Paloma is a competitor, not an enemy—I'd have her in my cabinet
En la antesala de las elecciones presidenciales colombianas de 2026, Abelardo de la Espriella ha elegido la generosidad estratégica sobre la confrontación fratricida: en lugar de atacar a su rival de derecha Paloma Valencia, le ha ofrecido un puesto en su gabinete y ha trazado una línea clara hacia Iván Cepeda como el verdadero adversario ideológico. Es un gesto que habla tanto del momento político como del carácter del candidato, y que recuerda que en democracia, saber distinguir al competidor del enemigo puede ser tan decisivo como cualquier propuesta de gobierno.
- La derecha colombiana enfrenta el riesgo de fragmentarse antes del primer round, dividiendo su caudal de votos entre De la Espriella y Valencia en beneficio de la izquierda.
- De la Espriella rompe el ciclo de ataques cruzados con una orden explícita a su campaña: cero agresiones contra Valencia ni su equipo, sin excepciones.
- La promesa de un cargo en el gabinete para Valencia no es solo cortesía política; es una señal de unidad destinada a los votantes de derecha que aún no han decidido a quién apoyar.
- Las encuestas de GAD3 complican el cálculo: Valencia empata técnicamente con Cepeda en segunda vuelta, mientras De la Espriella le pierde por nueve puntos, lo que sugiere que el candidato más generoso podría no ser el más competitivo.
- El escenario se mantiene abierto y volátil, con la forma definitiva de la contienda aún por definirse a meses de la votación del 21 de junio.
Abelardo de la Espriella, abogado y candidato presidencial del partido Defensores de la Patria, salió al aire en Bluradio para desactivar lo que él mismo calificó de crisis inventada dentro del campo conservador colombiano. Su argumento fue sencillo y deliberado: la competencia con Paloma Valencia, candidata del Centro Democrático, no fractura la derecha; la fortalece, del mismo modo en que dos vendedores en un mercado libre no se destruyen mutuamente por ofrecer productos distintos. "No existe tal pelea", dijo, rechazando la narrativa del drama fabricado.
Lo que convirtió sus declaraciones en noticia fue la distancia que recorrió en su elogio a Valencia. La llamó excepcional, valiente y honesta, y afirmó que si llegara a la presidencia, ella tendría un lugar en su gabinete. Al mismo tiempo, impartió una instrucción directa a su organización: ningún ataque contra Valencia ni su equipo. El verdadero adversario, insistió, es Iván Cepeda, a quien acusa de defender un modelo económico y político que ha fracasado en el mundo.
Sin embargo, las cifras de una encuesta de GAD3 —realizada entre el 16 y el 18 de marzo para RCN Televisión, con 1.200 entrevistas y un margen de error de tres puntos— introducen una paradoja incómoda. En un duelo directo, Cepeda vence a De la Espriella 45 a 36 por ciento. Frente a Fajardo, el margen es aún mayor. Pero contra Valencia, la diferencia se reduce a tres puntos —43 a 40—, dentro del margen de error, convirtiendo la hipotética segunda vuelta en un empate técnico.
La magnanimidad pública de De la Espriella puede leerse como madurez política o como cálculo frío: si no pasa a la segunda vuelta, quiere ser el candidato natural de los votantes de derecha, y para eso necesita no haber quemado los puentes. La civilidad, en este caso, es también una apuesta.
Abelardo de la Espriella, a lawyer and presidential candidate from the Defensores de la Patria party, has moved to defuse what he calls an invented crisis within Colombia's right-wing political camp. Speaking on Bluradio, he dismissed concerns that competition between himself and Paloma Valencia, the Centro Democrático candidate, would fracture the conservative vote and hand victory to the left in the 2026 election.
De la Espriella's framing was deliberate and casual. He compared the two campaigns to vendors in a free market—each selling their own product, neither threatening the other's existence. "There's no fight here that actually exists," he said, pushing back against what he characterized as manufactured drama. The distinction he drew was precise: Valencia is a competitor and a rival, not an adversary or an enemy. He expressed respect for her work and her standing, and he was careful to separate the personal from the political.
