Archive for April, 2006
Momento de elecciones en América latina
A thoughtful piece on the current electoral landscape.
Alan Garcia Frames Election as Choice between Chavez and Peru
Maxwell A. Cameron
April 30, 2006
Alan Garcia wants to take the dispute with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to the bank.
The candidate for APRA says that the choice in this election is between Chavez and Peru. Alluding to Ollanta Humala, Garcia said: “I believe we now have a candidate, that of Mr. Chavez, and we must choose between Chavez and Peru, nothing more; we must choose between interference and the right of the Peruvian people to self-determination.”
Garcia criticized the passivity of Ollanta Humala in the face of the most recent interference of Chavez in Peruvian politics. Humala, he said, subscribes to a “false nationalism.”
Garcia warned that Chavez has an imperial appetite, but he has made a mistake by picking on Peru. Perhaps Chavez can intimidate leaders in other places, he said, but “I am not someone to submit to yelling and insults.” He pointed out that the Peruvian constitution says that the president personifies the nation. By calling President Alejandro Toledo and Alan Garcia “alligators from the same well” Chavez offends the Peruvian people, said Garcia.
Garcia also said he has not provoked Chavez. All he has done, he said, is to clearly define the differences between his own positions and the statements made by the Venezuelan president concerning Peru. “I did not attack him. For some time Chavez has interfered in Peruvian politics. He has become a person accustomed to barbarism, to insults against he who personifies Peru, which is Mr. Toledo, against the Peruvian people, against a candidate, and finally against me.”
El Concepto de Nacionalismo y su relación con los candidatos
Mirko Lauer analiza a Alan García y Ollanta Humala
OAS to Pronounce on Venezuelan Interference in Peruvian Electoral Process
Felipe Osterling: Unidad Nacional “ya no tiene sentido ni razón de ser”
Candidatos inician campaña electoral en el sur del país
Carlos Reyna y Fernando Tuesta evalúan las posibilidades de triunfo de Alan García
Vote Counting Comes to an End
The vote counting will be done by tomorrow. Once the last 99 returns have been processed, ONPE will have 100 percent of the results ready to announce. Since no party has presented any further appeals to the Special Election Board of Lima Center, the last office open for such appeals, the process can now be closed.
The 99 returns represent less than 20,000 votes, and the gap between Garcia and Flores is over 65,000 votes. It has been clear for over a week that it is mathematically impossible for Flores to overtake Garcia.
ONPE Presidential results at 99.95%
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.62% – 3,757,435 votes
Alan García (Apra) 24.325% – 2,984,485 votes
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.79% – 2,919,473 votes
Gap between García and Flores: 65,012 votes.
Peruvian Government Recalls Ambassador from Caracas
Now from Habana, Cuba… The heated debate between president Hugo Chavez and the Peruvian government continued today. Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales signed a trade agreement to “favour all people.” In Lima, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski called the treaty a “merely political” one, because the three nations have little to trade beyond oil. In Caracas, Venezuelan presidential hopeful Teodoro Petkoff criticized Chavez’s interference in Peruvian affairs. This evening in Lima, the Peruvian government recalled his Ambassador from Caracas.
Hugo Chavez, Alan Garcia, and the Ghost of Simon Bolivar
Maxwell A. Cameron
April 29, 2006
Alan Garcia has been doing everything possible to pick a fight with Hugo Chavez, and, in the end, Chavez could not resist responding to Garcia’s attacks. The enmity between the two leaders goes back a long way. Accion Democratica (AD) is APRA’s counterpart in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez led a coup attempt against the AD government of President Carlos Andres Perez in 1992. Alan Garcia and Carlos Andres Perez are compadres.
Garcia has been launching torpedoes at Chavez for the better part of a fortnight. First, he attacked Chavez for pulling out of the Andean Community. On Thursday, April 20, Garcia called Chavez “Anti-Bolivarian.” “This is the second time in Latin American history that a Venezuelan government has broken the unity that the Liberator Simon Bolivar sought for our Andean republics” he said. According to Garcia, Chavez was following the footsteps of the dictator José Antonio Páez who separated Venezuela from the “Gran Colombia” in the 19th century. “The tomb of the Liberator Simon Bolivar in Santa Martha must be suffering certain commotions at this moment.”
Chavez did not respond. So, two days later, Garcia renewed his attack. “It hurts me that Venezuela proposes to abandon the Andean Community when it was a Venezuelan, the Liberator Simon Bolivar, who called for a union of Andean republics.” He then said that Chavez “is not only killing Bolivar, he is causing his country to go backward economically.”
