What's going on with the left in Colombia?
The question of progressivism, liberalism, and tricky politics with their leftist president.
As my fellowship wraps up, I’m supposed to be reflecting upon the individual learnings I’ve had as a leader, frantically writing research manuscripts to send in to journals, and wrapping up all my loose ends so that this work can continue when I’m gone. But instead, I’m writing about Colombian national politics. Oops. I take full responsibility for avoiding my obligations by writing to the void, but this is a piece that has been a long time coming. I just didn’t have the words. Well, I still don’t have the words. But, I hope that my slightly (un)informed, American interpretation of Colombia’s progressive presidency can shed light onto what we’re experiencing in the U.S. and the general problems facing the “left” in this difficult worldwide moment of economic, political, and social spaghetti twists.
Also, I’m attaching some readings at the bottom for anyone that would want to learn more about what’s going on from informed sources (The problem with mainstream Colombian media is that many of them are incredibly subjective and right-wing).
What does change look like?
I’ll start with a statement:
It's difficult to achieve successful progressive political change on the national level.
I'm not necessarily talking about the U.S., even though our decades-long levels of growing inequality, failure of Democratic politicians to win over voters, and overall sentiment of hate and othering would support that argument.
I'm talking about the Global South. I'm talking about Colombia. And in the case of Colombia, I'm talking about the president Gustavo Petro.
This blog has tried to be as intimate as possible in exploring my experiences on the on-the-ground realities of La Guajira's energy transition. But I think it's only fair if I dedicate some space to outlining how the national political narrative fits into this and what it tells about about the difficulty of sustainable development.
Gustavo Petro, becoming in 2022 the first elected leftist president in Colombia's national history, came into power riding the waves of anti-corruption rhetoric, promises of securing total peace for a country still reeling from decades of violence. As I first learned about La Guajira, I found countless articles and proclamations of Petro's commitment to the environment, in particular cutting fossil fuel exploration and protecting the Amazon. In the face of violent student protests in the previous administration, Petro promised to expand public education and protect the rights of Colombian students. Even his vice president is historic, being the first Afro-Colombian leader to take this position, only the second woman to do so, and a decades-long environmental and human rights defender.
And yet, a little less than three years into his presidency, I struggle to find many people that continue to proudly proclaim themselves as “Petristas”.
What has gone wrong?
Before I get into country-specific reasons, I think it’s important to note that progressive leaders, especially those who are endorsers of individual rights and freedoms (known as liberals (which doesn’t mean Democrats)) have generally had a tough time in the Western hemisphere. Trump won. Western Europe has had a rise in fascist political parties and right-wing populism.1 And it’s not just that people are angry at liberals. People have become increasingly disillusioned with incumbents, liberal, authoritarian. Worldwide polls reveal that people don’t really care much about democracy anymore—they feel that the political system, left or right, doesn’t really care about them.2
But there’s another important reason to note why progressive, “liberal” parties have failed.
“Liberal parties, particularly in Europe and America, have historically promised inclusive growth, social equity, and individual rights. However, these promises have often collided with the realities of an interconnected world facing persistent economic inequalities, prompting many citizens to question the effectiveness of liberalism.”- The Business Standard
A dive into Petro’s presidency
Early in his presidency, Petro successfully built a coalition to pass a historic tax legislation that increased taxes on the wealthy and on extractive industries like fossil fuel production.3 But, the rest of his ambitious agenda, spanning from healthcare fixes and education expansion to pension reform and environmental protection, has been less successful.
According to people on his side, this can be explained by the harsh resistance and attacks that right-wing politicians, media, and industry have engaged in throughout his presidency.4 And while that is somewhat true, there are other culprits.
Some of it can be attributed to mismanagement and the general chaos of his presidency. Like many Colombian politicians, Petro’s own family has not been immune to charges of corruption. Petro, in the name of cleaning his staff of political insiders, has removed many qualified bureaucrats from positions and replaced them with outsiders with little experience in the field. In one controversial case, the government’s Ministry of Mines and Energy has been criticized for firing engineers with energy planning experience and instead prioritizing anthropologists, sociologists, and social workers.5 And finally, he has tended towards impulsive, erratic behavior in ways that weaken governance.6 In one instance, he called on his entire cabinet to resign on live TV. While he is no Trump, he enjoys Twitter (X) tantrums a little too much for a public-facing president.
But finally, and to the point of this article, I think he is often stuck between a rock and a hard place as a progressive.
Financial Sustainability and Progresiveness: An Impossible Balance
What does it mean that Petro is stuck between a rock and a hard place? I will focus on the example of the energy transition because that is the topic I know best.
One of the signature policies of the Petro administration has been to stop any new permits for fossil fuel exploration. This doesn’t mean that current oil and gas production is going down (in fact, it’s projected to rise over the next 2 years). But, with oil and gas reserves estimated at around 7 remaining years given current production, Colombia will promptly run out of fossil fuels. This is what the world ultimately needs as it confronts climate change—countries stepping up to say no to fossil fuels. But as climate scientists and international experts have lauded Petro’s move, the domestic reception has been less rosy.
