Who Won and Who Lost in Colombia From the Absence of a Presidential Debate?
Since Colombia’s presidential elections began heating up before the first round, the country and the media had been waiting for a debate to materialize between the candidates with the strongest polling numbers. There were debates among some of them, but the two candidates who are now contesting Colombia’s presidency in the runoff were always absent: Ivan Cepeda and Abelardo de la Espriella.
The runoff arrived, and it was still not possible to create a scenario in which the two would appear before public opinion. A discussion can be opened as to whether this may have affected either candidate, but what is certain is that it must have harmed democracy, as citizens were deprived of witnessing a confrontation of ideas and proposals that would have allowed them to form their own opinions.
At first glance, the candidate most affected by not attending the debates may have been Ivan Cepeda. Since those forums began being organized by business associations, universities, and media outlets, the left-wing candidate refused to attend. He was leading in all the polls and felt he would win in the first round. Only on April 18 did he surprise his opponents and energize his supporters by challenging right-wing candidates Paloma Valencia and Abelardo de la Espriella to a debate.
However, it also drew attention to the fact that he imposed conditions. He would not accept the participation of other centrist candidates, effectively restricting their rights to express themselves, challenge Cepeda’s positions, and present their own. For Cepeda, the country’s discussion is between the left, which he represents, and the right, of which De la Espriella is the leading exponent.
He also sought to determine the topics that would be discussed, even though that agenda, anywhere in the world, is independently established by the debate organizers.
Colombia debate between De la Espriella and Cepeda, trapped between challenges and conditions
Cepeda systematically refused to attend those democratic forums because, according to him, he did not want his campaign to be tainted by “shows or sensationalism,” nor did he want to lend himself to “media manipulation and the politics of spectacle.”
De la Espriella, for his part, also avoided attending certain debates (such as the one called by Paloma Valencia) in order, according to him, to preserve his political alliances, arguing that confronting like-minded figures could fracture the coalition ahead of future political scenarios. His critics, on the other hand, accused him of avoiding debates because of his lack of knowledge regarding several issues related to governing the state.
After his unexpected defeat in the first round, Cepeda then appeared willing to participate in debates and sought to take the initiative. The day after the election, he wrote on X: “I challenge candidate Abelardo de la Espriella to a debate. … I announce to the public that I challenge the candidate to a political and electoral debate. The conditions under which it will take place will be agreed upon by the individuals I have designated for that purpose, whose names I will announce.”
But once again, another cycle of conditions began. De la Espriella responded by saying that Cepeda had to recognize the results of the first round before any presidential debate could take place. Cepeda and Petro had rejected the preliminary vote count. “First, recognize the election results, and we will debate right now,” De la Espriella replied, taking the opportunity to insinuate alleged ties between Cepeda and FARC. “This is not with negotiators like those you are accustomed to accompanying with the FARC and other criminals; this is face-to-face with the people and without conditions.”
In addition, De la Espriella took the initiative and imposed another condition on Cepeda. As analysts from different political perspectives have acknowledged, the selection of his vice-presidential running mate, Jose Manuel Restrepo, was a success because of his high technical and academic qualifications. De la Espriella then said: “I have told him that I will go anywhere, but that it is necessary for the country to hear both him [Cepeda] and me, and also the vice-presidential candidates.”
Cepeda declined to attend alongside his vice-presidential running mate, Aida Quilcue, whom opponents criticize for not even holding a high school diploma, and immediately closed that door. “De la Espriella, stop hiding behind Restrepo, your vice-presidential running mate. The debate is between you and me. Colombians have the right to hear directly from those who aspire to govern them, without intermediaries or spokespersons,” he said.
Thus, amid challenges and conditions imposed by both candidates, the presidential runoff arrived without a political debate ever taking place in which the contenders could present voters with the fundamental ideas of their government programs.
Voters cast ballots for symbols, not government programs
There are, however, perspectives that downplay the importance of competition based on the quality of ideas, the suitability of public policies, and proven leadership capabilities. Jose Fernando Florez Ruiz, director of the Doctorate in Political Studies at Externado University of Colombia, wrote in Spain’s newspaper El Pais that one of the most uncomfortable findings of contemporary empirical political science is that ideas, programs, and government proposals are almost irrelevant when it comes to winning a popular election.
The academic argues that “contrary to what the democratic myth holds, most voters make their decisions through cognitive and emotional shortcuts such as personal sympathy for a candidate, partisan identification, group belonging, perceptions of a candidate’s competence or credibility, the attractiveness of their face, signals of validation from trusted leaders, and shared preferences with people close to them.”
He cites six classic authors of realist democratic theory who reinforce the finding that ideas, programs, and government proposals are almost irrelevant in winning a popular election. He recalls that “professional politicians know that making detailed policy proposals is not only useless for winning an election, but can even be counterproductive because it would force them to provide difficult explanations in an electoral environment where what really matters are symbols.”
“As usually happens in every election, the government programs presented by the candidates are a collection of commonplaces about what they want to achieve (more security, greater growth, less poverty, lower unemployment, reduced corruption, and so on), but they are poor in descriptions of how they will do it, with what resources they will finance it, and above all they remain silent regarding the trade-offs and sacrifices involved in favoring some policies and priorities over others (the hard choices),” he adds.
Cepeda and De la Espriella know all these things. That is why, for public consumption, they showed themselves at different moments willing to participate in debates. But in reality, they avoided them because of the high political cost that appearing face-to-face before the public could have brought them. In this Sunday’s presidential runoff, Colombia will vote for symbols, as professor Florez Ruiz says, rather than for ideas and government programs.