Thousands protest across Colombia against new right-wing president

Thousands of Colombians protested peacefully against President Abelardo de la Espriella and his government’s policies. The demonstrations were the opposition’s first major show of strength since he took office in August. They brought together groups with different concerns, including economic rights, peace, minority rights and foreign policy.

In Bogotá, former left-wing President Gustavo Petro led a rally. Trade unionists, Indigenous Colombians, students and feminist activists joined him. A civil servant also marched with a rainbow flag representing the LGBTQ community. Protesters chanted, “It’s going to fall,” referring to what they called Colombia’s most right-wing government in decades.

The protests showed that opposition groups could organize around shared fears about lost social gains, minority rights and the peace process. They remained peaceful despite a government decree promising stronger action against property damage and blocked streets. Demonstrators argued that protesting is protected by Colombia’s Constitution.

The article describes the demonstrations as involving thousands of people, but it gives no exact national total. Protests took place in cities across Colombia. That broad reach mattered because the marches were the first major opposition mobilization since Abelardo de la Espriella became president in August.

Bogotá hosted the most detailed rally. Former President Gustavo Petro led it, alongside trade unionists, Indigenous groups, students and feminists. Medellín, described as the country’s second city, also saw a march. Protesters there held a sign reading, “Yankees go home,” reflecting opposition to the president’s close relationship with the United States.

The available figures show substantial participation, but not a precise count by city. The demonstrations proceeded peacefully, even after the government announced tougher powers against vandalism, violence and blockades. Their spread indicated that opposition concerns extended beyond one local protest or single social group.

Abelardo de la Espriella is a trained lawyer, millionaire and right-wing president who took office in August. The article presents him as one of Colombia’s most divisive modern leaders. He is also described as US-backed and part of a wider right-wing wave across Latin America.

His government has promised to combat crime and eradicate “narco-terrorists.” Conservatives have applauded his decision to confront guerrilla groups that did not surrender when the FARC disbanded. He also issued a decree giving authorities greater powers during demonstrations and restored diplomatic relations with Israel after Gustavo Petro broke them off.

Critics say these choices could endanger Colombia’s fragile peace process, threaten minority rights and reveal an authoritarian streak. Protesters also objected to his foreign policy, including plans to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. His security approach, executive powers and international alliances have therefore become central sources of political division.

In politics, “right-wing” commonly refers to positions that emphasize order, national security, traditional institutions and private economic activity. The label covers many views, so it does not mean every right-wing government has identical policies. In Colombia’s case, the article connects the term with a strong focus on crime, armed groups and public order.

De la Espriella took office promising to combat crime and eradicate “narco-terrorists.” He has also been praised by conservatives for confronting guerrilla groups that refused to surrender after the FARC disbanded. Before the protests, he expanded authorities’ powers to respond to violence, property damage and blocked streets.

This security priority can appeal to people who fear crime or renewed conflict. It can also alarm opponents if stronger enforcement limits demonstrations or undermines peace efforts. The Colombian protests reflected that tension: the government stressed citizens’ rights to move safely, while protesters stressed their constitutional right to gather and criticize power.

The FARC was Colombia’s powerful rebel army, according to the article. It disbanded a decade ago, but some guerrilla groups refused to lay down their arms. That history helps explain why security and peace remain major political issues under President Abelardo de la Espriella.

The article says conservatives support De la Espriella because he has taken the fight to guerrilla groups that continued after the FARC disbanded. His government also promises to eradicate “narco-terrorists.” These policies present stronger action as a way to address armed violence and protect public security.

Critics fear that this approach could damage Colombia’s fragile peace process. The concern is not simply about military or police action. It also involves whether Colombia can reduce violence while preserving agreements and political efforts aimed at ending conflict. The protests therefore connected current security decisions with the country’s unresolved history of armed groups and peace negotiations.

When a new government reverses earlier priorities, public policy can shift even if previous gains do not disappear immediately. Funding, enforcement and future reforms may change. That can affect access to public universities, wage growth, workplace protections and safeguards for minority communities. The political stakes are especially high when people believe recent improvements are fragile.

Under Gustavo Petro, Colombia expanded free access to public universities, oversaw record increases to the minimum wage and improved labor conditions for employees. Teacher Ester Guerra said protesters feared losing “the little we did obtain.” Civil servant Unzo Vargas marched with a rainbow flag because he believed long-fought LGBTQ rights were at risk.

The article does not state that these gains had already been reversed. It reports fears about what might happen under De la Espriella. Future decisions on budgets, labor policy and minority rights could determine whether Petro-era advances continue, weaken or expand. The protests were an attempt to influence that direction.

A constitutional right to protest lets people gather, express opposition and demand political change. That right does not automatically protect violence, property destruction or actions that seriously block other citizens. Democratic governments therefore try to protect peaceful assembly while responding to genuine threats and public disruption.

Before the marches, De la Espriella issued a decree giving authorities greater powers against damage to property or blocked streets. He wrote that violence, vandalism and blockades would not be tolerated. Protesters answered that the Constitution protects their right to demonstrate and accused the government of trying to frighten people away from the streets.

The protests proceeded peacefully, which made the distinction clear. The government could claim a duty to protect public order, while demonstrators could exercise their political rights. The democratic test is whether restrictions target actual harm and remain proportionate, rather than being used to silence criticism. The article does not describe how the decree was later enforced.