Still, there was no response from Chavez. However, Evo Morales joined Chavez in criticizing Peru’s negotiation of a free trade agreement, calling outgoing President Alejandro Toledo a “traitor.” Garcia responded on Monday, April 24, criticizing the “grave error” of Chavez and his “pupils” in the rest of South America, including Evo Morales and Ollanta Humala, for undermining the Andean Community. He called Morales’ comments “feverish.” Garcia also said Humala should not try to avoid a debate by proposing, instead, a series of debates between the members of the teams of each party. “If he does not want to debate, it would be simpler to debate with the person who inspires and leads him” said Garcia in allusion to Chavez.
Finally, on April 28, Chavez blasted back. “We will not have relations with a president of this nature, with a thief, a cardsharp. Imagine in one of these summits, he might come and steal my money!” Chávez compared Garcia with Carlos Andres Perez. “It would be a curse for this robber to return. Look what happened when Carlos Andres Perez returned. He [Garcia] is the Carlos Andres Perez of Peru.” [Note: CAP was impeached for corruption]. Chavez went on to exhort Ollanta Humala to win. “God free Peru from a bandit such as this president,” he said of Garcia.
Chavez’s open endorsement of Humala and his attacks on Garcia are likely to benefit Garcia. Humala said Chavez’s comments were lamentable, but that Garcia had been looking for a fight with Chavez. He said the dispute is between Garcia and Chavez. This reaction was taken by editorialists as tepid.
The attacks by Chavez gave Garcia a chance to play victim while shifting the media spotlight off Humala. “I reject in the name of the Peruvian people the permanent interference of this person, Hugo Chavez, in the politics of Peru and I think he is doing a lot of damage to his protégé Ollanta Humala” said Garcia. He then pointed out the hypocrisy of not wanting countries like Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia to trade with other nations while Venezuela’s biggest customer is the United States. He said Venezuela sells $40 billion dollars in petroleum to the US, and has 17,000 gas pumps in its northern neighbour. “With what moral authority, after selling all his petroleum to the US, does he come to tell us: you are traitors if you trade with the US.” Concerning the accusations of corruption, Garcia said: “He responds in the only way that a primitive being like he knows how. Insulting and treating me in the worst manner.”
For more background, see Gran Combo Club: Entre Chávez al norte y Morales al sur (2) and Entre Chávez al norte y Morales al sur (3)
Investors and the Election
Navigating a Peruvian Political Minefield, By Michael Brush, RealMoney.com Contributor, April 28, 2006 – 2:16 PM EDT
Financial writer Michael Brush says fears of nationalization are overblown. He recommends buying shares in Peruvian mines. Unfounded worries about a radical shift in Peru mean these share will ultimately rebound.
Alan Garcia in Dispute with Hugo Chavez
Hugo Chavez has reiterated his hope that Ollanta Humala will be elected in the second round of the Peruvian presidential election and not Alan Garcia, who he characterized as a robber and a bandit. President Chávez threatened to recall the Venezuelan ambassador to Lima if García is elected president. Garcia responded saying that Chavez is not acting like a statesperson and is a hypocrite because he condemns Peru for negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States which is also Venezuela’s biggest customer. This afternoon Garcia challenged Chavez to a political debate on CNN. President Alejandro Toledo has rejected Chavez’ interference in Peruvian political affairs. Garcia has called on the Organization of American States or other hemispheric organisms to intervene in this case. This evening, the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Peru delivered a diplomatic demarche to the government of Venezuela. A spontaneous demonstration against President Chavez took place this evening in front of the Venezuelan embassy in Lima. Demonstrators burned Chavez in effigy.
Read also: Simón Gorila ataca a Alan
El comandante Ollanta Humala: ¿outsider o insider?
Por Aldo Panfichi
Coyuntura: Analisis Economico y Social de Actualidad, No. 6 (marzo-abril 2006)
Universidad Catolica del Peru
Durante los últimos años, el término outsider ha sido usado frecuentemente en la política peruana para referirse a aquellos candidatos que provienen de fuera del sistema político y obtienen resonantes victorias electorales, apelando a la representación sociológica y emocional de los pobres y excluidos. El caso paradigmático es Alberto Fujimori, quien a inicios de la década de 1990 inspiró la popularización de este término, pero también outsider ha sido utilizado para referirse a los alcaldes Belmont y Castañeda Lossio, al presidente Toledo y últimamente a Ollanta Humala. En este itinerario, el término ha ido oscureciendo sus elementos constitutivos, para ser utilizarse de manera indiscriminada haciendo referencia a todos los políticos que no pertenecen a los partidos establecidos. En un país en el que estos partidos son minoritarios, resulta, entonces, que la mayoría de los políticos pueden ser calificados como outsiders.
