The current political and security debate in Colombia has been marked by a sharp polarization between the continuity of the democratic security doctrine promoted by former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez and the new total peace framework advanced by the administration of Gustavo Petro, a tension that has shaped public discourse around citizen safety in recent months. Multiple factors have converged to create the context that political actors are now interpreting through their respective ideological lenses, including rising homicide rates in urban centers, the persistence of illegal armed groups in peripheral regions, and the mixed results of recent peace negotiation efforts with criminal organizations. This backdrop has led various opposition figures to frame current security challenges as a direct result of departing from the hardline strategies that reduced violence levels significantly during the 2000s, a narrative that resonates with segments of the electorate that prioritize order over dialogue with armed actors. The erosion of public trust in institutional security mechanisms has also been fueled by high-profile incidents of mass displacement and targeted attacks on social leaders, which critics argue could have been prevented under more assertive security protocols.
Against this backdrop, the statement from Valencia emerges as a clear articulation of the opposition’s critique of current security policy, as she frames recent developments as a deliberate departure from proven strategies. Para Valencia, esta situación constituye un rechazo a la experiencia y la efectividad en seguridad que ella asocia con la figura de Uribe, a position that aligns with the broader discourse of the Democratic Center party, which has consistently argued that the current government’s emphasis on negotiation over military pressure has weakened state presence in territories historically controlled by illegal groups. The causes of this perceived rejection, according to this line of analysis, include the dismantling of specialized security units created during the Uribe administration, the reduction of defense spending allocated to territorial control operations, and the shift in diplomatic rhetoric that prioritizes engagement with armed actors over the protection of civilian populations. This narrative has gained traction in regions where security conditions have deteriorated most sharply since the change in government, with local communities reporting increased extortion, forced recruitment, and displacement that they attribute to the abandonment of effective security protocols. Valencia’s framing also taps into collective memory of the 2000s, when homicide rates dropped by more than 40% and large swaths of territory were brought under state control, creating a baseline of public expectation for security outcomes that the current administration has struggled to meet.
The consequences of this perceived rejection of Uribe-associated security experience extend far beyond immediate policy debates, shaping electoral dynamics, institutional trust, and the broader trajectory of Colombia’s peacebuilding process in the medium term. If Valencia’s framing gains wider public acceptance, it could erode support for the total peace policy ahead of upcoming regional elections, forcing the current administration to adjust its security strategy to address growing public dissatisfaction with rising violence levels. At the institutional level, this discourse reinforces polarization between the executive and legislative branches, as opposition parties push for oversight hearings and budget reallocations to restore security programs they argue were unfairly dismantled. For communities in conflict-affected regions, the political battle over security doctrine translates to tangible differences in state presence, with the rejection of proven strategies potentially leading to prolonged exposure to illegal armed group activity if no consensus is reached on effective security protocols. Nationally, this debate also risks deepening divisions over how to balance human rights protections with security imperatives, a tension that has defined Colombian politics for decades and shows no sign of abating as actors on both sides dig in around their respective policy preferences. The long-term impact will depend on whether the current administration can deliver measurable security improvements that counter the opposition’s narrative, or whether Valencia’s critique will solidify as the dominant interpretation of recent security trends among the electorate.
Acerca del autor
