Montealegre, the “Decretazo” and the True Character of Leadership

For those who have not been closely following Colombia’s political pulse, it is worth situating the debate before diving in. “Decretazo” is the name the public has given to the emergency decree by which President Gustavo Petro chose to fast-track, through executive action, a package of social and economic reforms that had until then been inching forward in Congress. The decision has triggered an intense debate because, although the Colombian Constitution empowers the Executive to issue decrees with the force of law in exceptional circumstances, the opposition and numerous jurists argue that the material requirements —severity, urgency, and temporariness— are not met in this case. In other words, the controversy is not merely about the scope of a specific rule but about the tension between popular mandate and the checks and balances that underpin the rule of law.

It is on this terrain —where political legitimacy meets constitutional barriers— that Eduardo Montealegre, former attorney general and an influential figure in legal circles, steps in to offer a sophisticated defense of the president’s move. For some, his intervention represents an enlightened effort to provide legal support in a critical moment; for others, it embodies a creative, if not blatantly lax, reading of the Constitution. With those elements on the table, the text that follows examines why the true test of leadership —both political and legal— lies not in the rhetorical skill to justify shortcuts, but in the willingness to subject power to its legitimate limits.

In times of institutional crisis, genuine leaders face their real trial: respect for the limits of power. Beyond ideological speeches or political affiliations, contemporary leadership is defined by the ability to wield authority with a sense of responsibility, humility before the law, and genuine respect for democratic checks and balances.

Unfortunately, the spectacle Eduardo Montealegre now offers in response to President Petro’s “decretazo” illustrates precisely the opposite. Instead of defending the strength of the institutions that underpin the rule of law, he plays the role of a sophisticated scrivener, unfurling a catalogue of convoluted arguments that attempt to cloak in legality what is, in essence, an open confrontation with the constitutional order.

The problem is not technical —because the law can always be interpreted from different angles— but one of character. Truly upright legal and political leadership assumes that majorities are no excuse for sidestepping democratic procedures. A genuine leader —whether political or legal— knows that power is legitimized through restraint, not through unchecked expansion.

But Montealegre, like other operatives within the administration, embodies that old flaw of courtly advisers: giving the ruler the theory that justifies what he wants to do, even if that means twisting the letter of the law and numbing the citizenry with technical rhetoric. What is serious is that this practice, besides deepening public distrust, feeds the erosion of the very institutions we should all be protecting.

Contemporary leadership demands exactly the opposite: humility before the Constitution, ethical clarity in defending the democratic order and, above all, the capacity to say “no” to power when it seeks to overreach. No rhetorical brilliance is needed to justify a shortcut; what is required is character to deter it.

As the country witnesses this new episode of legal engineering in the service of power, it becomes clear that the real deficit is not one of norms but of temperament. Ultimately, what is at stake is not just a decree, but the kind of country and leadership we are willing to tolerate.