En realidad, el término political outsider tiene una larga tradición en la ciencia política norteamericana, donde se lo utiliza en sentido opuesto a political insider. Este último término se refiere a aquellos dirigentes, consultores u operadores políticos que por sus contactos y vínculos de confianza con las elites permanecen siempre cerca de los círculos de poder. Un outsider se caracteriza, precisamente, por no tener estos contactos y por estar excluido de las redes e instituciones que reproducen el poder en una sociedad. Según este punto de vista, lo que definiría a un outsider es su condición de excluido, y el hecho de provenir de fuera del sistema político —del Estado y de los partidos—.
Teniendo en consideración estos criterios, planteamos que es un error considerar al comandante Ollanta Humala como un outsider, debido a que él proviene de una de las instituciones más antiguas del Estado —«partido» dicen algunos—: las Fuerzas Armadas. Una institución que ha jugado roles fundamentales en la construcción de la nación, y de la que han surgido héroes y mitos fundadores de la patria que han buscado cohesionar a la heterogénea población peruana desde los orígenes mismos de la República. Incluso los traumas causados por las guerras —sobre todo la del Pacifico— constituyen hasta hoy un componente esencial de la identidad nacional y una variable política bastante sensible, como la ultima campaña electoral lo demuestra. Basta mencionar el papel jugado por los militares en la organización de ceremonias cívico-patrióticas como la jura de la bandera y otras, que se desarrollan los domingos en casi todas las plazas públicas del interior del país, y a las que asisten autoridades políticas, vecinos notables y representantes de la sociedad civil local.
La participación de militares en los altos cargos políticos es también una característica permanente en nuestra historia. No se los puede considerar outsiders o excluidos del sistema político, ya que los números no admiten confusión. Entre 1821 y 2005, el Perú ha tenido 74 presidentes, 68,9% de los cuales —51 de ellos— han sido militares: 8 mariscales, 34 generales, 6 coroneles, 2 tenientes coroneles y un contraalmirante. Durante el siglo XX, la tradición se mantuvo con 11 gobiernos liderados por militares, además de una nutrida presencia castrense en los gabinetes civiles. Hasta el momento, ningún presidente ha sido comandante, lo cual no quiere decir que no lo pueda ser ahora o en el futuro. La alta participación de los militares en la política ha llevado a los sociólogos holandeses Koonings y Kruijt a proponer el término ejército político para referirse al caso peruano. El término alude a aquellas instituciones militares que consideran su participación o control sobre la política interna y los asuntos de gobierno como parte central de sus funciones legítimas y patrióticas.
Precisamente, estas fueron las razones que se esgrimieron en 1968 para justificar el golpe de Estado y la instalación del Gobierno Revolucionario de las Fuerzas Armadas liderado por el general Juan Velasco Alvarado. Un gobierno militar nacionalista y reformista que quebró las bases económicas y políticas del sistema oligárquico, y busco limitar la influencia del capital extranjero en favor de un Estado y una economía nacional fuertes. En estas tareas, los militares no estuvieron solos, sino que contaron con la activa participación de intelectuales, técnicos y políticos provenientes de pequeños partidos de centro-izquierda, así como de dirigentes populares del campo y la ciudad. Más allá de la evaluación que uno tenga sobre esta experiencia, es indudable que el gobierno militar de Velasco Alvarado produjo cambios profundos en la naturaleza y composición de la economía y la sociedad peruanas.
Poco después de retirarse del poder en 1980, los militares fueron convocados por los gobiernos democráticamente elegidos para participar en la lucha antisubversiva contra Sendero Luminoso y el Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. En amplias zonas del país, conforme este enfrentamiento se agudizaba, los gobiernos civiles abdicaron el poder político en favor de los uniformados, que pasaron a ocupar jefaturas político-militares en las zonas de conflicto. Luego de cruentos enfrentamientos en los que murieron miles de personas no combatientes, los militares derrotaron a los subversivos con la activa participación de las organizaciones de autodefensa indígenas y de las comunidades campesinas.
