At a moment widely perceived as decisive for the future of Colombia’s political direction, former President Alvaro Uribe calls for Valencia-De La Espriella unity, in other words, a unity call among conservative and center-right leaders has intensified. Across political circles and among many voters who oppose the current administration, the idea of building a common front ahead of the presidential elections has become a recurring theme.
At the center of this debate are two prominent figures: Senator Paloma Valencia and lawyer and presidential candidate Abelardo de La Espriella. Both have gained visibility in recent polling and represent sectors of the electorate critical of the political project associated with President Gustavo Petro.
The conversation took on renewed intensity after remarks from former president Alvaro Uribe Velez, leader of the Democratic Center. Uribe referred publicly to the possibility that both candidacies could eventually converge if the electoral scenario requires it, echoing a sentiment increasingly voiced by conservative voters who fear fragmentation within the opposition.
For analysts, the discussion goes beyond a simple political endorsement. It touches on broader questions about strategy, coalition-building, and the future configuration of Colombia’s right-of-center political landscape.
Uribe amplifies calls for unity among conservative voters who fear a continuation of Petro’s political project
The debate intensified after Uribe addressed the issue of unity in a message published on his X account. The former president framed the discussion as a response to demands from citizens who want opposition leaders to coordinate politically ahead of the presidential race.
Uribe wrote: “Many people are calling for unity between Paloma and Abelardo. Our duty is to show total respect in order to build the conditions for it. Many citizens who fear the continuation of Petro and Cepeda are calling for unity, which they believe would mean the consolidation of narco-terrorist power, the suffocation of private entrepreneurship that would eliminate job creation and investment, the destruction of the health care system, and the imposition of inefficient and corrupt statism, the looting of pension funds owned by workers, and energy insecurity without alternative energy sources — without oil, gas, coal, or hydroelectric power, among others.”
And he continued: “The perverse continuation of Petro and Cepeda would mean replacing the public-private alliance established by the 1991 Constitution with the imposition of statism. Petro and Cepeda would reduce employment to ‘street hustling’ or bureaucratic servitude. Petro and Cepeda would mean the cancellation of individual creativity. May Colombia prevail with freedom and collective well-being.”
The statement reflects a broader narrative within the conservative opposition that frames the upcoming election as a choice between competing economic and institutional models. According to this perspective, the debate revolves around whether Colombia will move toward a stronger role for the state or maintain the public-private balance established by the country’s constitutional framework.
By emphasizing citizen demands for unity, Uribe effectively placed political pressure on opposition candidates to demonstrate a willingness to cooperate should the electoral dynamics lead to a runoff scenario.
A potential alliance that could significantly strengthen Paloma Valencia’s path to the presidential runoff
If the presidential race advances to a second round between Paloma Valencia and Senator Ivan Cepeda, the support of Abelardo de La Espriella could become a decisive factor.
De La Espriella entered the presidential race through the movement ‘Defensores de la Patria’ and has positioned himself as a strong critic of the current administration’s policies. His discourse often emphasizes economic freedom, institutional stability, and security—issues that resonate with many conservative voters.
Although his political platform is independent, his ideas frequently intersect with those promoted by the traditional right. That ideological proximity has fueled speculation about the possibility of an alliance if one of the candidates advances to the second round.
For Paloma Valencia, such an endorsement could have several political implications. First, it could help consolidate a broader coalition of conservative voters who currently support different candidates but share similar concerns about economic policy, public security, and institutional reforms. Second, the backing of De La Espriella could allow Valencia to expand her appeal beyond the traditional electorate of the Democratic Center. Colombian presidential elections often require candidates to build broad coalitions that include independent voters, regional leaders, and emerging political movements.
From an electoral standpoint, the potential convergence between Paloma Valencia and Abelardo De La Espriella could also reshape the arithmetic of the second round. In Colombia’s two-round presidential system, the first round often fragments the vote among multiple candidates representing similar ideological spaces.
A unified front in the runoff can therefore become decisive. If Valencia were to reach the second round against Ivan Cepeda, the immediate transfer of votes from De La Espriella’s supporters — combined with backing from other center-right sectors — could significantly expand her electoral base. Analysts frequently point out that second-round victories in Colombia tend to depend less on ideological purity and more on coalition-building capable of mobilizing voters beyond traditional party loyalties.
In that context, a public endorsement from De La Espriella could reinforce Valencia’s image as a candidate capable of uniting different currents within the conservative bloc. Something that undoubtedly gives strength and credibility to a right wing whose internal divisions have long taken a political toll.
De La Espriella’s promise of reciprocal support reveals a strategy centered on unity within the opposition
The possibility of cooperation between the two candidates is not merely theoretical. De La Espriella himself has addressed the issue directly in recent media interviews. According to statements reported by major Colombian radio networks, the lawyer and political newcomer has made it clear that unity among conservative forces should prevail if the election reaches a runoff against Ivan Cepeda.
His message has been explicit: whichever candidate advances to the second round should receive the full support of the other. “If I go to the second round with Cepeda, Paloma will be here. And if Paloma goes to the second round with Cepeda, I will be with her,” he said in interviews with national media outlets, including La FM and Blu Radio.
The statement reflects a strategy aimed at preventing fragmentation among opposition voters. In Colombia’s two-round presidential system, the ability to consolidate political alliances in the second round often determines the outcome.
Beyond that commitment, De La Espriella has repeatedly expressed respect for Paloma Valencia, Alvaro Uribe, and the political tradition associated with the Democratic Center. His discourse has emphasized dialogue, consensus, and cooperation among conservative leaders. This tone has allowed him to position himself as both a firm critic of the government and a candidate willing to prioritize unity over rivalry.
Between political strategy and ideological alignment: the broader impact of a Valencia–De la Espriella convergence
An eventual alliance between Paloma Valencia and Abelardo De La Espriella would have implications that extend beyond the mechanics of a single election. At a strategic level, it would represent an effort to consolidate different currents within Colombia’s conservative and center-right spectrum.
Valencia embodies the institutional political tradition associated with the Democratic Center and the leadership of Alvaro Uribe, while De La Espriella represents a newer political movement rooted in legal advocacy and civic activism.
Bringing those two trajectories together could create a coalition capable of mobilizing voters across multiple sectors: traditional party supporters, independent conservatives, and citizens who feel disillusioned with established political structures.
At the same time, such a convergence could reshape the internal dynamics of the right. Instead of competing factions, the two leaders could present themselves as complementary figures united by a shared political agenda centered on economic growth, institutional stability, and security policies.
For Paloma Valencia, the support of De La Espriella would strengthen her narrative as a consensus-builder capable of bringing together diverse voices within the conservative camp. In a country where presidential elections often hinge on coalition-building, that perception could prove politically valuable.
Yet any alliance would also require careful negotiation. Differences in political style, campaign priorities, and leadership structures would need to be addressed through a clear roadmap for cooperation. A roadmap that even former president Alvaro Uribe has said is essential in this electoral process.
As the presidential race advances and the first-round approaches, the key question remains whether the calls for unity will translate into concrete political agreements. What is clear is that the idea of coordination among opposition candidates has become a central theme in Colombia’s political conversation.
And in that evolving landscape, the relationship between Paloma Valencia and Abelardo de La Espriella could play a decisive role in shaping not only the outcome of the election but also the future configuration of the country’s conservative political movement.