Colombia goes to the polls this weekend, and the reverberations will be felt far beyond the Andes. For British investors with eyes on Latin America, this is a moment to clutch one’s pearls and pray for stability. But let us be honest: the stakes are higher than mere portfolio anxiety. This election could reset the terms of US hegemony in the region, a process that has been underway since the Monroe Doctrine first cast its long shadow.
Consider the candidates. On one side, a conservative who promises continuity: open markets, close ties to Washington, and the relentless march of extractive capitalism. On the other, a populist firebrand who talks of redistributing land, renegotiating trade deals, and perhaps even courting Beijing. The former is a known quantity, a reliable cog in the machinery of global power. The latter is a wildcard, a throwback to the era of Allende or Chávez, albeit with Colombian swagger.
But here is the uncomfortable truth that those who mutter about “instability” should confront. The “stability” of the status quo has come at a cost. Colombia remains one of the most unequal societies on earth. Its rural hinterlands are scarred by a half-century of civil conflict that has displaced millions and left a trail of bodies. The drug trade, that dark underbelly of demand from our own high streets, continues to corrupt institutions. Is it not decadent to insist that the only legitimate path is one that preserves this misery?
British investors, ever wary of disruption, should recall the lessons of history. The fall of the Roman Republic came not from barbarians at the gates but from a system so rigged that the plebs finally turned to a strongman. The Victorian era, for all its pomp, saw periodic convulsions in its colonial possessions as markets demanded order at any price. Today, we risk a similar blindness. The assumption that “the West” must win in every election is a recipe for long-term resentment.
What if the populist wins? The usual panic will ensue: capital flight, a diplomatic row, perhaps a gentle hint from the IMF. But can we afford to lecture Bogotá on democracy when our own politics are increasingly dysfunctional? The Brexit saga, the circus of Trumpism, the hollowing out of the centre – these are not signs of a civilisation that has all the answers.
Let us instead propose a radical idea. Perhaps Colombia’s election is an opportunity for reflection. What does it mean for a nation to chart its own course? The United States has long treated Latin America as its backyard, but the garden is overgrown, and the fence is crumbling. If Colombians choose a path less aligned with Washington, it may be a sign that the Pax Americana is truly ending. That is not a disaster; it is a transition.
For the investor class, the advice is simple: diversify. Do not mistake short-term volatility for systemic collapse. The British Empire learned this the hard way. We clung to colonies long past their useful life, only to discover that trade follows relationships, not flags. A Colombia that trades openly with China, Russia, or India is still a Colombia. The world is multipolar now, whether we like it or not.
In conclusion, watch the Colombian vote not as a boxing match between good and evil, but as a symptom of a deeper malaise. The international order is fracturing, and each election is a small earthquake. Yet as the Romans learned, even the mightiest empire must adapt or face the ash heap of history. British investors, take note. Do not cherish the illusion of control. The only stability worth having comes from respecting the sovereign choices of others, even when they unsettle our sensibilities.
