The Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), as articulated in Insurrección #992, positions itself in direct ideological and operational opposition to the Colombian government, particularly under the administration of Gustavo Petro. The publication frames the ELN not as a mere armed group reacting to state violence, but as a revolutionary force seeking a complete societal overhaul, grounded in class struggle, anti-imperialism, and popular mobilization. The organization rejects the legitimacy of Colombia’s existing political and economic structures, framing them as extensions of oligarchic and foreign—especially U.S.—control.
The ELN’s editorial asserts that institutions such as Congress have become tools of a plutocratic elite and remain fundamentally unresponsive to the popular will. According to the organization, electoral politics in Colombia act as a mask for oligarchic rule, where representatives function as brokers for economic and geopolitical interests aligned with the United States. The publication names Donald Trump directly as an external threat, depicting him as an agent of U.S. imperialism intent on maintaining Colombia as a subordinate state. That reference is not rhetorical. It positions the ELN as part of a broader geopolitical confrontation with what it sees as neoliberal imperialism, framing its struggle as both national and anti-colonial.
The organization’s strategic differentiation from the Petro government lies in its framing of the current administration as a failed and co-opted progressive experiment. It accuses Petro of betraying the Estallido Social of 2021 and of capitulating to entrenched elite interests by abandoning meaningful structural reforms. According to the publication, Petro has accepted the terms of the very regime he once claimed to oppose, choosing to work with traditional power brokers—including the so-called “Cacaos” (super-rich oligarchs)—and the U.S. State Department rather than fulfilling the popular mandate for deep change. They describe his “Paz Total” initiative as a façade to pacify or co-opt insurgent groups through fragmentation and negotiation, rather than structural transformation. The ELN portrays this policy as a way to divide opposition and protect the political and economic status quo, in some cases facilitating new forms of narco-paramilitarism under the cover of peace processes.
Unlike the Petro administration, the ELN does not express interest in electoral participation or legislative reform. Its strategic objective is rooted in what it defines as a post-capitalist, socialist society constructed through mass mobilization, revolutionary consciousness, and a sustained confrontation with elite power structures. Its support for mobilization on March 18 (18M) and the emphasis on the phrase “solo el pueblo salva al pueblo” underlines its rejection of top-down political leadership. The publication goes further to emphasize that only through organized, street-level struggle—outside the formal channels of governance—will the Colombian people achieve the changes denied to them for generations.
The ELN also places itself within a broader transnational revolutionary struggle, aligning ideologically with African liberation movements, Latin American anti-colonial thought, and historical revolutionary figures such as Gaitán, Camilo Torres, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. Its references to pan-Africanism, decolonial resistance, and the failures of identity politics disconnected from class struggle reinforce its ideological grounding. The organization articulates its role not merely as a Colombian insurgency, but as part of a larger anti-imperialist front aligned against Western economic domination.
The ELN positions itself as the true inheritor of the revolutionary aspirations of the Colombian masses, portraying the Petro government as a compromised actor that reinforces, rather than dismantles, the structures of elite rule. The organization rejects negotiation on terms set by the state or foreign powers and promotes permanent confrontation as the only viable method for systemic change. It demands not reform, but rupture, and claims to act in the interest of historically marginalized populations through insurgent means rather than institutional accommodation.
