To Govern is to Create: An Analysis of Petro’s Misgovernment in the Light of David Billington

A reflection on Gustavo Petro’s presidency through the lens of engineering, rhetoric, and missed opportunity.

David Billington, engineer and historian of technology, argued that “engineering or technology is the making of things that did not previously exist, whereas science is the discovering of things that have long existed.” This distinction between creating and identifying becomes particularly relevant when analyzing the performance of the current Colombian government, led by Gustavo Petro.

Billington’s phrase reminds us that true political leadership cannot be reduced to diagnosing problems or exposing already known inequalities; governing means building solutions, designing viable policies, and leaving behind solid structures that transform reality.

The Discourse vs. Management

President Petro came to power with rhetoric that sounded disruptive and promising on the international stage: energy transition, total peace, social justice. However, the gap between rhetoric and concrete management has proven to be immense.

While the presidential discourse insists on pointing out historical culprits for the country’s ills—the market, business leaders, the “caste society”—institutions face constant improvisation: poorly designed reforms, projects lacking technical foundation, and an administration marked by corruption scandals at the very heart of the state apparatus.

Governing Is Not Declamation

Billington emphasized that engineering is about bringing into existence what was not there before. In that sense, a government should resemble an engineer more than a literary critic: its task is to build, not merely to declaim. But Petro’s mandate seems stuck in populist rhetoric, in the glorification of conflict, and in the crafting of narratives that contribute little to the material reality of Colombians.

The result is evident: declining trust in institutions, regulatory uncertainty for investment, a domestic economy strained by inflation and informality, and a state apparatus paralyzed by internal contradictions and power struggles.

Populism as Refuge

In the absence of results, resorting to populism becomes almost inevitable. Petro seeks to explain his failures by blaming external forces: the business sector, the opposition, the courts, even the press. But in a democracy, legitimacy is not measured by rhetoric, but by the ability to deliver. And so far, the promised “change” remains conspicuously absent.

A Missed Opportunity

The Colombian left had, perhaps for the first time in recent history, the opportunity to demonstrate that it could govern with efficiency and rigor. However, by clinging to complaints, slogans, and denunciations, it seems to have confirmed the worst fears of its critics: a progressivism more comfortable in opposition than in the actual exercise of power.

Conclusion

Billington reminds us that creating what did not previously exist is the essence of transformation. Petro’s administration, in contrast, has opted to rediscover the already evident and wrap it in grandiose rhetoric. But the country does not need more diagnoses or metaphors; it needs tangible solutions, coherent policies, and leadership that understands that governing is, above all, an act of construction.