Gustavo Petro ¿Por qué volvió la derecha? Entrevista por Diego Ruzzarin

Summary

In this interview, Gustavo Petro and Diego Ruzzarin discuss the return of right-wing political forces, the limits of progressive governments, and the political and economic challenges facing Latin America. Ruzzarin frames his questions from a left-wing perspective while also calling for self-criticism.

• Election defeat and allegations of fraud: Petro says he initially doubted claims of fraud but now believes there is evidence of electoral manipulation. He points to a citizen network of digital witnesses and alleges that election records were made alterable, bots and foreign money distorted the campaign, and algorithms changed results at particular polling stations. He urges the justice system to investigate. These are Petro’s allegations in the interview, not independently established findings in the subtitles. He also acknowledges that his campaign made mistakes, especially by failing to maintain effective communication with voters and adequate monitoring at polling stations.
• Why parts of the electorate shifted right: Petro argues that people who become more prosperous can become more conservative, particularly if progressives do not address the aspirations and anxieties of the middle class. He says the left needs a practical agenda for people facing debt, family responsibilities, and fears of social change—not only a focus on the poorest. He also argues that right-wing campaigns successfully used security concerns and simplified messages.
• Poverty, wages, and security: Petro links reductions in poverty and increases in household income to lower levels of theft and domestic violence, arguing that financial stress can contribute to both. He says Colombia’s homicide rate remained high but relatively stable, while the composition of killings shifted toward contract killings associated with drug-trafficking groups. He presents drug demand in international markets as a major driver of persistent violence and suggests regulated cocaine could be less harmful than the illicit trade.
• His account of the government’s economic record: Petro says employment and the number of businesses increased, informal employment declined gradually, and exports shifted toward non-hydrocarbon goods such as agricultural and industrial products. He presents these trends, along with higher wages and reported economic growth, as evidence that his government strengthened productive activity and benefited all income groups—especially the poorest and women. These figures and interpretations are presented by Petro in the interview.
• Debt and limits on reform: Discussing repayment of International Monetary Fund debt, Petro says Colombia’s constitutional and budgetary rules constrained his choices. He argues that greater taxation of the wealthy could have created more room for social investment, but says he did not secure the political support needed for major constitutional change.
• Progressivism, revolution, and democracy: Petro describes himself as a Marxist “in an anarchist version” and argues that progressive governments often make reforms that later administrations reverse. In his view, fascism can gain ground when social conflict is contained without deeper transformation. At the same time, he says he avoided pushing Colombia toward a revolutionary rupture because he feared civil war, drawing on his experience with the M-19 and its peace process. The discussion contrasts liberal democracy with popular or constituent power, while also rejecting the idea that collective politics should erase individual freedom.
• Technology, capital, and US influence: Petro argues that control of digital platforms, data, and artificial intelligence gives a small group of technology and financial interests growing power to shape public opinion and monitor society. He describes this as a threat to democracy and warns that AI’s energy demands could worsen the climate crisis. He also claims that a Colombian-owned data-center project was obstructed in favor of private corporate interests, and interprets US policy in the region as closely tied to access to oil and other resources.
• Religion and electoral politics: Petro says some evangelical organizations have become politically aligned with the right and alleges that certain churches have been used for money laundering. He argues that progressives should not simply dismiss religious voters, but could build common ground with religious traditions around dignity, life, freedom, and a living wage.
• Latin American unity and the future: Petro advocates closer cooperation among Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Panama, Brazil, and Mexico, and discusses a broader Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking bloc. He presents regional unity as a way to support a more multipolar world and relations among civilizations on equal terms, rather than dependence on any single power. His closing appeal is for young people to confront both climate change and the dangers of concentrated technological power.

Presenters and Contributors

• Diego Ruzzarin — interviewer
• Gustavo Petro — interviewee, former president of Colombia