For more than two decades, Alvaro Uribe Velez has served as a central axis around which much of Colombia’s right has been built. His leadership not only defined a key chapter in the country’s recent history but also shaped a political identity grounded in security, state authority, and a confrontational reading of the armed conflict.
Yet the passage of time, mounting legal scandals, and persistent associations with paramilitarism have opened an unavoidable debate: Does Uribe remain a unifying and strengthening figure for Colombia’s right, or has his influence become a source of political fatigue and liability?
Answering this question requires examining not only Uribe’s personal trajectory but also the broader political costs his figure has imposed on the right in a country that has undergone profound social, generational, and institutional change.
Uribismo as the backbone of the contemporary right
Uribe was not merely a successful president in electoral terms. His lasting impact lies in having built a political movement with its own identity, capable of outliving his administrations and adapting to shifting political contexts. Uribismo consolidated a language, an agenda, and a way of exercising power that shaped parties, institutions, and public debate for years.
The narrative of order, security, and strong state authority resonated with a society exhausted by decades of violence and institutional weakness. For large segments of the right, Uribe symbolized the restoration of territorial control and a break with what they viewed as excessive concessions to illegal armed groups.
That vision, however, also deepened political and social polarization, reinforcing a binary logic that continues to define national debate.
For over a decade, Uribe’s endorsement was decisive in shaping candidacies, disciplining coalitions, and setting ideological boundaries within the conservative camp. His leadership functioned as an almost unavoidable reference point, both for those aligned with him and for those who defined themselves in opposition to his legacy.
Legal scandals and the erosion of political credibility
That symbolic capital began to erode more visibly when controversy moved from the political arena into the judicial sphere. The case involving alleged witness tampering and procedural fraud marked a turning point, not only for Uribe personally, but for the right that has long defended him.
Regardless of judicial outcomes, the fact that a former president faced such serious legal scrutiny had a profound impact on public perception.
For part of the right, the case reinforced the belief that the justice system was being weaponized to weaken an inconvenient political figure. For critics, it confirmed longstanding concerns about practices inconsistent with the discourse of legality and transparency that Uribe promoted throughout his career.
This clash of narratives has carried a clear political cost: The right has been forced to expend time, energy, and credibility defending or explaining its most emblematic figure, rather than focusing on building a renewed agenda. The image of an unquestioned strong leader has been replaced by that of a political player permanently under scrutiny.
Paramilitarism and the unresolved memory of the conflict
Adding to this erosion is a deeper and more sensitive dimension: The persistent association between Uribismo and Colombia’s paramilitary phenomenon. Although Uribe has not been convicted of direct links to these structures, his political career has been surrounded by episodes, contexts, and relationships that continue to raise legitimate questions across broad sectors of society.
During the most intense years of the armed conflict, the boundaries between the state, political elites, and illegal armed actors were often blurred. For many victims, the security project championed by Uribe unfolded in a landscape where human rights costs were significant and where the pursuit of results normalized questionable practices.
This legacy weighs heavily today, particularly in a country moving through processes of truth, memory, and reparations. For a right seeking to broaden its social base and connect with younger generations, carrying this historical burden poses a serious challenge. Uribe’s figure evokes not only order and authority, but also a chapter of the conflict that many Colombians are unwilling to revisit or romanticize.
Political persistence and a return to the center of debate
Despite these challenges, Uribe has not exited Colombia’s political stage. His ability to reemerge at critical moments, influence strategic decisions, and activate party networks demonstrates that he remains an actor with real weight on the right. In recent years, his voice has regained prominence in key debates and opposition strategies, particularly in the context of progressive governments.
As Colombia looks toward the 2026 presidential elections, Uribe continues to matter for sectors that view him as a reference point against policies they perceive as threatening their vision of economic and security governance. Within the Democratic Center party and among allied groups, many still regard him as a source of cohesion, capable of mobilizing loyal electoral bases and shaping messaging during moments of uncertainty.
Yet this influence no longer operates automatically or uniformly. Today’s right is more fragmented, more diverse, and less willing to accept a single leadership without question.
A right in search of renewal and new leadership
Alongside Uribe’s continued presence, new currents within the right are pushing to redefine its identity. These sectors argue that exclusive reliance on Uribe limits the ability to build broader political projects capable of engaging a changing and less polarized electorate.
This strategic reassessment is increasingly visible. Some conservative leaders acknowledge that while Uribe remains influential, his figure also generates resistance among key voter segments needed to win national elections. The question is no longer simply whether to support him, but how to build a right that is not permanently trapped in a defensive posture.
This internal debate reflects a deeper tension: Balancing loyalty to a legacy that defined an era with the need to adapt to a different country — one with more complex social demands and a citizenry increasingly focused on transparency, inclusion, and accountability.
A unifying figure or a symbol of a closing cycle?
Today, Alvaro Uribe Velez remains influential, but his power is no longer what it once was. He no longer functions as an uncontested unifier, but rather as a figure who simultaneously organizes and fragments the right. For some, he continues to embody ideological strength; for others, he represents a political cycle that, while historically significant, shows clear signs of exhaustion.
His moral and political authority has been weakened by legal scandals and by unresolved wounds from the armed conflict. That erosion has not erased him from the political landscape, but it has constrained his ability to project himself as the unquestioned leader of the future.
Ultimately, the debate over Uribe is also a debate over the direction of Colombia’s right. Remaining anchored exclusively to his figure may ensure short-term cohesion, but it carries significant medium- and long-term risks.
The real test for the right will not be whether Uribe remains influential, but whether it can reinvent itself beyond him, learning from his impact without becoming captive to his limitations.
That challenge will determine not only the future of Uribismo but the political viability of an entire sector navigating a country that no longer operates under the same assumptions as the past.