Every time elections approach, Colombia seems to enter a state of war. Not a war of ideas, but a war of identities.
Just open any social media post about politics, and you will find the same script: "fascist scum," "bitter lefties," "Uribist beasts," "stupid Petristas," "paramilitaries," "guerrillas." The names change, but the mechanism is the same: reducing a whole human being to a dismissive label.
And then I have a genuine question: what exactly do we expect from a democracy? That all 53.9 million Colombians vote for the same candidate? Because if we all thought the same, felt the same, and reached the same political conclusions, we would not need elections. A single option would suffice.
The existence of ideological differences is not a flaw in the democratic system. It is precisely one of its most valuable features.
In In Praise of Difficulty, the Colombian philosopher Estanislao Zuleta writes about the human obsession with seeking a world without contradictions, without conflict, without uncertainty. We dream of relationships where everyone agrees with us, of societies where our ideas prevail without resistance, of simple solutions to complex problems.
But Zuleta insisted that it is precisely what demands effort that allows us to grow. Hearing an opposing opinion can be frustrating. Discovering that someone intelligent, informed, and well‑intentioned thinks differently from us can challenge our certainties.
Yet it is in that discomfort that learning happens. A mature democracy does not eliminate those differences. It learns to live with them.
But every four years, we act as if diversity of opinion were a threat rather than a richness. Perhaps because we still believe that whoever thinks differently from us must be wrong. Or worse: that they must be a bad person.
Psychology has shown for decades that reality is far more complex. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, one of the most influential researchers in the study of morality and politics, argues that human beings do not arrive at their political positions primarily through cold, objective reasoning.
We feel first; we justify afterwards. His social intuitionist model suggests that most of our judgments arise from automatic intuitions and prior emotions, while reason typically arrives later to construct arguments that support what we already feel is right.
Haidt also developed Moral Foundations Theory, according to which people organise their political decisions around different moral values. Some prioritise care and the protection of the most vulnerable. Others place particular value on individual liberty, responsibility, authority, loyalty, or the preservation of certain traditions. It is not necessarily that some have morality and others do not. It is a matter of different value scales.
Seen from this perspective, it is naive to expect that someone raised in a region battered by violence will see the country in exactly the same way as someone whose main concern has been economic inequality. It is natural that personal experiences shape our political priorities.
The story we have lived ends up influencing the story we want for the country. And here another key concept appears.
Daniel Goleman, the theorist of emotional intelligence, has insisted for years that human beings do not operate solely on reason. "We have two minds: one that thinks and one that feels," he wrote.
Our ability to recognise, understand, and regulate emotions largely determines the quality of our decisions and our relationships with others.
That applies to politics as well. Behind many political positions, there is not simply ideology. There are stories. There are emotions. There are experiences.
And understanding that does not mean abandoning debate. It means humanising it. Because it is one thing to disagree and quite another to dehumanise.
Dear reader, with this I do not intend to make you agree with the person near you who thinks differently. With this article, I want to invite you to enjoy uncomfortable questions, to challenge ideas not from a moral battle between good and evil, but from listening to arguments. Because more and more, we move from discussing proposals to defending tribes. From analysing ideas to protecting identities.
And then any criticism is interpreted as a personal attack.
Perhaps that is why Colombia's real problem is not polarisation. After all, any pluralistic democracy is made up of people who think differently.
The real problem is our inability to apply emotional intelligence to those differences.
We do not know how to manage anger. We do not know how to process frustration. We do not know how to hold difficult conversations without turning them into aggression.
We struggle to recognise that behind a different vote there may be a legitimate concern, even when we do not share the proposed solution.
Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves before going to the polls is not only whom we are going to vote for.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves from where we are voting.
From hope or from fear?
From reflection or from revenge?
From conviction or from resentment?
Because a citizenry emotionally hijacked by anger will struggle to build an emotionally stable country.
And that does not depend on which candidate wins. It depends on us.

Sources:

• Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind (2012): develops the idea that moral intuitions precede reasoning and explains how different political groups prioritise different moral foundations.
• Moral Foundations Theory
• Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (1995): self‑awareness, self‑regulation, empathy and social skills as competencies for managing emotions and relationships.
• The concept of "amygdala hijack," developed by Goleman to explain how intense emotions can override reasoning.