Proposals for a solution to the crisis facing Colombia: opinion leaders speak out

Colombia faces multiple fronts that have the country at a crossroads. Since the June 7 attack on Democratic Center senator and presidential candidate Miguel Uribe, not only has an escalation of terrorism been unleashed in several areas of the country, such as Cauca and Valle del Cauca, but also a growing wave of polarization.

The country has been experiencing a growing tension since the security crisis and President Gustavo Petro's announcement that he would sign the so-called "decretazo " (decree-like decree), calling for a referendum on labor reform, ignoring the fact that the Senate had already rejected the mechanism.

Added to this is the possibility of convening a national constituent assembly. " The people have already decided and will not back down. All the instruments available in Colombia, including the National Constituent Assembly, will be used, because the only sovereign is the people," the president stated before hundreds of people in San Francisco Square in Cali.

These latest announcements continue to deepen the rift in the relationship between the executive branch, the legislature, and the high courts. Regarding Congress, opposition parties have stated that the signing of the decree would represent a "frontal blow to democracy."

However, calls are growing from various sectors to find consensus and chart a path to reduce the polarization the country is experiencing. The independent faction in the House of Representatives proposed that Congress be the epicenter of a conversation about Colombia's future.

The six congressmen are requesting " an extraordinary, public, and guaranteed meeting" at the legislative headquarters, which must be attended by "the Ombudsman and the Registry, and led by the presidents of the Senate and the House of Representatives."

President Petro, his cabinet, political party spokespersons, Attorney General Gregorio Eljach, Ombudsman Iris Marín, the presidents of the high courts, and representatives of the media are also invited to this meeting.

This meeting would aim to ease disagreements and reach consensus ahead of the 2026 presidential and legislative elections .

EL TIEMPO spoke with several leaders from diverse sectors in Colombia to learn their views on how the country could overcome the crisis it currently faces.

Today we feel anger and sadness; but we must process these emotions without losing sight of the nation in order to remain united and build healthy environments of coexistence and democratic discussion.

I propose an agreement be reached between the pre-candidates and candidates to moderate their words and reduce the verbal violence that leads to physical violence. Guarantees are what Colombians are demanding in order to achieve some peace. I am not proposing an end to political discussion, which is inherent to democracy. I propose an end to the verbal exchanges and physical attacks so that we can have a peaceful path in 2026, regardless of who legitimately wins.

The country needs us all to unite around common goals: the defense of the right to life, to security, to decent and stable work, the defense of private enterprise and entrepreneurship, and the defense of institutions and the independence of public powers.

We are overdiagnosed. It's time to act. To work decisively toward shared goals as a country and as a society. To not remain silent or wait for misinformation to continue to occupy the spaces of public debate. With arguments, firmness, and within the framework of respect and the Constitution, we must call on all Colombians to defend our democracy.

The country cannot emerge from the crisis it is experiencing alone. No one has the capacity to overcome the crisis we are facing individually, or from a single sector. It requires the participation of all sectors and all citizens, and that participation must be responsible.

On the one hand, we must confront what acts like a cancer on democratic life: indifference, non-participation, and the belief that what is happening is not our problem. That's not the case. It's a national problem, and we must all feel part of the same people.

On the other hand, we must emphasize the need to include all sectors, especially the most vulnerable, the most needy, and those who have suffered from social exclusion and violence for years. It is also essential to ensure the dignity of all those who participate in the political arena, those who contribute their reflections and proposals to the public debate.

Through this inclusion, it is necessary to ensure that democratic life is strengthened and that institutions can find appropriate solutions to these realities.

The current moment demands participation based on an inclusive language, a civic language, a language that invites dialogue and encounter; a language that, rather than segmenting and dividing us, helps us find unity as a nation and allows us to build, through words, practices that exclude violence in all its forms and at all levels.

