The Colombian left is going through one of those moments when politics ceases to be a clash of ideas and becomes an existential dilemma, despite the favorable outlook offered today by all polls. The decision by the National Electoral Council (CNE) to formally uphold the exclusion of Iván Cepeda—poll leader and emblematic figure of progressivism—from the interparty primary scheduled for March 8 has placed the Frente por la Vida before a dilemma that admits no easy solutions. Any path forward entails political, symbolic, and strategic costs.
The moment is especially delicate because this year the voting mechanism introduces a decisive novelty: unlike previous elections, there will be a single ballot that includes all primaries, running in parallel with the legislative elections. In other words, voters will not choose among separate ballots, but will instead be presented with a single paper on which left- and right-wing options will coexist.
In that scenario, the possible cancellation of the left’s primary as an act of protest would not be an innocuous or merely symbolic gesture, but rather a move that would substantially alter the electoral landscape, favoring a larger vote for the right-wing candidacy that would have—without a doubt—a clear winner: Democratic Center Senator Paloma Valencia, who would see her prospects strengthened ahead of the May elections, after having had mediocre electoral support at the end of 2025.
The dilemma facing Colombia’s left: yes or no to primaries without Ivan Cepeda?
If the left decides to withdraw from the primary, the path would be cleared for the right. And not just any right, but a primary in which Democratic Center Senator Paloma Valencia not only has—as she already does—high chances of prevailing internally, but could also capitalize on an inflated vote resulting from the absence of a progressive alternative within the same mechanism. The right’s primary would become, de facto, the only relevant primary of the day, with a multiplier effect on visibility, legitimacy, and the narrative of electoral strength.
This is the core of the dilemma: protest in order to preserve coherence and denounce what is perceived as an institutional arbitrariness, or participate so as not to hand the right an early political victory. Cepeda’s exclusion is not a minor detail. He is a figure who, beyond his leadership in the polls, embodies a trajectory associated with the defense of human rights, opposition to uribismo, and a left that claims to be democratic and institutional. Removing him from the race alters not only the internal balance of the recently unveiled left-wing Frente por la Vida coalition, but the very meaning of the primary itself.
The reactions of the candidates who remain in the race reflect this tension. Left-wing presidential hopefuls Camilo Romero and Juan Fernando Cristo have issued statements condemning and rejecting the CNE’s decision, emphasizing that it represents a blow to transparency and confidence in the rules of the game. Both have suggested that a primary without Cepeda loses legitimacy and blurs the citizen mandate that was supposed to emerge from the exercise. Their positions, while firm in criticism, occupy an ambiguous space when it comes to defining whether protest should translate into withdrawal.
Roy Barreras calls for continuing the left’s primaries, without Cepeda
Candidate Roy Barreras, by contrast, has been more explicit. For now, he is the only one who has openly argued for moving forward with the left’s primary even without Cepeda. His argument is pragmatic: abandoning the primary would be a strategic mistake that would strengthen the right and leave the left without a mechanism to mobilize supporters and realistically measure its strength. For Barreras, the ideal scenario does not exist, and politics consists precisely of acting under imperfect conditions.
The debate is neither minor nor reducible to a clash of egos or personal calculations. At stake is the left’s relationship with electoral institutions and with its own social base. Canceling the primary could send a forceful message rejecting what is considered an unjust decision, but it could also be interpreted as relinquishing the contest for power in the arena where it is actually decided. Participating, on the other hand, implies assuming the risk of normalizing an exclusion that many view as illegitimate.
Earlier this same week, insinuations by the Democratic Center regarding Barreras’s conduct toward Cepeda heated up the political climate, just hours before Gustavo Petro’s successful meeting with President Trump in Washington. In an alleged “secret plan” involving Petro’s former ambassador to London—who met with Republican Senator Bernie Moreno a few days earlier—the party of Álvaro Uribe claimed that Barreras had negotiated tacit support from the White House for his candidacy over Cepeda’s, despite Cepeda enjoying majority backing from the left and from the governing coalition.
Whether true or not, this claim adds to the blow dealt today to what had appeared to be a triumphant outlook for the continuation of progressivism in the Colombian presidency beyond Petro, following this controversial decision by the CNE and its politically appointed members.
A mis compañeros y compañeras del Pacto Histórico… pic.twitter.com/3CG78r470N
— Roy Barreras (@RoyBarreras) February 4, 2026
A decision under suspicion
The background to the controversy is further aggravated by the way in which the CNE adopted the decision. The participation of a substitute judge who previously worked for Abelardo De la Espriella—now the leading candidate of the right-wing opposition—has raised suspicions that go beyond the left.
That vote was decisive in annulling Cepeda’s candidacy in the primary, and while legality may be argued from a formal standpoint, politically the image is devastating. The perception of a conflict of interest reinforces the narrative of an electoral referee that is not only questioned, but appears tilted at a critical moment.
For a left that has made criticism of uribismo one of its defining identity pillars, it is especially difficult to digest that the exclusion of its strongest candidate is associated with a decision in which an actor linked to the historic leader of the right played a decisive role. This is not merely a legal technicality, but a blow to the credibility of the process and to the idea of competition on equal footing.
Ultimately, the Colombian left faces an uncomfortable question: what is more costly—to participate in a primary it considers flawed, or to withdraw and allow the right to monopolize the stage? The answer is not obvious, and whatever decision is made will leave scars. But what does seem clear is that the dilemma will not be resolved through statements of condemnation alone. It requires a political definition that assumes the consequences and understands that, in this context, omission is also a way of taking sides.
Related: Colombia’s Petro Calls Cepeda’s Exclusion from Primaries a ‘Blow to Democracy’.