A spectre is haunting Colombia’s presidential election: the spectre of war. For decades, the country’s internal conflict between the government, leftist guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries, and drug cartels has defined its political landscape. Now, as voters prepare to go to the polls, the conflict is reshaping the stakes like never before. The recent escalation of violence in rural areas, particularly in the departments of Cauca and Nariño, has pushed security to the top of the agenda. Candidates are scrambling to present credible plans to end the bloodshed, but the options are fraught with ethical and practical dilemmas.
On one side, the hardliners promise an iron fist: more military spending, less negotiation. They argue that only a crushing defeat of the armed groups can bring peace. But critics warn this approach has been tried before, leading to civilian casualties and a never-ending cycle of retaliation. On the other side, the peace camp advocates dialogue and social investment, hoping to address the root causes of the conflict: inequality, land rights, and lack of opportunity. Yet sceptics point to the failed peace deal with the FARC, which led to a splinter group that continues to sow chaos.
The frontrunner, a populist right winger, has aligned himself with the military elite, calling for a “mano dura” (firm hand). His rallying cry is simple: defeat the terrorists. But his opponents accuse him of using the conflict to distract from corruption scandals. Meanwhile, the left-wing candidate, a former union leader, proposes a comprehensive peace process that includes land reforms and rural development. However, he has been labelled a “castro-chavista” by the establishment, stoking fears of a communist takeover.
The election is not just about who leads the country; it is a referendum on how Colombians view their future. Do they want more of the same, a cycle of violence that has killed over 260,000 people and displaced millions? Or are they willing to take a risk on a new approach, one that might acknowledge the failures of the past and seek a difficult, prolonged peace?
Technology, too, plays a role. Social media has become a battlefield for propaganda, with both sides using algorithms to amplify fear and anger. Disinformation about candidates and peace processes spreads faster than the truth. The user experience of Colombian society is being manipulated by digital forces that care little about the real-world consequences. As a technology ethicist, I worry that the very tools we build to connect the world are being used to tear it apart.
The world is watching. Colombia’s election could set a precedent for how other nations – from Myanmar to Yemen – handle their own conflicts. The stakes are high, and the choices are agonising. In the end, it will be up to the Colombian people to decide not just their leader, but their destiny. And they will have to do so in a climate of fear, confusion, and misinformation. That is the brutal reality of democracy in the 21st century.