Toda una generación de jóvenes oficiales, entre ellos Ollanta Humala, hizo su carrera militar durante los años de conflicto, desarrollando vínculos y familiarizándose con los problemas que afligían a las comunidades locales. En muchos lugares donde los municipios, colegios, postas médicas y oficinas públicas no funcionaban por los estragos de la guerra, la única presencia del Estado eran las bases militares. La única autoridad a la que podía recurrir la población eran estos oficiales; una autoridad temida, pero que al mismo tiempo constituía la única esperanza de orden y protección. Quizá por ahí se explique en parte la alta votación obtenida por el candidato Humala en las zonas de conflicto, incluida la localidad de Madre Mía (provincia de Tocache), donde tiene acusaciones de violaciones a los derechos humanos.
Una anotación complementaria es que tanto la generación de Ollanta como la de Velasco, tuvieron que ir al interior a luchar contra la subversión, y aprender en el camino sobre las necesidades y urgencias de la población. La diferencia es que esta experiencia formativa dio lugar en el caso de Velasco de un proyecto institucional de reformas, mientras en el caso de Humala hasta el momento parece ser la iniciativa de un Comandante que rebela primero contra la jerarquía militar y luego ingresa al terreno de la competencia político electoral.
Las relaciones entre los militares y los civiles son bastante fluidas, un aspecto obvio pero poco valorado en el análisis político, donde se tiende a separarlos en compartimentos estancos. Por lo general, se asume que la sociedad civil, como esfera de actividad, solo pertenece a los civiles, una idea que surge de los contextos en los que este concepto reaparece en el análisis académico, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX. En efecto, es en los contextos de las luchas civiles contra regímenes autoritarios —como las dictaduras militares del Cono Sur y los socialismos estatales de Europa del Este— en los que se establece esta dicotomía.
Sin embargo, como acabamos de ver, en la práctica existen fuertes y variados vínculos entre el espacio militar y el civil. El ejército en sí siempre ha sido un vehículo de movilidad y socialización para jóvenes indígenas y campesinos reclutados a la fuerza para hacer el servicio militar. Una vez terminado su servicio, la experiencia militar pasa a constituir un elemento importante en la identidad y organización de estos ex reclutas. Por ello, en muchas partes del país existen asociaciones de licenciados del ejército, verdaderas organizaciones de la sociedad civil cuyos miembros se reúnen periódicamente para realizar actividades sociales y comunitarias. Muchos de estos hombres formaron parte de las rondas campesinas y las organizaciones de autodefensa que enfrentaron a Sendero Luminoso en alianza con los militares en actividad durante las décadas de 1980 y 1990. Luego, durante los gobiernos de transición, los encontramos como líderes de comunidades campesinas, alcaldes y concejales de centros poblados y distritos rurales. Incluso varios de ellos participan activamente de las mesas de concertación para el desarrollo local en algunas provincias —como Huanta, en Ayacucho, y Churcampa, en Huancavelica —, para luego constituir elementos claves en los movimientos nacionalistas liderados por los hermanos Antauro y Ollanta Humala.
La participación de estos licenciados podría explicar, en parte, el amplio apoyo electoral que ha obtenido la candidatura del comandante Ollanta Humala en las regiones pobres e indígenas más afectadas por la guerra antisubversiva. Sin embargo, esto es más una hipótesis de trabajo que una certidumbre. Sorprende, eso sí, la forma en que, en tan pocos meses, esta candidatura ha podido construir una estructura política nacional de apoyo. Según el informe del conteo rápido de Transparencia, Unión por el Perú tuvo personeros en 75,5% de todas las mesas de sufragio a nivel nacional, mientras Unidad Nacional lo hizo en 77,8% y el APRA en 78,6%. Indudablemente, en esto juega un papel la existencia de experimentados operadores políticos de origen izquierdista que se encuentran a disposición de alguna candidatura con posibilidades de éxito. También que los candidatos al Congreso fueron los encargados de reclutar y colocar a personeros con el objeto de defender sus propios votos en las mesas. Sin embargo, esta explicación no parece ser suficiente, lo cual sugiere la participación de los licenciados en las actividades de vigilancia electoral.
En suma, existen demasiadas evidencias de los estrechos vínculos entre lo militar y lo político como para sustentar la idea de que el comandante Ollanta Humala es un outsider, un personaje excluido de las instituciones del poder y sin vínculos con los círculos políticos. Este no parece ser el caso, más aún si pertenece a una institución que ha participado y participa en la política peruana desde la fundación de la República. Necesitamos una discusión más áspera y menos liviana, como bien reclama Romeo Grompone, para avanzar en el conocimiento de los procesos políticos. Estas notas se inscriben en esta dirección.
