Benjamin Cain, in his reflection The Reign of Civilized Psychopaths, argues that the mere existence of a disruptive leadership figure like Donald Trump is enough to put dominant sectors into “shock,” rendering their narratives obsolete. Although formulated for the U.S. case, this argument illuminates the Colombian experience under Gustavo Petro. The arrival of the first leftist president in the country’s history shook the political board, revealing the fragility of traditional ideological frameworks and forcing a rethinking of the very meaning of power in Colombia.

Conceptual Framework

From political theory, Chantal Mouffe (2005) warns that democracy is not a space of perpetual consensus, but of confrontation between antagonistic projects. Likewise, Pierre Bourdieu (1997) points out that the symbolic power of elites depends on their ability to impose legitimate narratives. When disruptive leadership emerges, that narrative power can become obsolete. Cain frames it in terms of shock: the status quo becomes paralyzed in the face of evidence of its own obsolescence.

The Emergence of Disruptive Leadership

Petro did not only arrive at the Presidency with a progressive project; he did so by challenging a history of political exclusion of the left in a country marked by decades of anti-union violence, ideological stigmatization, and bipartisan hegemony. His leadership was forged in dissent (as a former M-19 member), in opposition within Congress, and in Bogotá’s mayoralty, ultimately opening a fissure in the tacit pact that had kept political, economic, and media elites in control of the State.

Reforms That Catalyze the Shock

• Healthcare reform: directly challenges the neoliberal model of private insurance in place since the 1990s, causing alarm in the financial and medical-business sectors.
• Pension reform: by prioritizing the public fund (Colpensiones) over private pension funds, it erodes the narrative of “individual responsibility” and paves the way for a principle of solidarity.
• Energy transition: proposes halting dependence on extractivism (oil and coal), weakening an economic axis that structured national politics for more than half a century.
• Labor reform: seeks to expand collective rights and stability, putting pressure on the business narrative of competitiveness through flexibilization.

These proposals operate as “devices of narrative destabilization” (Foucault, 1971), since they reveal the insufficiency of the neoliberal and securitarian^{1, 2, 3} ideological frameworks that had dominated the political field.

The State of Shock in the Traditional Elites

Just as Cain describes in the U.S. case, in Colombia the elites find themselves trapped in narrative bewilderment. The opposition has not been able to articulate a renewed discourse in the face of Petro’s reforms; instead, it resorts to labels like “castrochavismo” or “dictatorship,” expressions that reflect fear more than reasoning. The problem for these sectors is that their historical narratives —security, extractivism, self-regulating markets— no longer resonate with a society demanding inclusion, equity, and sustainability.

The Obsolescence of Traditional Narratives

The neoliberal model of the 1990s, the narrative of “democratic security” of the early 2000s, and the technocratic centrism of recent decades now appear insufficient. In the face of a mobilized citizenry, conscious of climate change and inequality, those narratives seem anachronistic. Petro, with all his errors and contradictions, exposes that obsolescence: his mere presence in the Casa de Nariño forces elites to admit that Colombian politics can no longer function under the old scripts.

Conclusion

Cain’s thesis finds a powerful echo in Colombia: Petro’s emergence has triggered an ideological and political shock that disarms dominant sectors, showing that their historical narratives have lost validity. This is not just a dispute over programs or parties: it is the confrontation between an exhausted political-economic model and the search for a new social narrative. The outcome of this clash will determine whether Colombia manages to move toward a horizon of democratic transformation or whether, on the contrary, the elites regroup to restore the old order.

---

¹Securitarian comes from securitas (security).

²In social sciences and political theory, it is used to describe policies, discourses, or frameworks of government that place security —of the State, the economy, or society— as the supreme value, justifying practices of control, surveillance, and discipline.

³In Foucault’s work, especially in his lectures at the Collège de France (Security, Territory, Population, 1977–78), “securitarian devices” are forms of power that not only repress, but manage populations through statistics, regulations, forecasts, and preventive control.