miracle Homeland,” he announced that there would be no miracles; after promising to govern for everyone and recognize differences, he announced he would “bite down harder” on anyone who opposes his plans; the promise to govern without the usual parties, elites, and politicians has been belied by the cabinet appointments, in which old figures from Uribism, Cambio Radical, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the Party of the U reveal the anti-worker and anti-rights nature of the new-old government. The people he said he would “never” work with are back for another term.
The “defender of the Fatherland” is already revealing his true nature as a lackey of U.S. imperialism, announcing his government’s enthusiastic submission to Trump’s doctrine of regaining control of the American continent. He announced Colombia’s entry into the so-called “Shield of the Americas,” legitimizing imperialist military intervention, control, and the deportation of immigrants. But, so far, the worst announcement on the international front is the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel, effective August 7. This is a declaration of unconditional support for the genocide of the Palestinian people at the hands of Zionism.
The electoral defeat of the Historic Pact is not the defeat of the class struggle
Following Abelardo de la Espriella’s victory, a new chapter in the class struggle in Colombia begins, marked by political polarization in which the new government—strengthened by Trump’s imperialist interference and by having united under the banners of a new international far right—will not have an easy time imposing its economic and political war and, likely, an escalation of violence against the working class and the popular sectors. Now it will face the real struggle: the class struggle.
It is understandable that millions who shared the hope of a victory for Cepeda and Quilcué—and who understood the danger posed by De la Espriella—felt the electoral defeat as a profound disappointment. But we must move beyond disappointment to understanding and action. It is essential to understand that the elections themselves are a fraud and that the changes needed by the working class and the popular sectors are decided in the class struggle, not at the ballot box.
The high vote for Cepeda and Aída Quilcué reveals a very progressive phenomenon: a vote with class content. Analyzing the geographic distribution of the vote, Cepeda wins in the country’s most impoverished regions, while De La Espriella wins in the Andean region, where wealth is concentrated. In major cities such as Bogotá and Cali, Cepeda wins in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of working-class and popular residents.
Likewise, outside the apparatus of the Historic Pact and the ruling parties, thousands of activists took to the streets and social media to run a campaign without a single peso in sight, displaying a militant conviction reminiscent of the days of the national strikes in 2019 and 2021.
Starting on the very night of Sunday, May 31, after the results of the first-round vote were announced, the streets once again relived moments of the 2021 National Strike. On the avenues and in working-class neighborhoods, demonstrations took to the streets once more to say NO to the authoritarian threat posed by Abelardo de la Espriella. Hoping to reverse the far-right’s lead in the vote, Cepeda’s campaign received a breath of fresh air from the masses rallying to defeat De La Espriella. Significant sectors of intellectuals, artists, and social media influencers—recognizing the grave threat to democratic, political, and economic rights and freedoms—joined this election campaign.
Meanwhile, Cepeda’s campaign sought to moderate its rhetoric and platform in an effort to win over “centrist” voters and secure their support. Cepeda adopted several of the most significant demands, pledging to respect the political system, dismantle initiatives to establish a Constituent Assembly, and send a message of confidence and stability to the bourgeoisie. However, figures like [Juan Daniel] Oviedo clearly turned their backs on him, while Fajardo and Jorge Robledo (formerly of the MOIR, Movimiento Obrero Independiente y Revolucionario [a Maoist party]) looked the other way, and Claudia López ended up backing Cepeda’s campaign at the last minute.
Following the results, the rhetoric of Cepeda and the Historic Pact has remained focused on “managing” their vote toward an opposition that proposes—to those who have threatened to bite and tear them apart—a National Agreement and negotiations on the incoming government’s policies. Once again, they are repeating the fundamental factor that has held back progress for the past four years: collaborating with the capitalist class and subordinating mobilization to the parliamentary agenda.
Some criticize the “mistakes” of Cepeda’s campaign for not making sufficient efforts to win over the “center,” and even point to the vice-presidential candidacy of indigenous leader Aída Quilcué as a mistake. On the contrary, the mistake lies in the electoral logic itself. To yield to the prejudices and hesitations of sectors of the middle class and the petty bourgeoisie—and to the demands of those sectors of the bourgeoisie unwilling to go along with De La Espriella’s adventurism—is to yield to unacceptable prejudices such as discrediting Aída Quilcué and dispelling any suspicion of a struggle against the antidemocratic regime. We, on the other hand, demand a government of the people from below—a workers’, indigenous, and popular government—and an end to the authoritarian regime that prevents any change in favor of the masses.
In Colombia, the history of struggle and resistance against authoritarianism and repression has been long. The masses and workers’ and popular organizations have had to confront state and paramilitary repression and violence. We have endured Turbay’s State of Emergency, paramilitary violence, and the Uribe administrations. We will not bow down to a new right-wing government.
History teaches us a harsh lesson
The electoral victory of the right wing, following a “left-wing” government, is nothing new; it is the outcome that has occurred in countries where variants of reformism, progressivism, or bourgeois nationalism have governed in the name of the left. Trapped by the contradictions of governing alongside bourgeois sectors and the impossibility of achieving significant reforms—while keeping the working class and its organizations muzzled—they have ultimately handed over to the far right the inevitable discontent of sectors of the population, especially the middle class and the petty bourgeoisie, fueled by their prejudices and aspirations for security and stability to fulfill their reactionary illusion of social advancement.