Balance de primera vuelta y perspectivas para la segunda
Here is the transcript of a dialogue with Martín Tanaka and Santiago Pedraglio on the outcome of the first round and perspectives on the second round of the election in Peru. The dialogue was organized by Palestra, which is produced by the Catholic University of Peru. Download file
Interview with Henry Pease
Carlos Chipoco
Chipoco, Carlos. Op Eds on the the electoral campaing. Carlos Chipoco es Miembro de la Comisión Política del Partido Popular Cristiano
Barometro Postelectoral Abril 2006 GOP U. Lima, 22-23 de abril del 2006
Universe: 639 interviews in 39 districts in Metropolitan Lima and Callao. Margin of error: ± 3,95%. Download file
The sample is small and was taken only in Lima, however, there are some interesting findings:
Why do you think Ollanta Humala won the first round?
35.2% Because he is new and against the system with 43.3% of respondents from sector C and 41.5% of the males.
18.7% Because he is a nationalist, with 35.1% of respondents from sector E.
For what reason Alan Garcia would pass to the second round?
20.6% Because he has an organized party with 34.4% from sector A.
For what reason Lourdes Flores may not pass to the second round?
40% Because she is the candidate of the rich. 43.1% of the males, 46.3% of sector D and 43.2% of sector E.
Who was the big winner on April 9th?
37.9% Ollanta Humala and 51.4% from sector E.
Do you believe poll results influence voters?
71.8% responded yes
94.4% of the respondents want a presidential debate and 39.7% want Cesar Hildebrant to be the moderator.
Observa: El Nuevo Mapa Electoral del Perú
Source: Observa, 28 de abril del 2006
Observa, Observatorio de la Vigilancia Social, es una iniciativa de un grupo de organizaciones que buscan articular, difundir y promover las experiencias de vigilancia social y una cultura de transparencia en la gestión pública.
Proyecto de ley: Nombramiento indefinido de jefes de la ONPE y la RENIEC
Congreso aprobó un proyecto de ley que modifica el proceso de elección de los jefes de la ONPE y el RENIEC. La promulgación presidencial de este proyecto de ley implicaría el nombramiento indefinido de los jefes de lla ONPE y la RENIEC. Esta ley beneficiaría a los jefes actuales de estos organismos electorales.
Marketers vs. Politicians in Unidad Nacional
Maxwell A. Cameron
April 28, 2006
Last night I ran into an old acquaintance in the Café Haiti. He told me he has been working on the campaign for Lourdes Flores, and I asked him for his assessment. “The campaign,” he said. The problem lay in a campaign in which Lourdes Flores was depicted as a candidate of the rich. But he also had another more surprising observation: Flores, he said, was marketed like a product. She was surrounded by election marketers and technocrats; the brain-trust of PPC political operators was shunted aside. Politically experienced people like Antero Flores-Araoz were marginalized. “You don’t sell champagne in Abancay,” said my acquaintance. “You can have a great champagne and great publicity, but if people want to drink something else it is useless to sell them champagne.”
This is an interpretation that seems to be gaining ground. The other day, Arturo Woodman noted errors of political judgment, including underestimation of Alan Garcia (something my friend confirmed). Today there is an interesting interview with Felipe Osterling, an old PPC stalwart, who says: “this campaign was carried out basically by technocrats and not by politicians.” Of course, there is a reason why people like Osterling and Flores-Araoz, not to mention Rafael Rey Rey and Jose Barba Caballero, were pushed aside—they are not leaders who have Flores’ broad popular appeal. But an appealing candidate is not enough—solid political judgment and experience is also required to win an election.
Read also: La olla de Dionisio
JNE rechaza apelaciones de Unidad Nacional
ONPE Presidential results at 99.51%
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.66% – 3,752,036 votes
Alan García (Apra) 24.33% – 2,976,508 votes
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.73% – 2,903,777 votes
Gap between García and Flores: 72,731 votes. (0.60%)
Updated – APRA’s “sólido norte” vs Ollanta Humala
On April 25, Ollanta Humala paid tribute to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, founder of APRA, by visting his tomb during the second day of his tour to La Libertad. APRA followers responded angrily to the tribute and destroyed the floral arrangement. Humala also faced a hostile crowd the day before.
Today, local media covered the reactions of Humala and Alan Garcia to the incidents in La Libertad. Humala claims to be a victim of intolerance from supporters of APRA (also known as bufalos), while Garcia argues that Humala shows a double face by moving away from victimizer to become a victim to gain support. The hotililty in La Libertad is analyzed in an interview with Jorge Bruce. Bruce argues the fact that Nadine Heredia, wife and partner of Humala, did not go to the cementary with Humala was a sign the candidate anticipated a reaction there.
