If Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos has his way May’s election will be a referendum on one issue; peace negotiations with the FARC guerrillas.

One of Santos’ campaign slogans is “together for peace”, while his logo reminds me of a dove draped in the LGBT rainbow flag. The “president-candidate” as he is now called, even claimed this week that “changing the captain” at half-time would lead to an untimely and unsuccessful end to the Havana talks.

Santos calculates that given the choice between peace or a continuation of the armed struggle, Colombians will vote with their heads. For former presidential adviser Angela Ospina, this is “electoral demagoguery”; a false dichotomy of Orwellian proportions, perhaps.

Can a peace process really be dependent on one man?

Santos’ brave decision to open dialogue with the FARC is unquestionably the stand out success of his four years in office. Whatever you make of the rest of his time in the Casa de Nariño, history will judge him kindly on this, at least.

But if the talks are ultimately to end the 50 years of conflict, then they must surely be robust enough to withstand the president’s departure.

Think about Northern Ireland for a second. British Prime Minister John Major courageously paved the way for his successor Tony Blair to finish the job and sign the Good Friday Agreement with the IRA.

Yes, Colombia is not Northern Ireland, but there is nothing that says Santos could not hand over the baton.  What if the re-election had not been invented in 2006 and Santos was forced this year to stand aside; would he seriously argue that the talks were doomed? I very much doubt any president would cast their legacy in such an ephemeral light.

I could perhaps understand Santos’ argument if all his opponents in May’s election were opposed to the talks. But they are not.

Despite the best efforts of some close to the Santos camp to paint his challengers as “enemies of peace”, Enrique Peñalosa, who remains the most likely to defeat the incumbent, is so committed to the Havana process he has agreed to stick with the Santos negotiating team. And of course left-winger, Clara Lopez is as vocal a cheerleader for peace as you can find.

Even Oscar Ivan Zuluaga, the candidate of former president Alvaro Uribe, is developing a more nuanced line than his boss’ strident opposition to the Havana accords.

Oddly, there is reportedly greater opposition to the talks from the president’s VP running mate, German Vargas Lleras than there is from some of Santos’ challengers.

I find myself agreeing with Green Alliance House Representative, Angela Robledo who argues peace is not something Santos can claim ownership of it is “a right, for whose search it is enshrined in the constitution”.

But then again so little is known of the dynamics in Havana. How can we really judge on what basis the FARC are negotiating, what promises they have been made, and how much they rely on the word of President Santos.

Personally I see not voting for Santos undoubtedly as a bit of risk to the continuity of the talks. Colombians have a tricky choice before them.

Santos may get away with reducing the election to a question of peace when in reality it should be about so much more. Colombia needs a government willing and able to create the conditions for post-conflict.

Santos’ claim that only he can secure an end to the conflict leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. Whoever wins next month must ensure that peace is the preserve of all.

Picture, Santos and family, AFP.