What made his comments notable, however, was how far he was willing to go in that respect. De la Espriella stated explicitly that if he won the presidency, Valencia would have a place in his cabinet. He called her exceptional, brave, and honest—a woman of such capability that she could hold any position he might offer. He also made clear that his campaign had received a direct order from him: zero attacks on Valencia or her team. This was not a casual remark but a deliberate signal to his organization about the tone he intended to set.
De la Espriella identified Iván Cepeda, the left-wing candidate, as his actual opponent. He accused Cepeda of promoting an economic and political model that has failed globally. The real battle, in his view, was ideological and structural—not a squabble within the right.
The polling data, however, suggested a more complicated picture. A GAD3 survey conducted March 16-18 and commissioned by RCN Televisión tested multiple runoff scenarios for the June 21 election. In a head-to-head between Cepeda and De la Espriella, Cepeda led 45 percent to 36 percent, with 10 percent planning to vote blank and 6 percent saying they would not vote. Against Sergio Fajardo, the centrist candidate, Cepeda held a wider margin: 44 percent to 32 percent. But when matched against Valencia, the race tightened dramatically. Cepeda drew 43 percent to Valencia's 40 percent—a three-point gap that fell within the survey's margin of error, making it a statistical dead heat.
The survey, based on 1,200 interviews weighted for age, gender, socioeconomic status, and past voting behavior, carried a maximum margin of error of roughly three percentage points at 95 percent confidence. The implication was clear: Valencia performed better against Cepeda than either De la Espriella or Fajardo, suggesting she might be the stronger general-election candidate for the right.
De la Espriella's public magnanimity toward Valencia—his refusal to attack her, his promise of a cabinet role, his explicit praise—could be read as strategic positioning. By appearing above the fray, he positioned himself as the mature choice. But it also reflected a calculation: if he did not win the first round, he wanted to be the obvious second-choice candidate for right-wing voters, and he wanted to avoid the kind of scorched-earth primary that might leave wounds too deep to heal before a runoff. The election was still months away, and the shape of the race could shift. For now, De la Espriella was betting that civility and clarity about who the real enemy was would serve him better than the alternative.
Citas Notables
There's no fight here that actually exists. Uribe has his party, I have mine—we're each selling our own product.— Abelardo de la Espriella
Paloma is exceptional, very brave and honest. She could hold any position in my government because she's very good.— Abelardo de la Espriella
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would De la Espriella offer a cabinet position to someone he's competing against for the presidency?
Because he's thinking about what happens if he loses the first round. If Valencia makes it to the runoff instead of him, he wants her to remember that he treated her with respect, not contempt. It's an insurance policy.
But doesn't that undermine his own campaign? Doesn't it suggest he doesn't think he'll win?
Not necessarily. He's saying the right-wing vote is big enough for both of them to compete without destroying each other. He's trying to make the point that this isn't a zero-sum fight—that they can both be strong and still have room for the other.
The polling shows Valencia performs better against Cepeda than De la Espriella does. Did he see that data?
Almost certainly. And it probably informed his decision to be generous. If the numbers show she's the stronger candidate in a general election, then publicly supporting her strength—praising her competence, saying she'd be valuable in government—positions him as the reasonable one, not the threatened one.
So this is about managing his image if he loses?
It's about managing multiple outcomes. He wins the first round, he's shown he can be magnanimous. He loses and Valencia advances, he's already positioned himself as her natural ally. Either way, he's not the guy who tore apart the right-wing coalition.
What about Cepeda? Is De la Espriella right that he's the real enemy?
For De la Espriella, yes—ideologically and strategically. But the polling suggests Cepeda is vulnerable in a runoff. That's why De la Espriella can afford to be calm about Valencia. The real threat isn't her. It's whether the right stays united enough to beat the left.