Colombia’s bloody internal war is not just a backdrop to its presidential election. It is the primary force twisting the democratic process, according to sources on the ground and documents obtained by this journalist.
A confidential memo from a British observer mission, circulated in diplomatic circles last week, warns that the “structural violence” chronic to Colombia is being weaponised by candidates to suppress voter turnout and manipulate outcomes in key regions. The memo, marked “sensitive”, details how armed groups including FARC dissidents and ELN guerrillas are imposing curfews, blocking roads and threatening candidates in rural areas. One observer reported a candidate’s rally in Cauca attended by only 12 people. The rest were too terrified to show up.
The election, set for 29 May, is a two-horse race between leftist Gustavo Petro and right-wing populist Rodolfo Hernández. Both men promise peace. But the conflict’s tentacles reach into campaign finance, land ownership and media blackouts. Sources confirm that at least three local journalists have been murdered since January. Their crime was digging into paramilitary links to local mayors.
The British team, part of a larger EU monitoring effort, has uncovered shell companies used to funnel cash from illegal mining into campaign war chests. One company, registered in Panama, funnelled $2m to a candidate’s brother-in-law six months ago. The money trail ends in a dead man’s name. The observer mission is now questioning whether any candidate can govern without making a pact with armed actors.
What does this mean for British interests? Colombia is a key source of coal, coffee and cocaine. London has quietly maintained trade links despite a human rights record that draws UN condemnation. The memo suggests that instability in Colombia could spill over into Venezuelan border regions where British oil companies operate. There is also the matter of a $500m UK aid package tied to rural development. If the election is deemed illegitimate, that money may be frozen.
On the streets of Bogotá, voters are resigned. “We choose between a ghost and a thief,” a shopkeeper told me, asking not to be named. He meant Petro’s alleged ties to the FARC and Hernández’s corruption allegations. The real choice, perhaps, is between war and worse war.
The British observers will stay until polling day. Their final report, expected within weeks, could trigger diplomatic action. But as one source put it: “We’re watching a car crash in slow motion. All we can do is document the wreckage.”
The conflict reshaping Colombia’s election is not new. It has been simmering for decades. What is new is that the British government is now openly tracking how that conflict corrodes democracy. The question is whether they will act on what they find.
Contacted for comment, the Foreign Office said only that “the UK supports free and fair elections in Colombia”. No one in power wants to admit that the election is neither free nor fair. It is a battlefield in a war that does not end at the ballot box.