Democratic spirit and electoral defeats

A presupposition of democracy is that the leaders are willing to accept an eventual electoral defeat, obviously after a transparent process without cheating. That is what the democratic spirit is all about, as the following historical comparison illustrates.

In 1837 Santander handed over power to José Ignacio de Márquez, despite the enmity that confronted them, that the elections were close and that Obando was the candidate of Santander’s affections, if he had affections. That is why a writer who is so critical of Santander, like Antonio Caballero, in his History of Colombia and its oligarchies, points out that “with the constitutional and peaceful handover of power by General Santander, Colombia’s civilian tradition is inaugurated, almost uninterrupted.” And he adds something that hopefully our current former presidents would learn: that when power was handed over, Santander’s influence ended, so that “when he died a few years later someone could say that it was as if a dead man had died.”

The counterexample is Trump. He clearly lost the 2020 presidential election, not only in the popular vote but also in the electoral college. All claims of alleged fraud by him were rejected by independent judges. Despite this, Trump resisted until the last moment to hand over power, as shown by his tolerance, even complicity, in the assault on Capitol Hill. He also continues to set America on fire with his narrative that Biden won fraudulently.

This comparison shows the profound impacts of whether or not political leaders have a democratic spirit. A soldier from the 19th century, in a poor country and when democracy was still a novelty, inaugurates a civilian and constitutional tradition by accepting his electoral defeat. On the other hand, a billionaire is today endangering the bicentennial democratic tradition of the main world power, due to his refusal to accept his defeat.

I evoke these examples because of the risks for Colombia of these presidential elections, which will probably be very tight and in a polarized environment. In addition, the discrepancy in the votes of Congress between the precount and the official results of the count have generated narratives of fraud and understandable mistrust of the Registry.

However, the truth is that the work of the electoral witnesses and the scrutiny carried out by independent judges and notaries, in an already established public procedure, allowed the discrepancies and challenges presented by the political movements to be resolved peacefully. Without being naive, this fact shows that, despite its weaknesses, the Colombian electoral system has procedures for verifying and resolving challenges to guarantee that, if all the institutions adequately play their role and maximum transparency is ensured, the citizen’s will will be reflected in the official scrutiny. In addition, these elections have the presence of hundreds of electoral observers, who will help to highlight and correct any irregularities.

In this context, as citizens, and regardless of which candidate we support, we must commit ourselves to respecting the democratic will expressed in the elections, without prejudice to denouncing irregularities. And that is why we must demand from the government and the electoral authorities that they maximize transparency and offer all the guarantees to the citizens and to the political movements and parties. But we must also demand from these political forces and their leaders a commitment to respect the result, without prejudice to the use of the mechanisms and procedures provided to express their eventual disagreements.

* Researcher at Dejusticia and professor at the National University.

–