Without democracy, there is no stable investment, nor growth, nor possible development. Today, as political uncertainty increases and polarization weakens institutions, the private sector faces an unavoidable reality: it must contribute to safeguarding the system that makes its existence and that of the country it helps to build possible.
Anyone observing today's Colombia can feel tension in the air. Distrust towards institutions is growing, public debate has become a boxing ring where confrontation prevails over construction, and agreements seem to be a thing of the past.
Amid this landscape arises a question that unsettles many businesspeople but is necessary: what is the role of the private sector in a democracy, especially when politics is in crisis? And the answer should not be to replace the function of the State or public powers. It is about understanding that companies are also institutions that are part of society and that depend on clear rules, trust, and stability. That is why they have the capacity, but above all the responsibility, to help preserve democratic principles. And this is not an ideological issue but rather a practical one: without democracy, there are no free and reliable markets, no sustainable investments, nor viable projects that endure.
Democracy: the foundation of growth
For the economy to function, for companies to invest, innovate, grow formal employment, and attract national and regional development, clear rules of the game, responsive institutions, trust among different actors in the public and private sectors, and security conditions are needed. Democracy is the foundation that supports all of this. When that foundation cracks, whether due to polarization, institutional capture, or violence, not only politics suffers, but also the economy.
The most vulnerable households feel it first, and then the companies that invest with a long-term perspective. The private sector depends on that institutional environment and should have a direct interest in defending it. That is why Harvard Business Review, in its article “Business Can’t Take Democracy for Granted,” has insisted that the private sector cannot take democracy for granted: it must help preserve it because it is a condition for its viability and its own future.
In Colombia, recent tensions surrounding electoral transparency, structural reforms pushed without the necessary debate in Congress, and changes in the rules of the game reveal how fragile civic trust can be, understood as the shared conviction that institutions act with integrity and within the framework of the law. The private sector is not outside this discussion: it has legitimate interests, but also responsibilities to ensure that the debate occurs within the rules and in front of the citizenry.
The thin line between legitimate influence and capture
It is legitimate and necessary for the private sector to influence public policy: by providing technical evidence, warning about unintended impacts of a policy, proposing alternatives. This is very different from capture: using economic power to twist rules, hide contributions, or buy decisions, solely to maximize business benefits.
In Colombia, cases like parapolitics and the Odebrecht scandal exposed the risks of an opaque relationship between economic and political power. Regulatory and institutional capture not only alters the conditions of competition but also weakens the legitimacy of the State and undermines citizens' trust in institutions. When we see businessmen investigated for corruption or rigged contracts, it not only damages their reputation: it erodes trust in the entire system.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has systematized standards for responsible political engagement: disclosing lobbying activities and contributions, establishing clear rules for “revolving doors,” maintaining public lists of meetings with officials, publishing annual reports on spending in advocacy, and creating internal integrity safeguards. These are measures that protect the company and safeguard democracy.
The Erb Institute at the University of Michigan has developed one of the most comprehensive efforts to guide responsible political conduct of companies and summarizes it in four key principles: legitimacy, accountability, responsibility, and transparency. It sounds complicated, but it is simple: companies must be able to explain why they do what they do politically, account internally, protect the systems they depend on, and do all this in plain sight. This framework reinforces the idea that corporate commitment to democracy is not only an ethical imperative but a practical condition for the sustainability of markets and social trust.
As shown by the analyses of Transparency for Colombia and the current regulations on political financing and the use of personal data, in the country, although significant progress has been made, gray areas related to digital advertising, the use of personal data for electoral purposes, and indirect advocacy mechanisms through third parties, guilds, or agencies persist.
It is legitimate and necessary for the private sector to influence public policy: providing technical evidence, warning about unintended impacts of a policy, proposing alternatives.
International lessons
The Colombian case is not unique. In Brazil, during the crisis of 2018-2022, some business leaders signed public letters defending the electoral system. In the United States, following the events of January 6, 2021, more than 200 companies committed to suspending donations to legislators who questioned the electoral results.
As Steven Levitsky documents in “How Democracies Die,” economic elites can be guardians or destroyers of democracy, depending on their incentives and normative frameworks. The difference lies in transparency and institutional limits.
When democracy weakens, the business sector has an important role to play. From international experience and the standards of the OECD and the Erb Institute, six areas of action are suggested:
Integrity in advocacy: clear lobbying policies and meeting registration, with internal oversight and board approval.
Transparency in contributions: proactively disclose any political contribution or link, directly or through unions or foundations.
Zero tolerance for corruption: strong compliance and traceability programs in public procurement.
Protection of civic space: support independent media, academia, and civil society without interfering in their agendas.
Evidence-based information: provide verifiable data on employment, impact, and competitiveness to elevate public debate.
Territorial cooperation: lead local agreements for employment, procurement, and social development that reduce polarization and conflict.
And the red lines are very clear: do not replace the State, do not finance in the shadows, and do not use the crisis to demand privileges. When the private sector acts coherently —clear rules, no shortcuts— it gains moral authority to defend institutionalism.
We can follow the path of destructive polarization, where each crisis deepens social fractures, or we can promote consensus among all the actors who depend on this country functioning.
The time to act is now.
Colombia is at a crossroads. We can follow the path of destructive polarization, where each crisis deepens social fractures, or we can promote consensus among all the actors who depend on this country functioning.
The private sector should not be a passive spectator waiting for “someone else” to fix democracy. It is not about becoming a political party or imposing itself over the State. It is about something more basic and urgent: defending the minimum rules that make coexistence and survival possible.
Imagine a Colombia where companies compete on equal terms, the rules are clear and respected, public information is reliable, and conflicts are resolved with arguments instead of threats. That Colombia does not build itself: it requires each actor, including the business sector, to take on their responsibility.
It is a call for intelligent pragmatism. Because at the end of the day, when institutions collapse, there is no company that is saved. And when institutions function, we all win.
The question is not whether the private sector should get involved in defending democracy. The question is whether it can afford not to.
By: Claudia Escobar
Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Communications of ACP
Colombian Association of Oil and Gas