Oil exports in 2022 accounted for a third of all exports, and 3.4% of Colombia’s GDP (with coal at 0.7% of GDP). One estimate from Colombia’s biggest fossil fuel industry group suggests that during 2022-2026, this policy will result in over $4.5 million dollars in government revenue losses, many of which fund social programs in health and education. Although the administration has sought to retrain fossil fuel workers across oil, gas, and coal, it’s a gargantuan task that will surely result in thousands of workers temporarily losing their jobs. And, as Colombia seeks to lead the green energy transition, the United States of America is moving backwards. While Colombia is one of the number one exporters of oil, oil imports are steadily increasing.
What are people saying
I’ve had multiple conversations with families across Colombia about their opinions on Petro. And while I cannot generalize, I can summarize one interaction.
Person 1, A highly educated and wealthy engineer at a multinational company, speaking of Petro’s Energy Transition Policy
“Now, no one wants to invest in Colombia! Foreign investment is going down, our company is freaking out, and for all this talk about “Green energy”, won’t Petro realize that this just means that we’ll import more oil from the U.S.? That’s not fair for anyone. No, he’s horrible.”
Person 2, A domestic migrant worker who overheard Person 1
“The rich will never understand Petro, because they’re only focused on businesses and earning money. My life has improved from his policies. He’s the only politician that has listened to the poor.”
And I think this gets to the crux of the Petro presidency and progressives in general:
Sometimes what is good for people (and the environment) is bad for business. But in an globalized economy where business matters for everyday well-being, prioritizing poor communities and justice may be political and economic suicide.
How this is generalizable: the problem with the left
What I’m trying to say is that no politician operates within a vacuum. They all are trying to make things better or worse through economic and social policy within the constraints of the system. Those constraints are political and ideological—maybe powerful people will never want to give up their entrenched interests. But importantly, within a capitalist system they’re also financial.
They make big promises, but they can’t pull them off due to financial constraints.
Petro’s energy transition policies are amazing. But how is Colombia going to fund its social programs if it weans off of fossil fuel royalties and taxes? As it struggles to pay off international debt and attract foreign investment so that it can continue “modernizing” its economy, what can replace the riches of fossil fuels?
They make big promises, but they don’t stay for the long term.
Policies need years to make substantial changes. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is just one example. But, in the short term calculus of politics, big political changes are not easy to measure within election cycles of 4 years. For instance, Petro’s moratorium on fossil fuel exploration will most likely be overturned as a (likely) right-wing president takes office in 2026.7
They try to reimagine money and democracy, but they often run into corruption.
A previous piece of mine ^ relates to this specific point. Petro and progressives in general often want to promote democracy and the participation of more people in economic processes, rather than it being a corporate trickle-down slogfest. Consulta previa, the policy I study in Colombia, is a great example of ensuring the rights of all communities to participate in public processes and receive compensations. But as Petro tries to increase public investment and empower local leaders with funds, he also opens the door to corruption. It turns out that many people will choose to benefit themselves instead of their communities. If you give $100 to an Wayuu authority to spend on a communal project, there is a non-zero chance that he will spend it only for himself.
What does this mean? That sometimes public programs and public spending don’t make things better but rather worse. What does this mean? Maybe, state corruption from economic democracy is worse than private company interests. It’s not in my power to say that a La Guajira with more independent, private companies would be fairer than its current system of politically motivated public spending and under-the-table payments, but it would certainly be less corrupt.
They try to reimagine politics, but they go against the grain of entrenched interests.
Progressives think of a better, safer, more inclusive world with solidarity, reciprocity, and community. While that’s certainly achievable, it’s a harder political sell than rugged individualism, self-interest, and the Othering of political opposition. Colombian media is notoriously biased towards the right wing, and they take any chance to point out the short-term economic drawbacks of progressive policies without mentioning long-term benefits. And, while I believe that we need to stop drilling fossil fuels, it’s harder to tell people that you can’t do something (ex. regulation) for the collective good than to say that you should pursue your own self-interest because it’s a dog-eat-dog world (ex. Trump’s discourse on immigrants stealing jobs from “real” Americans).
TLDR
In summary, Petro is far from perfect. But even given his personal flaws, his presidency shows how hard it is to be successful in progressive governance. The system doesn’t want progressives to succeed. And until Democrats, the Labour Party, el Pacto Histórico, the Green Party, and all other liberal, progressive parties across the world find a political and economic messaging that can produce short-term benefits with long-term financial and political sustainability, I don’t see much of a way out of fossil-fuel inspired greed, hate, and, Petró(leo).8
To end with a recent interview quote from Petro,
"I'm not sure that my role is to manage the capitalism of the capitalists. Because that has already failed. That system is moribund and is taking humanity with it, which is the biggest problem. From the government, transformations must be made to democratize the institutions…We come from a morass of blood. If we don't achieve it, we will turn Colombia into a territory of cemeteries."'- El Páis
Links to check out
Reuters: It must be noted that this bill was heavily opposed by industry representatives saying that energy investment would go down, which has been the case. Also, uncertainty over the implementation of the bill pushed the value of the Colombian peso to all-time-lows.
The Nation: A Progressive Magazine
Infobae: As a social scientist myself, I would say this is good news. But, of course, there are costs to taking out qualified engineers when you have to plan interconnection lines across thousands of miles.
University of Sussex: Guy Edwards
I really hope this pun is not lost upon the readers.