Source: La República, 26 de abril del 2006
Read also: Peru Election: First Punches
ONPE Presidential results at 99.47%
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.67%
Alan García (Apra) 24.33%
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.73%
Gap between García and Flores: 73,374 votes. (0.60%)
Updated – Arturo Woodman: Negative Campaigning and Internal Divisions Hurt Flores
Arturo Woodman, Lourdes Flores’ controversial vice-presidential running mate, argues that negative attacks on Flores hurt her in the first round election. He also reveals that there was controversy within the Unidad Nacional alliance over how seriously to take the threat of Alan Garcia. One advisor (possibly Guillermo Paredes) told Flores not to worry about Garcia, while Glorisa Ramírez had a different view.
Update: Arturo Woodman was interviewed by Rosa Maria Palacios in Prensa Libre on Wednesday night. During this interview Woodman talked about the campaign. Below we reproduced the views of a fellow blogger on this interview.
Ya lo máximo ya
Ya tengo el poder, 26 de abril 26 del 2006
– Rosa María Palacios: “Lo que pasa, señor Woodman, es que en el Perú la riqueza está muy mal vista. A diferencia de otras sociedades como Europa o Estados Unidos, en el Perú hacer dinero se ve mal, por eso usted tal vez no debió aceptar la invitación de Lourdes Flores”.
– Arturo Woodman: “Efectivamente, en este país no hay una cultura del éxito”.
—-Prensa libre, miércoles 27 de abril del 2006.
Esta gente ya es demasiado. Me parece insólito como pueden ser tan tercos y tan poco autocríticos. Ahora resulta que Lourdes Flores no está en la segunda vuelta porque la gente en verdad es “resentida”, desprecia la riqueza, le gusta ser pobre y quiere que todos sean pobres. Cuando, según esta lógica, en verdad en el Perú, el que quiere, puede hacer plata. Así de fácil.
Este tipo de razonamientos se hacen parte del sentido común, conozco gente que piensa así. Como si fuera un floro que el país es desigual e injusto; como si no hubiera exclusión y racismo, como si las leyes fueran iguales para todos, como si la educación y el acceso a la salud fueran iguales para todos. Como si no supiéramos todos que a la gente con plata lo único que le interesa es tener más plata ellos y por eso la mayoría no les da su voto.
Si en el Perú hay desconfianza hacia la riqueza, es porque esta es estructuralmente ilegítima, y ese es el problema que hay que atacar, o por lo menos, admitir. Los resultados de la primera vuelta no le han enseñado nada a nadie: “Lourdes ha perdido porque la gente es bruta, por culpa de los cholos resentidos”. Asu. El panorama, en verdad, es cada día más desolador.
Alan García: Diego Maradona viene por encargo de Hugo Chávez
Source: La Primera, 27 de abril del 2006
Según Alan García, el astro argentino de fútbol, Diego Armando Maradona, vendría a apoyar la campaña de Humala por su afinidad con Hugo Chávez y Evo Morales.
You may notice that Maradona’s t-shirt has a picture of Ollanta Humala. We wander where he bought it…
Electoral Violence: 15 Cases Reported
La Republica reported today 15 cases of hostility against presidential candidates and media reporters during the electoral campaign. Lourdes Flores was target of seven of this attacks.
Unidad Nacional Fighting to the End for Each Vote
Updated 2 – DATUM Poll, April 19-21, 2006: Garcia leads in runoff
Source: La Republica, April 25, 2006
DATUM Internacional Survey: Download file
Update, April 26.
We have added to this post an interview with Manuel Torrado, Datum’s Director. He warns that the race is still close and that the gap between Garcia and Humala is not great enough to presume that Garcia would win a second round victory. If we take the total votes (not valid votes), the 43 to 37 percent difference is (barely) within the margin of error. That is, if Garcia is really at 40 and Humala is also at 40 percent (which this poll cannot rule out), then we have a tie. What is more, 20 percent of the voters could still go either way. Torrado confirms that the race is largely between north and south, with Garcia currently leading in Lima.
Preliminary Comments
Maxwell A. Cameron, April 25, 2006
The first poll conducted following the April 9 presidential election has been released. The survey firm DATUM interviewed 1,126 respondents. The findings are within a margin of error: + or – 3 percent 95 percent of the time, and the sample represents 79.9 percent of the electoral population. Interviews were conducted in urban and rural areas in: Lima, Callao, Cusco, Áncash, Loreto, Piura, Puno, Arequipa, Junín, Ayacucho, La Libertad y Lambayeque.
