On the Eve of the Runoff
Colombia's Shaken Electoral Ground

← Back to Latin America News

Ahead of Colombia's presidential runoff on June 21, threats and clashes by armed groups are being reported across the country. However opposite the rival candidates' policies may be, there are still areas where the underlying premise — a voting environment free of violence — is not guaranteed.

Who Is Fighting Whom

Through the first round on May 31, the runoff is between the far-right Abelardo de la Espriella (43.7%) and the leftist Ivan Cepeda (40.9%). The two hold opposite stances on security. De la Espriella rejects negotiating with criminal organizations and stresses military pressure; Cepeda seeks to continue the total peace line the Petro government tried to pursue.

Armed Groups Respond Differently

The National Liberation Army (ELN) declared a unilateral ceasefire for the election. But the EMC and EMBF, dissident factions of the former FARC, did not comply and continue armed activity. On June 3, the Colombian government bombed an EMC position in Guaviare, raising concern over the effect on the voting environment just afterward. ACLED, which tracks armed conflict, recorded in its June overview that deadly clashes occurred ahead of the election.

The Most Dangerous Areas

In the departments of Cauca, Guaviare, Meta and Huila, multiple armed groups are fighting the government and rival organizations, making it hard to deploy poll workers or move voters safely. Urban polling stations were called calm and transparent by international observers, but the story differs in the countryside, where intimidation has been organized and repeated. InSight Crime, which studies elections and organized crime, has long tracked how armed groups use elections as bargaining chips for territorial control — pressuring candidates not to campaign in their turf and then leaning on policy after the win.

Turnout and the Quality of Democracy

Turnout in Colombia's presidential elections has run in the 60-70% range. Abstention driven by violence can sway the result itself. How many rural votes will fail to reach the box in this runoff is something only post-count analysis can show. But one thing can be said: before the question of who wins lies an earlier one — whether a person can safely cast a single ballot at all.

However opposite the candidates' policies, in places where the premise of a vote without violence has broken, the very freedom to choose is whittled away.

※ This article is the author’s commentary based on public information. Please confirm the latest figures, dates and procedures with governments and primary sources. Quotations are kept minimal and sources are cited.