Editorial I Two years of uncertainty, what now?

After two years of uncertainty, distrust and confrontation, and too much tiresome controversy, political indiscretion and combative rhetoric, deliberately designed to delegitimize or discredit critics and refutators, is it possible to get back on track?

We believe that President Petro, who announced a few days ago that he would give “everything” at the end of his term to achieve the goal he set for himself in August 2022, is working towards this goal. But just recalling the tone of his recent quarrels on the X network is enough to doubt this.

Petro has every right to rule according to his personality. It is a clear sign of his personal and political identity, but the cost of doing so is indeed worrying, sometimes beyond the institutional framework and even beyond the independence of power – a fundamental principle of the rule of law – and all Colombians pay the price. Halfway through his term, his leadership has caused serious damage.

From the outset, Petro appeared absent-minded, overcome by his existential reflections, more a social philosopher than a ruler, but the solid ruling coalition of traditional parties embraced the banner of change raised by the first left-wing president in history, taking full advantage to keep the country united.

Over time, the bridges of understanding that the two sides had built to reach an agreement in favor of the united nation began to collapse, to the point where the adequacy of the head of state silenced critical voices from the executive branch, the Congress, the judiciary and, first of all, the private sector, which he portrayed as the villain in his story of victimization.

Determined to believe that the mistakes that had brought his government to a standstill after two years in office were not caused by his own mistakes or the incompetence of his close collaborators, the loyal guards of his political project, but by everyone who disagreed with him. The president, clinging to his ideological convictions and insisting on a path of no return, made it difficult for him to realize his most ambitious initiatives. In despair, he chose to become radical.

The head of state, aware that his own time is limited, and despite devaluing the time of others due to his intolerable chronic tendency to be unpunctual, insists on throwing a wild card of national unanimity at the political, economic and social state, a vague proposal that has not yet been completed or started. Among other reasons, because the president faithfully imposes his slogans at all costs, ultimately destroying what some of his officials are trying to build with his tweets or other public messages.

President Petro, who is used to pulling on a rope until it breaks, especially when it comes to the country’s system of checks and balances, faces many difficulties in addition to the unknowns of the remainder of his term. With no room for self-critical debate, the next two years look as uncertain as the first, or even more so. It is not easy for him to share the risks or fears, with the erosion of governance, especially his strained relationship with Congress, the faltering economy, the growing distrust of investors frightened by the changing rules of the game, the total peace without a course or a chart, the ship is wrecked, while criminal structures grow stronger in a drifting territory, and a complete mockery of legitimacy beyond all else, without God or law.

If in his first year the adventures of his eldest son, former Atlantico congressman Nicolás Petro, split his credibility in promising changes against all forms of corruption, abuse of power or misappropriation of public funds, in the middle his room for maneuver was limited by the fact that senior officials of his administration had set up a “criminal enterprise” in Casa Nariño to direct contracts for the National Risk Management Unit (Ungrd), a scandal that threatens to spread and take its toll on them in 2026.

When compiling a balance sheet, it is always possible to see that the glass is half full, this is the task of political communication and of government influencers, who undoubtedly live a delicious life but the executive branch cannot ignore this in a recent survey. More than 30% of respondents believe that the country is on the right track. Maybe the rest of us are wrong, but it would be nice if we thought about correcting major problems in politics, economy or security, adding rather than excluding or detracting. This is what is urgently needed in a term that has so far shown that the politics of progressive populist change has aged faster and, above all, is much worse than the traditional politics it aspires to replace.

Taming our egos might be a good start, recognizing that it is a mistake to impose rule through dogma or to turn our backs on those who are scorned for having a different vision. Neither pretensions to moral purity nor the distribution of responsibilities can address the inadequacy and preparedness of a country to meet the challenges that require a meaningful solution to its problems.