The DATUM poll shows Garcia in the lead with 43 percent of the vote and Humala trailing with 37 percent. 17 percent would cast blank or spoiled ballots, and 3 percent are undecided. In terms of valid votes (omitting the undecided or those casting spoiled or blank ballots), Garcia has 54 percent to 46 percent for Humala.
Regarding the 17 percent who say they will cast a blank or spoiled ballot, if the margin starts to look too close for comfort some may alter their intention and make a decision. My guess is that Garcia rather than Humala would benefit, but that is just a hunch based on the presumption that anti-Aprismo animates the spoiled ballots crowd, but anti-Humalismo may trump this in the end. If we look at the breakdown of the spoiled/blank vote by income group, it decreases steadily as you move from A/B (29 percent) to C (19 percent) to D (16 percent) and E (14 percent). There is more unhappiness about the choice between candidates among the AB voters than among the D or E voters.
According to the data presented by DATUM, it would appear that much of the vote for Flores has begun to migrate to Garcia. Consider the vote breakdown by gender. Whereas Humala would have received 30 percent of the female vote in a race against Flores, he gets 34 percent against Garcia. In other words, 4 percent of the female vote has moved from Flores to Humala. However, Garcia has 44 percent of the female vote, fully 10 points more than Humala.
In terms of age distribution, the biggest gap between Humala and Garcia is those in the 26 to 35 year range. Whereas 35 percent of them support Humala, 45 percent of them support Garcia. Humala may be picking up some of Flores’ young voters.
Garcia now has 57 percent of the voters in the urban A/B sectors, while Humala has 12 percent. Humala’s 12 percent is up from the 9 percent he would have picked up in a race against Flores. Garcia is also well ahead of Humala in the C stratum: he has 52 percent to Humala’s 25 percent. However, in the D and E groups (by far the most numerous), the two candidates are virtually tied at 40 or 41 percent in each.
We have been arguing that this second round will be largely a fight between the north and the south, with Lima up for grabs. At this point, Garcia has 49 percent in Lima, to Humala’s 32 percent. Humala is going to have to make a major push to win votes in Lima if he is to have a chance of winning the election.
In the south and central regions, Humala dominates with over 54 and 53 percent respectively. Garcia has a 56 percent lead in the north. The west is leaning toward Humala with 38 percent to Garcia’s 33 percent. In general, Humala does better in the rural areas.
The DATUM poll suggests that levels of approval of both Humala and Garcia are low. For that matter, the level of approval of all three of the front-running candidates is low. My problem with this question is that I have no idea what it means. What does it mean to say “I disapprove” in answer to the question “Do you approve of the public efforts [the Spanish phrase is “labor publica”] that are being carried out by…?” The problematic wording raises larger issues concerning polls.
This poll does not predict who will win the next round of the election. It provides a snapshot of current voter preferences. Since it was conducted before the official first round results were announced it may reflect the fact that there are still many voters who have not really begun to process their new choice.
Also, campaigns matter. Here I have to disagree with colleagues who say that neither polls nor debates influence the process. The impact of polls is probably over-stated, but polls matter to strategic voters. Debates can have a huge impact. In general, campaigns matter and this one has just begun.
If Humala runs a great campaign and wins the runoff, that does not necessarily mean this poll was wrong. It may mean that the initial distribution of voter intentions changed in the course of the campaign. By the same token, the polls did not miss the fact that Garcia was holding steady through most of the first round and that Flores was in decline. The best polls showed the two candidates very close which, as it happened, was accurate. The polls did generally understate support for APRA. This is not necessarily because the polls are bad; it may be because there is a “hidden vote” for APRA.
The record of DATUM is not terrific, but nor is it terrible. On April 5, 2006, they placed Garcia and Flores in a tie with 24 percent, and gave Humala 26 percent. Obviously, they were off (by twice their 2 percent margin of error) with respect to Humala but they did place Humala as the front-runner and reported a tie between Garcia and Flores. APOYO was marginally better (giving Humala 27 percent). During the blackout period, CPI circulated a poll that had Flores in the lead.
In short, polls have biases and some polls have more biases than others. Leaving aside the issue of whether people answer pollsters truthfully, there are potentially important sample biases that affect most polls in Peru. It is costly to reach into the countryside and measure the support of candidates like Humala who may be strongest in rural areas. The lesson? Polls should be treated with caution and interpreted carefully.
09:05 a.m.ONPE Presidential results at 99.25%
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.69% (3,748,167 votes)
Alan García (Apra) 24.32% (2,970,132 votes)
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.70% (2,895,159 votes)
Gap between García and Flores: 74,973 votes.
