The Gustavo Petro Reforms That Sparked Controversy in Colombia

The reforms promoted by President Gustavo Petro shaped much of the political debate throughout his administration and became the main source of confrontation between the government, Congress, business associations, and various sectors of society.

While the administration defended these initiatives—which were among the campaign promises made during the 2022 presidential race—as a necessary transformation to reduce inequality and expand social rights, critics warned about the economic, institutional, and fiscal risks they could create.

The intense debate surrounding these initiatives—some of them genuinely transformative—led to growing political polarization. Reforms to the healthcare system, the labor sector, the pension system, the political system, education, and tax policies—aimed at increasing taxes on wealthier sectors to boost government revenue and balance public spending—met with varying degrees of success during the legislative process.

Several of the proposals faced amendments, delays, or outright blockage in Congress, prompting the president to denounce what he described as an “institutional blockade” and to propose extraordinary mechanisms, such as a popular referendum and even a National Constituent Assembly, to advance parts of his agenda.

The Petro reforms that sparked controversy in Colombia: the healthcare system

From the beginning of his administration, Petro presented healthcare reform as one of his top priorities. The proposal sought to fundamentally transform the existing system by reducing the role of the Health Promoting Entities (EPS) — private companies that act as intermediaries between the government and healthcare providers — and strengthening a public network with a greater state role in managing resources and delivering primary care.

The government argued that the reform would guarantee universal access to healthcare services and address the system’s structural shortcomings. However, the initiative drew strong criticism from medical associations, EPS providers, patients, experts, and opposition groups, who warned that it could lead to a deterioration in healthcare services and an excessive concentration of control over the system in the hands of the state.

Political disagreements — which even led to the collapse of the governing coalition itself during its first year in office — prevented the proposal from advancing as quickly as expected and turned it into one of the biggest sources of tension between the executive and legislative branches. Moreover, Congress’s rejection of the bill contributed to a deterioration of the healthcare system that now affects virtually all citizens.

With the appointment of Ana Maria Vesga—until now the head of the EPS association—as the future health minister in the incoming administration, Petro’s healthcare reform now appears not only doomed to fail but also likely to be replaced by a deeper commitment to the traditional model, in which intermediary companies will continue to play a dominant role in a sector financed primarily by the state.

The debate over labor reform

Another initiative that divided the country was labor reform. The government argued that it was necessary to restore workers’ rights that, according to its assessment, had been weakened by previous reforms.

Among the proposed measures were higher overtime pay for night, Sunday, and holiday work, stronger protections for permanent employment contracts, and broader guarantees for workers.

While labor unions supported the initiative, business associations warned that higher labor costs could hurt job creation, particularly among small and medium-sized businesses.

The disagreements led to a difficult legislative process and prompted the president to promote a national referendum as an alternative way to push forward some of the reform’s key provisions.

In the end, however, Congress reached an agreement after tough negotiations and approved the vast majority of the measures defended by the government. As a result, this reform became the only truly successful one among those promoted during Gustavo Petro’s presidency.

Pension reform and the new model

Likewise, pension reform was another proposal that achieved significant institutional progress. The bill created a multi-pillar system designed to expand coverage for millions of older adults who did not qualify for a pension and redistribute responsibilities between the public system and private pension funds.

Although it was supported by those who believed greater social protection was necessary, it also faced criticism from economic analysts and private pension fund managers, who questioned its financial sustainability and the potential impact on long-term retirement savings.

Implementation of the reform was also made contingent on legal and constitutional reviews that continue to threaten what has been one of the Petro administration’s main reform achievements.

Political reform: a proposal that imploded from within the ruling coalition

During his presidency, Gustavo Petro promoted a political reform aimed at significantly changing the rules governing Colombia’s electoral system, an area that has historically been difficult to reform given the competing interests of those responsible for approving such changes.

Among the main proposals were mandatory closed-party lists for elected public bodies, full public financing of election campaigns, and the implementation of so-called “zipper lists,” designed to guarantee alternating male and female candidates for the Senate, House of Representatives, departmental assemblies, and local governments.

Despite these objectives, the proposal failed to advance in Congress. The bill was shelved by the Senate committee reviewing it after failing to secure sufficient support from political parties and amid intense controversy over the inclusion of a provision promoted by pro-government Senator Ariel Avila of the Green Alliance party.

Avila’s proposal sought to allow lawmakers appointed as cabinet ministers to reclaim their congressional seats once they left those positions before the end of the legislative term. The controversy further weakened the initiative, to the point that members of the Historic Pact—Gustavo Petro’s political coalition—recommended that the government withdraw the bill, a decision the president ultimately made.

Education reform: another project sabotaged from within

The education sector was also the target of a reform effort by the Petro administration. As with the political reform, disagreements emerged within the coalition supporting Petro, and the proposal ultimately ended in a resounding failure, salvaged only by the approval of a law that made higher education universal.

The original bill was designed to establish education as a fundamental right and went through an unusual political process during its legislative debate. Despite receiving support from several opposition parties, it faced strong resistance from within the Historic Pact itself and from FECODE, the country’s powerful teachers’ union, during the final stages of congressional debate.

Then-Education Minister Aurora Vergara led negotiations with various political forces to introduce changes to the bill. Leaders from across the political spectrum participated in those talks, including Senators Maria Jose Pizarro on the left and Maria Fernanda Cabal and David Luna on the right, who supported amendments aimed at broadening consensus around the initiative.

However, sectors of the ruling coalition and FECODE rejected the agreements and organized a nationwide strike in protest. They argued that recognizing mixed education could facilitate greater involvement by private actors in providing educational services, undermining the public character of education.

They also opposed the proposed evaluation system for public school teachers, the incorporation of the concept of tertiary education, and the strengthening of merit-based advancement in the teaching profession.

Ultimately, the bill was shelved before passing its final Senate debate. By contrast, the government succeeded in passing amendments to Law 30 on Higher Education, strengthening funding for public universities, expanding student access and retention, promoting more participatory governance, and advancing quality, research, and innovation with a regional focus.

Tax reforms and institutional tensions

The first major reform approved during the Petro administration was tax reform, which increased the tax burden on certain sectors and sought to raise additional revenue to finance the administration’s social programs.

Although it was presented as a tool to reduce inequality, it drew criticism from business leaders and investors, who warned that it could negatively affect competitiveness and investment.

As the months passed, the political climate became increasingly complicated. Facing repeated difficulties in advancing several of his reforms, Petro insisted that Congress was blocking his agenda and began promoting the possibility of convening a National Constituent Assembly, a proposal that reignited debate over the limits of presidential power and the country’s institutional future.

His opponents interpreted the initiative as an attempt to rewrite the rules of Colombia’s political system, while his supporters defended it as a mechanism for delivering the social transformations promised during the 2022 presidential campaign.

What is certain is that the four years of Petro’s presidency will be remembered as a period of intense legislative and reform activity that, unsurprisingly, leaves behind a deeply divided legacy. Some reforms made partial progress, others stalled, and several remained the subject of public debate before ultimately being shelved under the incoming administration.

It is equally true that, despite the warnings previously issued by his critics, the administration of Colombia’s first left-wing president sought to transform the country through Congress and a broad package of reform proposals that reflected the vision at the heart of his 2022 presidential campaign.

Regardless of their legislative outcome, all of these initiatives helped redefine Colombia’s political debate and highlighted the difficulty of building consensus around structural reforms in a country marked by polarization and by the resistance of certain sectors to accepting far-reaching change.