Gustavo Petro promotes state intervention in the economy and public services in Colombia.

In a significant turn, President Gustavo Petro has revitalized his approach to state intervention in the economy and public services, marking a clear departure from the previous administration. His recent speech emphasized the urgent need for the state to take a more active role, especially in critical sectors such as energy and health. In a context where the conservative government had prioritized deregulation and privatization, Petro seeks to restore trust in public institutions and challenge the hegemony of large conglomerates. Recently, Petro has turned his attention to the high energy tariffs affecting families and small businesses. In a forceful statement, he highlighted that Colombia is in a unique situation in Latin America, being the only country where energy costs are not regulated by the state. This fact has allowed companies in the sector to speculate and set arbitrary prices, a phenomenon that Petro attributes to the existence of an oligopoly controlling 70% of energy generation. His call for state intervention aims not only to alleviate the financial burden on citizens but also to dismantle the monopolistic practices that have prevailed. However, implementing these measures will not be straightforward. The current formula for determining energy tariffs is managed by the Energy and Gas Regulation Commission (CREG), a semi-autonomous body governed by supply and demand criteria. Despite Petro's attempts to modify this structure, his efforts have been blocked by the Council of State, underscoring the limitations his administration faces in trying to change existing laws. Nevertheless, the president remains firm, insisting that the state must play a more decisive role in price setting. In addition to his focus on the energy sector, Petro has proposed that the state influence the allocation of credit by banks, suggesting a model of "forced investments." This proposal, although still lacking specific details, has been met with skepticism from bankers and businesspeople. The idea that the state directs public savings toward productive sectors may clash with the market philosophy that has predominated in the country. Nonetheless, Petro has anticipated criticism, arguing that state intervention is essential to break with the neoliberal logic that has dominated economic discourse in Colombia. The tension between Petro's vision and the interests of the banking sector has intensified, and an alternative is brewing that would allow banks to channel funds to certain companies voluntarily. However, this proposal may not satisfy the president's ambitions, who seeks greater state involvement in the economy. His insistence on this point reinforces his commitment to expanding public intervention, although the path to effective implementation remains uncertain. An additional aspect that highlights Petro's stance on public matters is his confrontation with Bogotá Mayor Carlos Fernando Galán regarding the future of the San Juan de Dios hospital. This emblematic health facility has been the subject of controversy, as the president has advocated for preserving its heritage, while the mayor seeks to move forward with a project that could privatize part of its operations. This dispute, although local, symbolizes a broader battle over the values and priorities of Petro's government. The conflict surrounding San Juan de Dios is not only a matter of urban planning or cultural heritage; it is also intertwined with Petro's vision of public health. His previous experience as mayor and his commitment to the health system have led the administration to make bold decisions, despite criticism. The president has argued that the privatization of hospitals has resulted in a decline in the quality of care worldwide, a point he seeks to emphasize whenever discussing public health. As the government prepares to present a new health reform, the magnitude of Petro's commitment to public interests will become even clearer. This reform has been the subject of debate, with various legislative factions reluctant to support an expansion of the state's role in health insurance and management. The political negotiations that unfold around this proposal will be crucial in determining the extent to which the president can achieve his vision of a more interventionist and regulatory state. Finally, the challenge facing Petro is to balance his pro-public agenda with the need to build political consensus in a fragmented Congress. The success of his government will largely depend on his ability to navigate this delicate terrain, where old power structures and new aspirations for change are in constant tension. In this scenario, the future of Colombia will be defined not only by the reforms themselves but also by how these reforms are implemented and accepted in a society still grappling with deep inequalities and structural challenges.