Throughout the history of capitalism, many of the right’s triumphs have been preceded by the mistakes, betrayals, and contradictions of reformism in power. This was the case with the rise of fascism, or—to look closer to home—the advance of the far right on the continent, with the Bolsonaro administration, and currently Milei in Argentina or Kast in Chile.
The electoral defeat of Iván Cepeda and Aída Quilcué is the combined result of De la Espriella’s ability to jump on the bandwagon of the rising international far-right phenomenon (fueled by Trump), and of Petro himself, who—with his coalition government with bourgeois sectors and his adherence to the rules of bourgeois democracy and capitalism— failed to resolve the major problems facing the population, concealing and justifying all the mistakes that came back to haunt him in this campaign.
The real struggle against the right must take place in the streets
The real struggle against the far-right threat begins now, and it must take place in the streets. The counterrevolution will now govern directly and will not hesitate to persecute workers and trample on their rights. In rural areas, it will continue to rely on its ties—which it has forged by serving as the mafia’s favored lawyer—with paramilitary groups and drug traffickers to defeat the struggle of victims of violence to reclaim their lands and achieve justice. From within the state, they will continue to use their direct control to prevent and repress any hint of resistance against the regime. This means that De la Espriella embodies a Bonapartist project—that is, an authoritarian political regime based on the figure of the president, who is elevated to the role of an arbiter standing above the social classes, relying directly on the police, the army, and the bureaucracy, and in this case, almost certainly on paramilitary groups as well; to this end, he also has the institutions of the Colombian state intact and even strengthened following Petro’s administration.
That is why the Bolivian masses, the struggles of the education sector in Chile, and the workers’ struggles in Argentina continue to show the way forward against the far-right governments on the continent. As the struggle against fascism in the 1930s demonstrated: one does not negotiate with the far right—one fights it. It is true that this perspective poses great difficulties, such as the inconsistency and betrayal of the petty-bourgeois and reformist leaderships; while victory is not guaranteed, this is the only path.
But to combat Abelardo, we must also overcome the barriers that the Historic Pact government itself imposes on the masses. During the Petro administration, allegations of possible “soft” coups by the right against the government—far from organizing resistance to these threats—served to demobilize the masses.
Now, the Historic Pact and the reformist organizations are calling for the construction of a broad opposition front, but within the framework of class collaboration and the subordination of mobilization to parliamentarism and the upcoming regional elections in 2028. Our proposal is the opposite: instead of broad fronts with those at the top—or sectors of the ruling class that reject the unpredictable Abelardo—let us build a great front of those at the bottom—a great front of workers, peasants, Indigenous peoples, and the people.
Return to the Path of the General Strike
Only through independent organization and struggle—promoting the broadest possible unity in action and steering clear of the paralyzing alliances with Petrismo—will we be able to halt the incoming government’s measures by resuming the General Strike.
The Historic Pact is already preparing its true strategy, which is to reorganize and wait, “building up” with the supposed goal of winning local elections and then, from mayoral and gubernatorial offices, confronting Abelardo’s plan. But if the four years of Petro’s government, the experiences of 2019 and 2021, and the current elections demonstrate anything, it is that the transformations we need are not achieved at the ballot box, and that without struggle there is no victory.
Criticism came quickly from the grassroots—and even from well-known influencers—who labeled it a betrayal: the inconsistency of denouncing massive fraud only to then come out and acknowledge the results and propose agreements with our declared enemies; denouncing the alleged theft of the elections while at the same time telling people not to mobilize. In response, Cepeda was forced to deliver a new address denouncing the illegitimacy of De la Espriella’s elected government, its ties to imperialism, and evidence of its criminal activities; we agree on the illegitimacy of the new government. But after this speech, he concluded with a call for “peaceful civil disobedience.” This call has been interpreted by sectors of the youth as a call to struggle and mobilization; however, the concept of civil disobedience appeals to individual disobedience inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, appealing to individual ethics and conscientious objection, rather than to collective mass action.
Contrary to the proposal for “civil disobedience”—that is, individual resistance—what is needed today is an organized mass struggle for our rights and against imperialism and the far right. This organized struggle involves returning to the path of popular assemblies, the national strike, and the general strike—a plan of action to resist the anti-rights onslaught.
But beyond mere resistance to the government’s plan, the real struggle remains the struggle against capitalism and for a genuine workers’ and people’s government. This struggle will inevitably have to go beyond the outgoing Petro administration, which—despite its reformist and at times radical rhetoric—did not change the bourgeois character of the government, due to its defense of capitalism and its policy of compromise.
A genuine workers’ and people’s government that defeats the political regime and the right wing will be the product of a genuine revolution, and that is the historic task of the workers and the oppressed and exploited people. The current spontaneous struggles in the wake of the election results must move toward a more rigorous centralization and organization that overcomes their limitations and weaknesses, and draws on the lessons learned from the National Strikes of 2019 and 2021. It is necessary for the labor federations and the political and social organizations that bring together the working class, Indigenous peoples, peasants, women, the LGBTI community, and youth to independently convene a major emergency national meeting to prepare and organize the struggle against the De La Espriella government, defining a collective plan of action.
