On Aug. 11, 2025, Colombian senator Miguel Uribe died after being shot at a political rally. The event struck as disturbing and discouraging; it had been decades since a major political figure had been last killed (1989). The topic of violence against political opposition in Colombia has always been rooted in the country’s sociopolitical context characterized by conflict between the government and guerrilla groups.
This context of violence has not been unique to Colombia, rather political instability due to conflict between varying political factions has been characteristic of Latin American politics. Security and inequality crises often have led to threats to democracy and order. At the beginning of the 21st century, because of inequality and different social movements, Latin America turned towards left-wing governments. Known as the First Pink Tide, these governments rejected neoliberal policies and tried a different approach to their political and economic instability.
In 2022, as Chile, Brazil, and Colombia elected left-wing governments, it became perceived as the Second Pink Tide. Though coming to power with a promise of change, left-wing governments have hurt the region’s economy, security, and diplomatic relations with the other countries in the world.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez came to power with the promise of change, as part of the first Pink Tide. Like in many Latin American countries, Hugo Chávez came to power after years of deep political polarization and confrontation between political facets. He was able to come to power on a populist platform that promised equality and the end of poverty.
The arc of Venezuela shows how quickly populist promises can morph into decades of authoritarianism and collapse. Today, Venezuela is an authoritarian state and not the socialist paradise he promised. Venezuela has reached records in hyperinflation and today the bolivar is completely devalued, with living standards plummeting by 74%. Hyperinflation is a result of bad macroeconomic policies that relied on oil and little savings. Additionally, the Chávez and Maduro administrations held damaging microeconomic policies that were hostile to private property and private markets. These policies crushed all kinds of businesses and investment confidence. The Maduro government refused to recognize the crisis and maintained government intervention in the market, burying the Venezuelan population further in poverty. Additionally, after the electoral fraud in July 2024, it is more than clear that political opposition is being suppressed.
Moreover, Maduro has been harming international security by allowing guerrilla groups along the border with Colombia to expand operations, worsening the security situation for both countries. Even though it came with the promise of change, the Venezuelan people paid the price as they not only saw the collapse of their own democracy, but they faced extreme poverty, corruption, and insecurity — the exact things the socialist regime promised to erase.
Though recent, the story in Colombia is strikingly similar to the events in Venezuela. Even though the Petro administration came to power in 2022, the country has seen the immediate impact of policies that promise change but fail to deliver.
Similar to Chavez, Petro came to power on a populist platform taking advantage of the country’s political polarization and inequality. Promising to end poverty and corruption, the government has, however, increased inflation. The consumer price index went from 3.50% in 2021 to 10.18% and 11.74% in 2022 and 2023 respectively, the first two years of the administration. Additionally, the government has been characterized by numerous corruption scandals often involving family members and allies.
SEE MORE FROM MARIANA MARTINEZ:
Furthermore, incidents like the assassination of Miguel Uribe and recent attacks in Antioquia demonstrate how Petro’s approach to the conflict — one focused on “dialogue” — has been completely unsuccessful. The contrast in the conflict numbers before and after the Petro administration are striking. In 2024, guerrilla group members numbered over 21,000, which represented a 14% increase, according to ACLED. Similar to Venezuela, ignoring increase in violence, a government that once promised change has only proved to be a burden stalling development and order in the country. Comparing these two case studies is useful to better understand what could happen in the future — if these events have happened in Colombia in two years, it is worth wondering what could happen if these policies are extended for 20+ years, like in Venezuela.
Today, political debates and polarization seem to be more intense than ever. As Generation Z, we stand at a crossroad where we must learn how to think about politics, both domestic and international. I’m a firm believer that the best way we can learn how to behave in our current political environments is through history. Latin America is a great case study to understand the effects of left-wing governments on countries.
As Penn students, we are stakeholders of global citizenship, and it is crucial that we are aware of these events and can evaluate how they inform our perception of the world. Most importantly, as part of Gen Z, we are the ones who will inherit today’s policies. It is essential to have the ability to make informed decisions and participate properly. The role of the U.S. is becoming increasingly relevant in the Latin American context with different policies related to migration and lately, security. As the Pink Tide seems to collapse, key political shifts will come. It is essential to understand the foreign affairs that surround us to be able to draw insightful conclusions from contemporary foreign policy and other diplomatic issues.
MARIANA MARTINEZ is a College junior studying International Relations and Classical Studies from Bogotá, Colombia. Her email is marmari@sas.upenn.edu.