These difficulties we face can be reduced to four points: First, President Gustavo Petro must respect the law and not insult his fellow citizens. Second, the Constitution and the rulings of judges must be respected.

Third, we must implement a much more careful fiscal policy than the one currently being implemented. We are truly heading into a fiscal impasse that will cost the country dearly. Finally, we must strengthen all measures aimed at combating crime and drug trafficking with greater clarity and force than has been seen so far.

The construction of a center that isn't presented as a sectarian center, but rather as one capable of recognizing the good ideas of the left and the right and weaving them together. In other words, what would be important right now is to have a series of people, candidates, and institutions capable of recognizing that there are good ideas and proposals everywhere, and that, through this collective effort, we could surely find good ideas for everyone.

Obviously, I think the environmental issue is fundamental. The call to get our act together for the survival of the species is key. It's not a minor issue, because it's pointless to keep killing ourselves when the climate and biodiversity crisis is already going to take over anyone who thinks they'll be able to stay.

There are too many fronts of instability in the country today: politics, security, health, energy, international relations, and increasingly, the fiscal front. Some of these are interrelated. For example, the fiscal issue directly affects the health and energy sectors, but the truth is that total destabilization has occurred in each of them.

The next president will have very complex tasks. We've talked about the loss of territorial control. Initially, the government's response was that our attitude was alarmist. The same thing happened when we began raising concerns about the effects on the sector, the health of patients, and the risks to the country's energy supply.

Everything became a social media discussion, with responses largely unaware of the consequences we were experiencing, and with a major impact on the foundations of each of those systems.

For this reason, I have no doubt that the first task, and one that will likely predominate throughout the next presidential term, will be to try to restabilize many aspects of society, which are currently weakened and some of them dramatically affected.

This is going to be especially complex, especially given the loss of talent that has occurred in the state. Long-time technicians were dismissed under the pretext that they were representatives of the neoliberals, when in reality they were the support of the state. Today, they are gone and have been replaced by ideological quotas from one of the other politicians loyal to the government.

I have no doubt that the major task today is to stabilize at least those five systems: fiscal, health, energy, security and territorial control, and international relations. Other subsystems will require special attention, such as the hydrocarbon sector, construction, and infrastructure.

Reaffirming the rule of law is a priority. The justice system must act independently and without political manipulation, guaranteeing the effective protection of all democratic actors and strengthening our institutions. We need to be a country with a memory, capable of learning from the past so as not to repeat failed paths, and, at the same time, a country with the courage to rethink itself with hope.

Advancing on the path toward peace requires great efforts to close social gaps and ensure that all territories feel an active part of the national project. However, it also requires a critical and empathetic citizenry, safe spaces for dialogue, and an education that fosters not only technical and scientific knowledge but also humanism and values.

Strengthening citizen participation through peaceful mobilization, social oversight, and informed debate is another fundamental tool for resisting violence and building a shared future in democracy.

There is a major contradiction between the government and President Gustavo Petro, his followers, and those of us who hold other views. It's natural for there to be differences in a country, but there's an additional complication: Petro's governing style, his bullying of his opponents, is a completely undesirable environment. Let's hope the president recognizes that this is not how Colombia should be governed and moderates his behavior, which has created an undemocratic environment in the country.

He has to take the initiative, and the rest of us have to adopt a discourse that contradicts this government. But this must also be done with the full intention of not replacing the force of arguments with the arguments of force. We must understand that debate and contradiction are part of life, but we must navigate them in civilized conditions because the country cannot withstand such serious problems any longer.

Colombia urgently needs to rediscover its humanity. We need to see others—even if they think differently—not as enemies, but as human beings who also love, suffer, and dream. We need to listen to each other more and speak less out of anger. This country needs leaders who unite, not divide, as well as citizens who understand that being part of something bigger means defending life, always, even when we disagree.

Democracy is fragile and lives in political tension, and this is precisely why it is necessary to build respect for the ideas of others and respect processes and procedures. Only in this way can we reach agreements that allow us to continue building democracy. We must offer more educational opportunities to our young people.

