Political Polarization on Twitter: Lessons from Colombia’s 2018 Election

What Is This About?

This article explains how Twitter became a key tool for political communication—and polarization—during the 2018 Colombian presidential campaign. According to the research of Prada and Romero-Rodríguez, candidates Gustavo Petro and Iván Duque used the platform not only to promote proposals but also to demonize opponents, contributing to a fragmented public sphere.

Why Does It Matter?

The main findings indicate that political discourse on Twitter often intensified ideological division, portraying rivals as existential threats. The researchers observed how both candidates fueled echo chambers and emotional reactions, replacing democratic dialogue with digital antagonism.

How Did the Campaigns Use Twitter?

Quantitative Highlights

• Duque tweeted more frequently (619 vs. 486 in first round).

• Petro gained more followers overall (130k vs. Duque’s 107k).

• Petro had higher retweet and like rates, especially in the second round.

Thematic Priorities

• Duque: focused on economy, justice, and development.

• Petro: highlighted corruption, peace, and equity.

Demonization Tactics

• Duque used Venezuela’s crisis to indirectly discredit Petro’s model.

• Petro openly labeled Duque as corrupt, mentioning him 68 times in both rounds.

• Both created “us vs. them” narratives, reinforcing ingroup bias and ideological bubbles.

FAQs

Q: Did Twitter determine the election outcome?

This article explains that while Twitter shaped public perception, traditional campaign methods still dominated. Duque won with more votes but far fewer Twitter followers than Petro.

Q: What is the role of hashtags in political polarization?

Duque used hashtags like #ElFuturoEsDeTodos in over 90% of tweets to unify messaging. Petro used them less strategically, favoring emotional and event-driven content.

Q: How can this polarization be reduced?

Researchers advocate for stronger media literacy, civic education, and ethical digital discourse to counteract echo chambers and misinformation.