Statement - Response to presidential address

For the president to question the transparency of the elections is irresponsible and dangerous.

The undersigned civil society organizations, articulated in the Alliance for Democracy , express their concern and rejection of the statements made by the President of the Republic, Gustavo Petro, in his speech on March 3, in which he again questioned the transparency of the Colombian electoral system.

As Head of State, President Petro has the responsibility to guarantee the country's institutional stability and strengthen public trust in democratic rules. Sowing doubt about the electoral process undermines the legitimacy of the entire Colombian democratic system. Furthermore, it can generate confusion, misinformation, and tensions that jeopardize institutional stability and could lead to political violence.

International experience demonstrates the risks of this type of discourse. In the United States, the accusations of fraud promoted by Donald Trump after the 2020 elections contributed to a climate of disinformation and polarization that culminated in the storming of the Capitol in January 2021. In Brazil, similar questioning promoted by Jair Bolsonaro, both before and after the 2022 elections, led to attacks against democratic institutions in January 2023.

In response to President Petro's recent accusations, we state the following:

1. The preliminary count is not illegal and does not replace the official count.

The preliminary election count is an information mechanism that allows for the identification of preliminary trends on election day based on E-14 forms signed by poll workers and election observers. Its objective is to avoid information gaps during the day and to allow citizens and the media to access preliminary results.

The preliminary count has no legal effect and does not declare any winners. The only official results are those of the official count, a formal process carried out later by judges of the Republic and electoral authorities.

President Petro's statements confuse the preliminary count with the official count, which leads to error and undermines a mechanism designed to strengthen the transparency of the process.

2. Challenging polling stations is a legal procedure

The Electoral Code establishes that challenging or recounting polling stations requires a specific justification.

Vote recounts are only permitted in specific circumstances: significant mathematical inconsistencies in the results, alterations or amendments to the electoral forms, or well-founded technical doubts about the accuracy of the counts.

Promoting widespread challenges, as the president is doing with his accusations, does not strengthen the transparency of the process. On the contrary, it can overwhelm the vote-counting commissions, delay the official results, and sow unjustified doubts about the popular will. The recount at polling stations is a safeguard against genuine errors, not a tool to obstruct or delay the vote count.

3. The electoral software is auditable and monitored by multiple actors

The electoral technology system can be audited by political parties and movements, campaigns and coalitions, and by accredited national and international election observation organizations.

These audits include verification of the source code, access to technical system records, participation in drills, and the presence of technical witnesses during information processing.

In addition, the National Civil Registry contracted an independent international audit of the electoral software, conducted by the Center for Electoral Assistance and Promotion (CAPEL), a specialized program of the Inter-American Institute for Human Rights. This technical verification covers the computer systems used in the electoral process, including the software used by polling station officials, for the preliminary count, the official tally, and the consolidation and dissemination of results. The audit has been underway since the beginning of this year for the legislative and presidential elections, with the aim of evaluating the security, efficiency, and integrity of the technological platforms and strengthening confidence in the electoral process.

Colombia has multiple institutional controls—voting juries, party witnesses, public scrutiny, judicial control, electoral observation, and technical audits—that exist to protect the will of the citizens expressed at the ballot box.

For all the above reasons, we call upon all political actors, and especially the President of the Republic in his capacity as Head of State, to act with institutional responsibility and contribute to strengthening confidence in the elections.

Democracy is protected by respecting the rules of the game and defending the legitimacy of the citizen's vote.