The scientist Peter Turchin created the Political Stress Index (PSI) as a tool to understand why there are societies condemned to crises and recurring political instability. The IEP measures the structural conditions that maintain crises. Its formula combines three factors: i) mass pressure, which reveals the degree to which the population sees its conditions of existence affected (salaries, inequality, poverty and informality); ii) the production of the elites, which accounts for the degree of openness of the political system to allow everyone to compete for power and its resources (political fragmentation, number of parties and frustrated aspirants to power); and iii) the fiscal weakness of the State, which shows the State’s capacity to absorb and manage social and political conflicts (primary deficit, debt/GDP, cost of sovereign credit).
The model is simple: a political system with high mass pressure but cohesive elites and a strong fiscal state can absorb tensions and conflicts. But a system that does not reduce its inequalities, or does not allow the incorporation of new leaders into the elites, or does not responsibly manage its finances, is condemned to forces that push it into the abyss of war.
When applying the IEP to Colombia, the Situational Intelligence Laboratory (Insilab) team found three relevant facts: 1) That despite the economic growth and social development of the last 40 years, inequality continues to be the destabilizing force. But not only that between rich and poor, but that which is more structural and profound: the inequality between rich and poor regions (in access to services, security and opportunities), which raises the level of political stress in the country.
2) Although there is competition for power, there is actually a problem that the political system has underestimated: the gap between expectations and realities. The increase in the coverage and quality of higher education in recent decades is not supported by a formal labor market that can absorb that training. The result is millions of professionals with middle-class aspirations, but who work in informal conditions. It is what Turchin calls “frustrations of aspiration”, the most powerful fuel for the social tension that is being experienced.
Just as the legislative elections in March leave a Congress without majorities and growing fragmentation, the presidential election in May anticipates a period of uncertainty and tension.
The worst thing is that, rather than competing for leadership, the traditional economic elites barely resist the pressure of emerging elites that come from the regions and the new economy; and these are cornered by armed and criminal elites (illegal groups), which in several regions have replaced the State as the arbiter of economic and social life. The result is “elite chaos” in which none of the elites have the capacity to impose a stable order on the others.
3) Regarding the fiscal weakness of the State, it was found that the suspension of the fiscal rule in 2024 left the country’s economic policy without an anchor of credibility in international markets. The criteria for access to credit are no longer met. A State with solid finances can redistribute, buy social peace and maintain cohesion. But a fiscally weak State, no. Whoever wins the elections will not have resources for investment, security and territorial presence.
But, beyond the structural conflict that the IEP reports for Colombia, reality shows that political actors have not understood that they continue to lead the country to war. The President with his expressions of hatred for others and contempt for the Constitution and the laws; the candidates and their campaigns who believe that only by destroying their rivals will they gain relevance; many journalists who, far from informing citizens, let themselves be carried away by their passions and take sides with a candidate, and the control bodies that seem overwhelmed by circumstances and incapable of confronting presidential power.
Just as the legislative elections in March leave a Congress without majorities and growing fragmentation, the presidential election in May anticipates a period of uncertainty and tension. The perfect combination for a future of stress, marked by crisis and instability.
* Professor at the Faculty of Engineering, National University
