Colombia's new president has triggered a political and legal storm after his communications campaign featured videos shot in the midst of body bags, a visual strategy that critics say crosses a line between hardline messaging and the exploitation of human suffering. The controversy has quickly become a test of how far a newly elected leader can push confrontational political branding in a country still scarred by decades of armed conflict, criminal violence and fragile trust in state institutions.
The backlash intensified after a court in Bogotá temporarily ordered the removal of the videos, a move that underscored the sensitivity of the imagery and the broader unease it has generated among human rights advocates, opposition figures and some members of the public. The footage, which was presented as part of a communications push around the president's security agenda, has been widely criticised for appearing to use scenes associated with death and violence as a political prop.
Image Politics Backfires
The episode has exposed the risks of a governing style built on provocation. In a country where political leaders are often judged not only by policy but by their posture toward violence, the use of body-bag imagery has been read by many Colombians as a deliberate attempt to project toughness at the expense of dignity. Supporters argue that the president is simply confronting the reality of insecurity head-on and refusing the euphemisms that have long softened public debate. Critics counter that the campaign reduces tragedy to spectacle and normalises a punitive, militarised tone.
The dispute also reflects a wider trend in Latin American politics, where leaders increasingly rely on sharp-edged media strategies to dominate the news cycle and signal authority. But Colombia's case is especially charged. The country's recent history includes guerrilla war, paramilitary violence, drug trafficking and mass displacement, making the visual language of death politically combustible. For many observers, the problem is not only the content of the videos but the message they send about how power intends to communicate with citizens.
Court Draws A Line
The Bogotá court's temporary removal order gives the controversy a legal dimension that could outlast the immediate online outrage. While the ruling does not settle the broader political debate, it suggests that judicial authorities saw enough cause to intervene over the public dissemination of the material. That intervention may embolden critics who argue that the presidency has blurred the line between state communication and partisan theatre.
The president's allies are likely to frame the ruling as an overreach or as evidence that entrenched interests are resisting a tougher approach to public security. Yet the optics are difficult to manage. A government that seeks to present itself as disciplined and uncompromising now faces accusations of insensitivity, poor judgment and a willingness to instrumentalise the dead for political effect. In an era when visual messaging can travel faster than policy explanations, the reputational damage may be immediate and difficult to reverse.
Security, Power, And Optics
The controversy arrives at a moment when Colombians are closely watching whether the new administration can deliver on promises of order without deepening polarisation. The president has cultivated a combative public persona, and that style may appeal to voters frustrated by crime and institutional weakness. But the body-bag episode suggests that the same approach can quickly become self-defeating when it appears to glorify violence rather than confront it responsibly.
For Colombia, the deeper issue is not merely one campaign video. It is the question of what kind of political culture is being normalised at the top of the state. If communications strategy becomes indistinguishable from shock tactics, the risk is that public debate hardens into spectacle and governance into performance. That may energise loyalists in the short term, but it also risks alienating moderates and further eroding confidence in the presidency's judgment.
The backlash now places the administration under pressure to explain not just the intent behind the videos, but the values they were meant to convey. In a country where peace, security and democratic restraint remain unfinished business, the answer may matter as much as the policy itself.