The idea of convening a National Constituent Assembly has once again moved to the center of Colombia’s political debate and, once again, exposed the deep fractures running through the country. Gustavo Petro has decided to push forward, through a signature-gathering campaign, a proposal he has been announcing for more than two years in the final stretch of his presidency.
To dispel fears and rumors about any attempt to alter the 1991 Constitution, the president insists that he does not intend to dismantle the current constitutional order or open the door to reelection, but only to incorporate two articles that would guarantee and “shield” the social reforms promoted by his government.
However, the president’s explanations have failed to eliminate distrust. The proposal has generated not only open rejection from the right and broad sectors of the political center, but also doubts within the progressive coalition itself that supports the administration.
In a country marked by decades of polarization — including the persecution from those in power of left-wing dissent — and by a political memory in which constitutional reforms often end up associated with power struggles, the call for a Constituent Assembly now appears more like a symbolic gamble by Petro than a real political possibility.
Petro’s impossible Constituent Assembly in Colombia
The 1991 Constitution still holds enormous symbolic value for much of Colombia. Gustavo Petro himself is a product of it, since the armed group — once demobilized — to which the current president once belonged participated in drafting it, which was the result of a broad national consensus.
Thirty-five years ago, Colombia was saying goodbye to its 1886 constitution, old, confessional, obsolete, and the result of one political sector — the Conservatives — imposing itself over another — the Liberals — after half a century of civil wars.
Although many sectors acknowledge that the current text needs adjustments and updates after more than three decades, there is broad consensus around the idea that fully reopening the constitutional debate represents too great a political risk amid the current climate of confrontation.
President Juan Manuel Santos himself refused to do so when he signed the historic peace agreement with the FARC in 2016, even though the former guerrilla group tried to take advantage of the moment to do what it had failed to do in 1991: participate in the country’s great national agreement.
The truth is that the main problem with current President Petro’s initiative is that it lacks the broad national agreement a Constituent Assembly requires in order to be viable. Petro insists that the intention is not to replace the Constitution, but his opponents point out that these kinds of processes rarely end up being limited to just a couple of specific reforms.
The fear is not only legal, but political. The opposition believes that an Assembly could become a platform to redefine the country’s institutional balance and expand the power of the executive branch and, after the opening of the democratic system with the arrival of the left to the presidency for the first time in history, it is unwilling to cede any more power.
Distrust does not come only from the right. Moderate sectors of the center and even leaders close to the government believe the political moment is inappropriate for opening such a discussion. Some allies of the Petro movement privately admit that the proposal ends up diverting attention from more urgent problems, such as insecurity, economic deterioration, the fiscal crisis, or the incomplete implementation of reforms that have already been approved.
The ghost of polarization
Petro’s gamble also reflects the deterioration of his relationship with Congress. The president has built much of his discourse around the idea that his government’s social reforms were blocked by a conservative and traditional majority unwilling to transform the country, something that is not entirely far from reality.
Under that narrative, the Constituent Assembly appears as a mechanism to take the debate directly to the public and bypass institutional resistance.
But that is precisely where another of the major criticisms emerges. Many sectors believe the president is using constituent rhetoric more as a political pressure tool than as a truly viable project.
The signature-gathering campaign launched by the government last week, aimed at reaching five million citizen endorsements, appears intended both to mobilize Petro’s base as his term nears its end and to keep political confrontation alive with Congress and the traditional elites.
The problem for the government is that polls and the political climate do not show overwhelming support for the proposal. Even among citizens favorable to social reforms, there is concern about the consequences of opening a constituent process in an institutionally fragile and deeply divided country. The debate inevitably revives regional memories, especially in Latin America, where several recent constituent assemblies led to major concentrations of power or prolonged periods of instability.
Cepeda and Cristo seek another path
The political discomfort surrounding the proposal became especially clear with the reaction of Ivan Cepeda, the ruling coalition’s candidate for the upcoming presidential election. Although he avoids openly confronting Petro, Cepeda has tried to distance himself from the constituent project and shift the conversation toward a much more moderate concept: the National Agreement.
Alongside former minister Juan Fernando Cristo, one of the leaders most closely identified with liberal centrist sectors, Cepeda has insisted on the need to build broad consensus rather than deepen institutional confrontation. The message is clear: the Petro movement must offer guarantees of stability if it wants to preserve its electoral chances in 2026.
That distancing reveals an evident concern within the ruling coalition. Many leaders understand that the idea of a Constituent Assembly may excite the most militant sectors of the left, but it generates resistance among moderate voters who will be decisive in the next presidential election. In other words, the proposal energizes Petro’s hard-line base, but makes it harder to expand support toward the political center.
Juan Fernando Cristo — the true political chief of Cepeda’s campaign, beyond the activism of formal party leaders — has been particularly insistent in warning about the need to lower political tensions and restore channels for institutional dialogue.
For sectors close to him, opening a constituent process without solid national consensus could end up worsening polarization and further weakening trust in institutions.
A proposal without political footing
Political reality appears to indicate that the president’s initiative has very little chance of succeeding. There is no parliamentary majority pushing it forward, no agreement among the country’s main political forces, and no sign of massive public enthusiasm around the idea. Even if the government manages to gather the five million signatures it has set as a goal, the legal and political path would still be extremely complex.
At its core, Petro’s proposal appears more like a narrative battle than a concrete roadmap. The president seeks to establish the idea that his reforms did not fail because of a lack of popular support, but because of resistance from traditional power structures. The Constituent Assembly therefore functions as a political banner that allows him to keep his base united and project the narrative of change being blocked by the elites.
But Colombia is going through a moment in which most political actors seem to prioritize stability over institutional adventures. The 1991 Constitution is still viewed, despite all its limitations, as one of the country’s great democratic consensuses. And precisely for that reason, the idea of reopening it amid the current polarization generates more fears than support.
Unless an unexpected political shift occurs, Petro’s constituent proposal appears destined to become another of the great symbolic debates of his administration: capable of mobilizing emotions and headlines, but lacking the political strength necessary to become reality.