When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

Showdown Of Populists From Left And Right Looms In Colombia Presidential Runoff

Colombians spurned the establishment candidates in the first round of presidential voting. In the second round, on June 19, they will have to choose between Gustavo Petro, a former Marxist guerrilla, and Rodolfo Hernández a "tough-talking" businessman being compared to Donald Trump.

Photo of people holding a presidential election ballot in Bogota, Colombia

Electoral jury hands out presidential election ballots during the 2022 presidential elections in Bogota, Colombia

El Espectador

-Editorial-

BOGOTÁ — Colombians went out on May 29 to make themselves heard. Early figures showed participation was higher than the first round of presidential elections in 2018, and what we saw was a motivated citizen body actively taking part in the elections to make an impact. It was a relief that — after years of social tensions — Colombians found in voting an eloquent language with which to express themselves.


The National Civil Registry also worked impeccably to dispel the unfounded fears of electoral fraud, after facing criticisms for months.

The chief loser of the election was President Iván Duque, whose electoral interventions were brazen, followed by the political parties and clans that have dominated Colombian politics in past decades.

Rejecting the establishment

The conservative current led by former president Álvaro Uribe, which effectively chose our presidents for the past 20 years except for Juan Manuel Santos's (2014) reelection, also lost. Federico Gutiérrez was clearly the continuity candidate, and President Duque intervened in his favor, which we criticized several times.

Gutiérrez had the support of the political establishment: the Democratic Center (Uribe's party), the Conservatives and the Liberals, the (center-right) U party, the Team Colombia (Equipo por Colombia) coalition (of which Gutiérrez was a co-founder), and powerful, regional clans. His defeat was both surprising and decisive, and showed Colombians have had enough of the same political names and brands. This makes the election a time for profound reflections.

Supporter of PeA supporter of left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro holds a campaign poster during the elections on May 29, 2022tro

Gustavo Petro supporter on May 29

Sebastian Maya/LongVisual/ZUMA

Defend democracy

Both the socialist Gustavo Petro and independent businessman Rodolfo Hernández, who will be competing in a second round — situated at opposite ends politically — represent a rejection of the political establishment.

Petro has devoted his political career to presenting himself as the opposite of the ideas defended by Uribe and his successor, Duque, who beat him to the presidency four years ago.

Hernández, while closer to the conservative currents that have been ruling the country, campaigned denouncing a political class he dubbed "corrupt" when he wasn't using uglier words. Between them they won almost 69% of all votes cast in the first round, which would have been unthinkable some years back.

Echoes Of Trump and Bolsonaro 

Yet the change voters want must be constructed and implemented, and questions arise when a populist will be the executor of that change.

Colombians would do well to demand campaigns that clearly defend the country's democratic institutions.

Both candidates adopted a populist discourse, even displaying authoritarian traits, though Hernández was ahead of Petro in that sense. His campaign was built on a simplistic but aggressive discourse that spoke of "them," of "bad folk" against us "good folk." His political strategy has been rightly compared to those of presidents Donald J. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro.

In the second round of voting, Colombians would do well to demand campaigns that clearly defend the country's democratic institutions. Because it is through those institutions that the nation's hopes for change, expressed in the first round of voting, can come to fruition without turning into enormous frustration, with unpredictable consequences.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Smaller Allies Matter: Afghanistan Offers Hard Lessons For Ukraine's Future

Despite controversies at home, Nordic countries were heavily involved in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. As the Ukraine war grinds on, lessons from that conflict are more relevant than ever.

Photo of Finnish Defence Forces in Afghanistan

Finnish Defence Forces in Afghanistan

Johannes Jauhiainen

-Analysis-

HELSINKI — In May 2021, the Taliban took back power in Afghanistan after 20 years of international presence, astronomical sums of development aid and casualties on all warring sides.

As Kabul fell, a chaotic evacuation prompted comparisons to the fall of Saigon — and most of the attention was on the U.S., which had led the original war to unseat the Taliban after 9/11 and remained by far the largest foreign force on the ground. Yet, the fall of Kabul was also a tumultuous and troubling experience for a number of other smaller foreign countries who had been presented for years in Afghanistan.

In an interview at the time, Antti Kaikkonen, the Finnish Minister of Defense, tried to explain what went wrong during the evacuation.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

“Originally we anticipated that the smaller countries would withdraw before the Americans. Then it became clear that getting people to the airport had become more difficult," Kaikkonen said. "So we decided last night to bring home our last soldiers who were helping with the evacuation.”

During the 20-year-long Afghan war, the foreign troop presence included many countries:Finland committed around 2,500 soldiers,Sweden 8,000,Denmark 12,000 and Norway 9,000. And in the nearly two years since the end of the war, Finland,Belgium and theNetherlands have commissioned investigations into their engagements in Afghanistan.

As the number of fragile or failed states around the world increases, it’s important to understand how to best organize international development aid and the security of such countries. Twenty years of international engagement in Afghanistan offers valuable lessons.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest