Right-wing lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella emerged as the top vote-getter in the first round of Colombia’s presidential election on Sunday. De la Espriella garnered 43.74 percent of the vote, topping leftist Iván Cepeda, who received 40.9 percent. The two candidates will now face off in a second round on June 21. What drove support for De la Espriella, who had narrowly been trailing Cepeda in polls leading up to the vote? What factors between now and the runoff will decide the result? What would be the main differences in a government headed by De la Espriella versus one headed by Cepeda?
Sergio Guzmán, director of Colombia Risk Analysis: “Colombia’s presidential first round demonstrated significant voter rejection of the incumbent administration, as independent right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella secured 10.3 million votes to defeat the left-wing Historic Pact’s Iván Cepeda, who obtained 9.6 million votes. De la Espriella is the big electoral surprise, and polls did not adequately capture the potential he had to win in the first round. With both candidates advancing to a highly competitive June 21 runoff, the near-total collapse of the political center—where Sergio Fajardo and Claudia López underperformed significantly—leaves little room for moderation as both campaigns heavily pander to their hardline bases. De la Espriella enters the final stretch with momentum, backed by an immediate endorsement from right-wing leader Paloma Valencia and traditional party structures. However, institutional stability faces acute risks. Despite efficient election logistics, President Gustavo Petro and Cepeda questioned the results using unverified fraud narratives, elevating the threat of social unrest. In response, De la Espriella has pledged to defend democracy by any means necessary, appealing directly to the military. Geopolitics will heavily influence the remaining weeks as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump strongly favors De la Espriella and is expected to deploy aggressive economic and political leverage—including strategic extradition requests, tariff threats and immigration tightening—to weaken Cepeda’s prospects. While De la Espriella remains slightly favored due to a disciplined campaign strategy, the highly polarized three-week window faces extreme volatility, with potential disruptions ranging from unilateral government economic emergency decrees to targeted violence or foreign intervention that could distort the final outcome. We do not expect Petro to concede an election where Cepeda loses or facilitate a peaceful transfer of power.”
Eileen Gavin, head of sovereign analysis at Verisk Maplecroft: “With election polling increasingly unreliable, De la Espriella had clearly consolidated support as the most high-profile ‘anti-system’ candidate. At the same time, his ‘mano dura’ security vow also resonated the most strongly, particularly over Valencia, whose gender also likely disadvantaged her. As is becoming the default in Latin American elections, the losing side has claimed irregularities, despite what appears to have been a fair and secure process. Efforts to sow doubts about the legitimacy of the process are intended to mobilize the loyalist Petro base. Uribismo’s endorsement will presumably help De la Espriella, although more moderate centrists may hesitate slightly before throwing in their lot in with Colombia’s ‘Bukele.’ It’s clear where White House preferences lie, and this too will be influential—albeit potentially negatively, with Petro casting De la Espriella as a ‘stooge’ of the United States. For markets anxious about Colombia’s worsening fiscal position and debt ratio under Petro, a De la Espriella victory would underpin expectations for fiscal consolidation and a slimming of the welfare state expanded by Petro. De la Espriella would also likely reverse Petro’s anti-extractives stance. For more conservative Colombian voters and businesses, pledges of a return to tougher security policies will be the strongest reason to stick with De la Espriella in the runoff. But for others, particularly in rural areas, it will raise real apprehension about a return to a cycle of intense violence between the state security forces, leftist insurgents and some of the region’s most powerful organized crime syndicates.”
Glaeldys González Calanche, analyst for the South Andes at International Crisis Group: “The vote exposed a deeply polarized electorate. De la Espriella, who has aligned himself with leaders such as Donald Trump, Daniel Noboa and Nayib Bukele, has promised a sharp break from President Gustavo Petro’s government. He favors a hardline security agenda that includes aerial bombardments, mega-prisons and scrapping the 2016 peace accord with the FARC. His campaign leaned heavily on social media and artificial intelligence, portraying Iván Cepeda as ideologically aligned with guerrilla groups. Cepeda, by contrast, hoped to rely on continuity and on Petro’s approval rating, which remains around 40 percent, to carry him to a first-round win. He declined to debate other candidates and instead concentrated on drawing large crowds to public squares across the country. He ran an old-fashioned campaign that did not mobilize enough voters who traditionally abstain. As things stand, this is De la Espriella’s election to lose. He will likely gain most of the 1.6 million supporters of Paloma Valencia, a more traditional right-wing candidate allied with former President Álvaro Uribe (both of whom endorsed De la Espriella promptly). Cepeda will now need to attract centrist and swing voters, while also seeking support from the roughly 400,000 voters who cast blank ballots. In speeches and social media posts, both De la Espriella and Cepeda have insulted each other, and the debate is only likely to become more acrimonious. Although both Petro and Cepeda initially cast doubt on the probity of the process, international observers have said the vote was transparent.”
Maria Velez de Berliner, chief strategy officer at RTG-Red Team Group, Inc.: “De la Espriella’s market capitalism and Cepeda’s socialism are the main differences between the two. Violence Total, the result of Petro’s Paz Total, propelled Abelardo de la Espriella to number one. We will not know who voted for De la Espriella’s platform and who voted for De la Espriella as a vote against Petro’s continuance, Iván Cepeda. We also will not know who, at the last minute, changed their vote from Paloma Valencia to De la Espriella to stop the continued development of socialist governance, which Cepeda’s platform promised. The result of the June 21 runoff will be determined by where the votes of Sergio Fajardo and Paloma Valencia go, and whether the violence voters voted against continues along with the lawlessness that permeates the country. It all seems to indicate the votes of the wide opposition against Petro will go to De la Espriella. This means the presidential election is De la Espriella’s to lose. However, if he wins, as expected, Colombia’s experiment with socialism will be over, unless De la Espriella’s governance includes the millions to whom Petro gave voice. Whether De la Espriella will be able ‘to change the history of Colombia permanently’ remains to be seen, particularly if he decides to govern in the style of Javier Milei and Nayib Bukele. If he does, the voices of Cepeda’s and Petro’s people will make sure they are heard in public demonstrations and attacks against private property and people.”
The Latin America Advisor‘s daily Q&A features expert analysis from leading policymakers, analysts, scholars, and industry leaders to offer diverse perspectives on one of the region’s most pressing issues. It is available to members of the Dialogue’s Corporate Program and others by subscription.
