Iván Cepeda, the presidential candidate for the Pacto Histórico, is executing a strategic gambit that feels familiar to anyone who tracked Gustavo Petro’s ascent to power. By courting “rebel” politicians from Colombia’s traditional parties, Cepeda is attempting to build a broad, pragmatic coalition that transcends the ideological boundaries of the left, aiming to replicate the machinery-driven victory of 2022.
This approach, however, is creating deep fractures within the nation’s established political structures. While the official platforms of the Liberal, Conservative, and Cambio Radical parties have largely aligned with candidates like Paloma Valencia or Abelardo de la Espriella, a growing number of legislators are breaking ranks to back Cepeda and his vice-presidential running mate, Aída Quilcué. This movement represents more than just a shift in loyalty; it is a high-stakes gamble with the risk of severe legal and political sanctions.
The strategy is a direct echo of the 2022 election. In 2018, Gustavo Petro ran a campaign rooted primarily in his own base and leftist allies, finishing second behind Iván Duque. The turning point came in 2022, when Petro successfully integrated traditional party machineries, transforming his candidacy from a movement of protest into a viable governing coalition. Cepeda is now attempting to inherit this momentum, leveraging the “Petrista” influence that has permeated the halls of Congress over the last four years.
The Liberal Divide: The ‘En Marcha’ Influence
The most visible cracks are appearing within the Liberal Party. Juan Fernando Cristo, the former Minister of the Interior and leader of the “En Marcha” faction, has emerged as a primary recruiter for the Cepeda camp. Cristo is actively urging Liberal members to pivot toward the Pacto Histórico, arguing that the party’s future lies in alignment with the current administration’s agenda rather than in opposition.
Several congressmen have already responded to this call, placing themselves at odds with the party leadership headed by former President César Gaviria, which has officially endorsed Paloma Valencia. Among those backing Cepeda are Álvaro Rueda, Carlos Ardila, Carlos Felipe Quintero, and María Eugenia Lopera. The inclusion of Lopera has drawn particular scrutiny due to her ties to Julián Bedoya, a former congressman from Antioquia who has faced allegations regarding the falsification of his law degree.
Conservative Defections and the ‘Godo’ Shift
The Conservative Party, traditionally a bastion of right-wing stability, is facing its own internal crisis. While the party’s official machinery is behind Valencia, a segment of the “Godos” (as Conservatives are colloquially known) has already integrated into the Petrista orbit. Senator Carlos Andrés Trujillo is a central figure in this shift; during his brief tenure as president of the party directory, he was instrumental in forging links between the Conservative base and Petro’s agenda.
The tension has recently escalated into formal disciplinary action. Representative Fernando Niño was recently suspended from the party after publicly declaring his support for Cepeda. This internal strife is particularly acute in the Caribbean region, where a fragmented Conservative base is split between the official candidacy of Valencia and the strategic appeal of Abelardo de la Espriella, both of whom are competing for the same regional influence that Cepeda is now attempting to capture.
Sanctions and the ‘Double Militancy’ Risk
For many of these politicians, the cost of loyalty to Cepeda could be their seats in Congress. Under Colombian law, “doble militancia” (double militancy) occurs when a legislator supports a candidate from a party other than the one that nominated them. This can lead to the loss of their mandate, a penalty that several “rebels” are currently risking.
In the case of Cambio Radical, the party has already moved to neutralize dissent. Congressmen Temístocles Ortega and Ana María Castañeda were sanctioned for defying the party’s directive to maintain a stance of opposition to the Petro administration. Both lost their “voice and vote” within the party structure. Ortega, who previously served as an ambassador under the current government, is widely expected to leave the party entirely once his current term expires.
| Political Party | Official Candidate | Key ‘Rebel’ Supporters for Cepeda | Current Status/Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | Paloma Valencia | Juan Fernando Cristo, María Eugenia Lopera | Conflict with Gaviria leadership |
| Conservative | Paloma Valencia | Carlos Andrés Trujillo, Fernando Niño | Niño suspended by party |
| Cambio Radical | Opposition Stance | Temístocles Ortega, Ana María Castañeda | Lost voice and vote (sanctioned) |
The Legal Loophole and the CNE
Despite the looming threat of sanctions, some insiders suggest there may be a legal loophole that protects these defectors. Because the logos of the traditional parties are not appearing on the ballot for the Pacto Histórico, and because many of these endorsements were formalized in late April—well after the congressional elections and presidential primaries—some argue that the technical requirements for “double militancy” have not been met.
However, the campaign is facing other legal headwinds. The National Electoral Council (CNE) is currently scrutinizing the campaign’s financing. Reports have surfaced involving an entrepreneur who denied making a donation that was allegedly recorded by the campaign, raising questions about whether the current bid is repeating the financial irregularities that plagued Petro’s previous campaigns.
As the race intensifies, the battle for the Caribbean coast has become the strategic epicenter. Cepeda is leveraging the “Casa Torres” machinery in Atlántico, combining the fervor of the leftist base with the heavy-hitting influence of traditional regional power brokers. This blend of grassroots activism and old-school political machinery is the cornerstone of the Pacto Histórico’s path to the Casa de Nariño.
The next critical checkpoint for the campaign will be the formal response from the CNE regarding the disputed donations and the potential filing of official “double militancy” lawsuits by the Liberal and Conservative party directories. These legal outcomes will determine whether Cepeda’s coalition remains a powerhouse or becomes a liability.
Do you think traditional party alliances strengthen or weaken the integrity of a presidential campaign? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