We must breathe. That is, make a conscious effort to overcome our primal instincts. This begins in our family life: in verbal language, in nonverbal language, in what we say and share on social media. We must call for a solution to not simply reacting out of visceral indignation. We need to take time to breathe, to think, to feel, to speak, but above all, to reflect before reacting, before speaking, and before acting. I believe we need a pedagogy of listening, of dialogue, of empathy, that teaches us to enter the world of others. And, above all, we must learn to eliminate from our language all those epithets that destroy the person.

In this moment of pain, violence, and uncertainty that the country is experiencing, it is incumbent upon us as a university community to reflect on the importance of strengthening a democratic culture that promotes the protection of life, peace, respect, the quality of public deliberation, and the common good.

This reflection is fundamental because the attack on Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay and the persistence of violence in different regions of the country, which for years has affected communities, social and political leaders, also occur within a broader global context marked by armed and socio-environmental conflicts with extremely serious humanitarian consequences, the strengthening of organized crime structures, trends toward polarization and misinformation, and international tensions that threaten social life, the economy, and the environment.

A worrying deterioration of democracy is also observed in various latitudes, challenging the exercise of civil rights and liberties, especially those of minorities and the political opposition, the separation of powers, pluralism, and coexistence.

The aforementioned international tensions and democratic backsliding are exacerbated by the identification of an "other," described as an enemy who must be destroyed, with whom dialogue and agreements cannot be reached because they do not deserve the same consideration as an "other" recognized for their human dignity. This scenario of division and disqualification is exacerbated and deepened by the opportunities that information and communication technologies and digital platforms provide for the spread of disinformation and the manipulation of content and messages.

In this context, the great challenge for universities is to demonstrate the opposite; that is, the possibility of genuinely meeting and building with others. The call to universities is to provide arguments and behaviors that allow for difficult dialogues, address differences, and foster convergences that pave the way for creating the necessary conditions to drive transformations aimed at the common good, with a shared future horizon.

One characteristic of democratic societies is their plurality: in democracy, different political ideas and ways of interpreting the world, spiritual and religious beliefs, races, and cultures coexist. Democracy is a way to address differences, often deep and irreconcilable, without resorting to violence.

The strengthening of democratic culture and its institutions is driven by the pursuit of the common good and a vision for the future. Consensus and dissent are mediated through dialogue, understanding of others, and a broad perspective that gives us perspective on the needs, arguments, and positions and that also helps us better understand the times, circumstances, and interests of those we call "the other." A democratic ethos is also based on respect for life, human rights, and the nonviolent transformation of conflicts.

The great challenges facing the world, and our country as well, are varied and complex. They cannot be resolved by leaders or saviors, but rather require long-term intersectoral efforts, interdisciplinary knowledge, participation, responsibility, and commitment.

The university is therefore called to be a fundamental player in multiple dimensions. Its contributions to solving these challenges and overcoming the increasingly aggressive and polarized environment must be a sustained and priority commitment. It is our responsibility to deepen and strengthen our mission in a difficult, changing, and unstable time, giving centrality and meaning to the formation of generations and supporting their life projects. They must understand the horrors of the past and the scars of violence, make responsible and ethical use of information, and, above all, be capable of democratic debate and action, recognizing others in their human dignity and with whom we can, beyond disputes and differences, find a path to building a better future for all.

The University must be a benchmark in this process, fostering knowledge, the pursuit of truth, and responsible action.

I invite you, through our daily conversations, debates, and moments of encounter and disagreement, to contribute to mitigating political polarization, preventing the emergence of authoritarianism, avoiding self-referentiality, and fostering atmospheres that positively influence society. Violence will never be a legitimate way to resolve differences. Only through peaceful and reasoned deliberation, mutual respect, and the collective construction of the future can we ensure a truly just, free, and democratic country.