As Colombia approaches a pivotal presidential runoff, the air is thick with anticipation and, unfortunately, a persistent vein of toxicity that threatens the health of the nation’s democracy. A year ago, the Office of the Ombudsman took a proactive step by rallying political parties and presidential committees to sign a formal “Commitment.” This wasn’t merely a piece of paper; it was a pledge anchored in nine fundamental pillars, including the protection of human life, a commitment to nonviolence, respect for institutional rules, the rejection of stigmatization, and the promotion of truthful information. Yet, as the final ballots are about to be cast, the reality is sobering: only one of the two remaining candidates chose to put pen to paper, while the other opted for silence.
The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated, as the Ombudsman’s Office, backed by international heavyweights like the United Nations, the OAS, and the Episcopal Conference, has been keeping a watchful eye on the rhetoric used on the campaign trail. Their third monitoring report paints a concerning picture of the current state of engagement. Out of over 1,300 monitored records, the report identified 45 critical events that signal a volatile and polarized environment. With an overall compliance rate of just 23.3%, the findings suggest that the political discourse has drifted into dangerous territory, where opponents are framed as enemies rather than participants in a shared democratic process.
The data reveals a stark contrast between the two campaigns. The candidate who formally pledged to adhere to the nine principles reached a 50% compliance rate, whereas the candidate who refused to sign the commitment hovered at a dismal 8.6%. The disparity is most glaring when examining how these campaigns speak about their rivals. The principle of using constructive language and abandoning stigmatization—the bedrock of civil debate—saw a abysmal 16.7% compliance rate across both camps. While the signer of the agreement reached a 40% compliance level in this area, the nonsigner hit 0%, turning the public square into a theater of disqualifications and inflammatory accusations.
Perhaps most disturbing is the total failure regarding the integrity of information. The report highlights that the commitment to disseminate truthful, verified information saw a 0% compliance rate across both sides. During the observation period, 13 specific instances were identified where campaigns spread false or misleading content. Of those, 12 instances originated from the camp that chose not to sign the agreement. This suggests that in the rush to win votes, both sides have been tempted to trade in deception, though one has clearly leaned into it with far more regularity, further eroding the public’s ability to make informed decisions.
Of course, the report isn’t entirely bleak; it did find one glimmer of hope within the noise. The principle of “dialogue as a democratic commitment” reached a 78.6% alignment rate, driven largely by public calls for debates. Both candidates, at various times, invited their opponents to the table to discuss their visions for the country. However, the tragedy of this finding is that these invitations often felt performative. They were frequently wrapped in sarcasm or challenging, confrontational language, meaning that although the form of dialogue was present, the spirit of genuine, respectful deliberation was largely absent, leaving the electorate feeling more alienated than engaged.
In its closing remarks, the Ombudsman’s Office issued a clear, urgent plea to the campaigns: the time for hyper-polarized confrontation must end. As these final days unfold, the institution is calling on the candidates to step back from the brink of character assassination and embrace a sense of democratic responsibility. Protecting the integrity of the electoral process requires more than just winning; it requires respecting the humanity of one’s opponent and the legitimacy of the institutions that make a peaceful transition of power possible. Colombia stands at a crossroads, and it is the actions taken in this final stretch that will determine whether the nation emerges stronger or further divided by the wounds of this campaign.