This Sunday, Colombians will go to the polls to elect a new president. Gustavo Petro, elected four years ago as Colombia’s first left-wing president, has presided over one of the country’s most polarized administrations in recent history. Supporters view Petro as a reformer seeking to address Colombia’s deep inequalities, while critics argue that his ambitions have often exceeded his ability to govern effectively.

Central to Petro’s presidency was his commitment to implementing the 2016 Peace Agreement signed between the Colombian state and the FARC, one of the world’s longest-running insurgent groups. The name of his political coalition, Pacto Histórico (Historic Pact), reflected his ambition to reshape Colombia’s political landscape. His administration sought to advance implementation of the agreement despite sustained opposition from sectors that questioned both its terms and its broader vision for peace. At the heart of these debates were competing ideas about what a just and lasting peace for Colombia should look like—and whose voices should be centered in building it.

Long before the peace agreement was signed and continuing to this day, our team in Barrancabermeja has accompanied campesinos, artisanal miners, human rights defenders, environmental activists, and other grassroots actors in their efforts to translate the agreement’s promises into concrete regional initiatives. Their work has focused on fostering dialogue and supporting communities seeking to make the peace process meaningful in territories that have borne the brunt of decades of violence, displacement, and exclusion. For many of these communities, peace has never been simply the absence of war, but the presence of dignity, participation, and social justice.

Petro’s insistence on pursuing peace in one of the world’s most unequal countries has exposed longstanding political divisions, a reality reflected in the positions of the leading presidential candidates. Petro’s ally, Iván Cepeda, known for his advocacy on behalf of victims of state violence during Colombia’s decades-long conflict, has pledged to continue the government’s emphasis on peace implementation and negotiated solutions with armed groups. At the other end of the spectrum, Abelardo de la Espriella advocates a far more security-focused approach, emphasizing military and law-enforcement measures over negotiations. The third leading candidate, Paloma Valencia, is backed by former president Álvaro Uribe, whose administration remains closely associated with the “false positives” scandal, in which civilians were killed and falsely presented as combatants by members of the military. Valencia has campaigned on a return to more conservative economic and political policies.

What is at stake in this election is whether Colombia will continue pursuing reforms aimed at addressing the structural causes of armed conflict and advancing the implementation of the 2016 Peace Agreement, which places particular emphasis on addressing the gendered and ethnic inequalities exacerbated by decades of war, or shift toward a security-first model associated with former president Uribe’s approach to governance. The central question facing Colombians is whether they wish to continue a strategy that seeks to address the root causes of violence through dialogue, inclusion, and social reform, or embrace a more coercive approach centered on military force and state security. For communities that have spent generations demanding land, rights, recognition, and peace, the outcome of this election will shape not only public policy but also the prospects for a more just and democratic Colombia.