Peru Election 2006

By Maxwell A. Cameron
November 6, 2005
Alberto Fujimori is not known for half-measures or equivocation. His political style is direct and confrontational. It is also utterly contemptuous of the legal rules of the game. Those who underestimate his immoderate ambition, or fail to appreciate the depth of his indifference toward the rule of law, are often surprised by his decisions.
When he was offered the presidency by Vargas Llosa between the first and second rounds in 1990, Fujimori preferred to decline and run in the second round rather than to be allied with Vargas Llosa’s FREDEMO party. In April 1992, he closed congress and purged the judiciary rather than operate within Peru’s constitutional system. When the Japanese ambassador’s residence in Lima was captured by Tupac Amaru revolutionaries in December 1996, Fujimori opted for a decisive military victory rather than negotiation. Even his resignation was dramatic and decisive.
Fujimori’s return to Peru, while announced some months back, was widely regarded by analysts as part of a legal strategy–something half way between an effort to rehabilitate his image and a strategy to open the door to a return to Peru in the future on terms that would be more or less acceptable. His arrival in Chile and recent communique suggest otherwise. Fujimori appears to believe he can return to Peru and run in the 2006 election.
With Alberto Fujimori in Santiago de Chile, everything about the 2006 election has changed. The entire debate over the National Election Board (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones, JNE) and the Constitutional Tribunal (Tribunal Constitucional) takes on a new cast. The issue of whether decisions by the JNE can be appealed is no longer a hypothetical debate. The question is: Is the JNE the best body to decide whether Fujimori can be a candidate? Or should that decision be taken by the Constitutional Tribunal? (Hint: which put up the better fight against Fujimori when he was in power?)
Fujimori’s arrival in Santiago also changes the dynamics of the incipient campaign. For weeks the pundits have been arguing that there are essentially four or five candidates that need to be taken seriously: Lourdes Flores Nano, Alan Garcia, Valentin Paniagua, Jaime Salinas, and, perhaps, Ollanta Humala. How will each of these candidates respond to the prospect of a new competitor? Already, it has been argued, that candidates should collectively withdraw in the event that Fujimori enters the race. This view, taken by Juan Sheput, was dismissed as “ingenuous” by Javier Diez Canseco. To others, such talk may have seemed premature. Not now. Now would be an excellent time for all the candidates to address the issue.
The situation in 2005-06 is not quite the same as in 1999-2000 when the parties of the so-called “opposition” failed to either collectively withdraw from the campaign after Fujimori was registered by a JNE penetrated and controlled by the President’s cronies, or to unite behind a single candidate. This time, the political parties have better cards to play. Fujimori can’t count on the unconditional support of a subservient electoral body, a judiciary corrupted and coopted by Vladimiro Montesinos, and a deeply partisan military hierarchy.
If Fujimori returns to Peru, it will be critical to watch how the judiciary, the JNE, and the armed forces, behave. According to Heriberto Benitez the Peruvian government has been acting as if the Constitutional Tribunal had not barred Fujimori from holding public office. For example, Peruvian diplomats in Japan helped Fujimori to sign the document that created an alliance between his three political parties.
It will also be important to watch the political parties opposed to Fujimori. It is still early to talk about coalescing against the former president. However, if the parties share a common interest in protecting the democratic rules of the game (and that is a big “if”), their messages will stress the fact that Fujimori’s 10 years in power weakened democracy by undermining any consensus on the core rules of the game and that his bid to return to Peru is a continuation of that long-standing pattern. Let’s not forget that Fujimori’s return has been accompanied by threats of violence, promises of more “Vladivideos,” and lots of legal double-talk.
If, on the other hand, the parties persist in their more usual habit of ignoring principle and seeking immediate electoral advantage at the expense of the rules of the game, then the parties will avoid alienating the Fujimori voters who might well decide the difference in a runoff contest. In the process, they may even help Fujimori’s cause.

Juan Sheput: “Que nadie se presente si Fujimori es candidato”
Peru.21
31 de octubre del 2005
Para ex ministro ente electoral atentaría contra la Nación si aceptara esa postulación.
Partidos rechazan propuesta y reiteran que ex mandatario no puede postular.
El dirigente de Perú Posible Juan Sheput propuso que “nadie se presente a los comicios de 2006” si el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE) acepta la postulación del prófugo Alberto Fujimori. Tras sostener que el ente electoral “cometería un atrevimiento contra la Nación” y “un insulto” si procede de esa forma, el también ex ministro de Trabajo lanzó esa propuesta como una forma de rechazo a la decisión del JNE.
Sin embargo, lo dicho por Sheput difícilmente sería respaldado por las demás fuerzas políticas.
“PROPUESTA INÚTIL”. El congresista y líder del Partido Socialista, Javier Diez Canseco, no solo no compartió la idea del dirigente de PP sino que la calificó de ingenua.
“En primer lugar, la posibilidad de que Fujimori sea inscrito como candidato es nula. Andar especulando sobre esto, como lo están haciendo algunos grupos, es aceptar algo inaceptable. La respuesta tiene que ser firme y no caer en jueguitos de dignidad inútiles”, indicó el legislador.
Asimismo, dijo que la propuesta de Sheput significaría un boicot a las elecciones que, desde el punto de vista legal, es inaceptable. “A Fujimori no puede inscribirlo nadie como candidato”, insistió.
En la misma línea, el congresista Xavier Barrón (UN) señaló que la propuesta de Sheput es la peor que se puede hacer en una democracia. “Si normalmente el señor Sheput dice cosas acertadas, ayer debe haber tenido una pesadilla o una situación física que le nubló el juicio. Ha planteado situaciones que lindan con lo tonto”, consideró.
Tras remarcar que “no es posible la candidatura de Fujimori”, el parlamentario sostuvo que el peor escenario para la democracia es no presentarse a las elecciones.
Por último, el congresista aprista César Zumaeta consideró que el ex ministro lanzó una propuesta “tremendista”, que solo contribuye a la estrategia fujimorista de publicitar el falso regreso del ex mandatario. “Fujimori es un cobarde y su inscripción no es posible. No hay que darle mucha bola”, agregó.

Benítez: nadie cumple sentencia del TC sobre Alberto Fujimori
miércoles, 2 de noviembre , 2005 – 07:52:00
Fuente: RPP-Noticias
El congresista Heriberto Benítez expresó su protesta ante la actitud que asumen diversas dependencias del Estado que no cumplen con la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional (TC), del pasado 18 de febrero, respecto a la inhabilitación política del ex presidente Alberto Fujimori.
Fue al comentar la asistencia del ex jefe de Estado (1990-2000) al Consulado del Perú en Japón para autentificar su firma en un documento que consolidaría una alianza electoral entre las agrupaciones fujimoristas.
Criticó en ese sentido que nuestros funcionarios diplomáticos faciliten a Fujimori esos trámites, a pesar de existir una prohibición detallada en la sentencia del TC que le impide el derecho de fundar, organizar, pertenecer o representar a una organización política, movimiento o alianza.
Benítez indicó que por otro lado, el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones mantiene la ilegal anotación del ex gobernante como fundador del movimiento “Si Cumple”, quien además “tiene un cargo vitalicio e insustituible violándose flagrantemente la Lay de Partidos Políticos.
“Tampoco dicen nada sobre el impedimento para postular a cargos de elección popular de Fujimori, Luz Salgado y Carmen Lozada”, recordó.
“Hasta cuándo debemos esperar para que las instituciones del Estado cumplan con la sentencia del Tribunal y eviten que el ex mandatario se siga burlando de los peruanos y de los tribunales de justicia”, agregó el legislador.