Constitutional Commission examines proposed referendum on FTA
The issue of whether the FTA should be submitted to a referendum is being examined by a constitutional commission of the congress. Some argue that the issue should be placed before electoral authorities, not the legislature. In any event, the congress will have to decide whether to proceed with this initiative, the real purpose of which may be to force a public debate. On the strategy of the opposition, see arguments made by Javier Diez Canseco.
Martha Chávez Complains about Alianza por el Futuro
Whereas two members of the Fujimori clan–the daughter (Keiko) and brother (Santiago) of the former president–won seats in congress, Martha Chavez, the presidential candidate, was frozen out of the second round. Chavez shows signs of regret over the contrast between the success of the congressional slate and the disappointment of her own presidential aspirations.
Augusto Álvarez Rodrich: The lesson of this election is reduce poverty
Updated 2: Carlos Tapia and the Peruvian Left
April 26th: We have added a La República interview with Salomón Lerner Febres published today.
Read also:
Hasta los grandes se equivocan
Interview with La Ventana indiscreta: Carlos Tapia declara su apoyo a Ollanta Humala
La izquierda boluda
Recordar es volver a vivir
Prisionero de sus contradicciones
April 20th: Local newspapers have picked up some reactions fron leaders of the Peruvian Left to Carlos Tapia’s change of tune
Evo Morales insists FTAs hurt the Andean Community
Bancadas virtuales para el próximo Congreso
Source: La República, 26 de abril del 2006
APRA analyzes second round strategies
The brains behind the APRA campaign are meeting to talk about second round strategies. Apparently the idea of a “social front” will figure prominently.
Financial Times on the Second Round
Presidential rivals do battle over Peru’s history
By Hal Weitzman in Trujillo, Peru
Financial Times on line, published: April 26 2006 00:12
For Weitzman, “the Humala-García contest pits two of Peru’s most powerful political institutions against each other: Apra, its oldest and most formidable party; and the military, which has governed the country for much of its recent past. The two have clashed many times but never has the confrontation been channelled so starkly through the electoral process.”
You will need a subscription with FT.com to read the whole article.
Julio Carrion on the Second Round
Political Science professor Julio Carrion (University of Delaware) offers his analysis of the second round in the Diario Financiero (Chile). Professor Carrion has written for this blog and participated in a forum on the election we organized last December.
Updated – Mario Vargas Llosa’s Reasons for an Alliance
In this essay, Mario Vargas Llosa makes the case for an alliance between APRA and Unidad Nacional. Two things are extraordinary about this argument. First, Vargas Llosa was a bitter adversary of APRA in the 1980s. Second, as Mirko Lauer noted on Rueda de Prensa last Sunday, the formation of an alliance between the much-maligned “traditional political parties” (Popular Action and the Popular Christian Party) and his own movement, Libertad, contributed to the electoral defeat of Vargas Llosa in 1990. Lauer expanded his argument in his La Republica column today.
Most of the commentary generated by Vargas Llosa’s op-ed has been negative. We have reproduced the views of local analysts, published in the last two days, below.
Read also: Los sueños húmedos de Varguitas; Alianza electoral? Para que?
Interview with John Crabtree
Read also: John Crabtree analiza a Ollanta Humala; Peruvians Prepare to Bite Back and Peru’s chessboard
Resurrecting APRA’s Social Front
APRA proposed a social front without success in June 2004. The proposal has been resurrected as a potential campaign strategy for the second round.
Previous postings on the subject:
En el Apra crece consenso por candidatura única para próximas elecciones
Le llueven críticas al Frente Social por su composición
No hay puntos en comun entre el APRA y AP
Alan García equivocó estrategia electoral
Jose Matos Mar: Votación Provinciana Decidió Resultado de Primera Vuelta
Seats in Congress: The latest projections
Once again, our thanks to Rici for the latest seat projections for congress:
Download file
Note that there are two pages: the first page shows how close each party is to passing the bar (cifra repartidora) necessary to get a seat. Page two offers the actual seat numbers.
“The change is that UPP has been creeping ahead in Apurimac, and is now showing as winning both seats instead of splitting with Apra. I think I missed that possibility in my last notes. We still don’t know whether RN will make the threshold; the projection is still showing it with 4.02%, so I’m still including it.” — Rici
For Rici’s earlier (April 20) projections click here.
Hostility against Ollanta Humala
Humala & García Both Face Legal Issues
Ollanta Humala refuses to appear before a judge in the case of the uprising in Andahuaylas led by his brother Antauro. Alan Garcia may face a new investigation into the 1986 massacre in El Fronton.
The UPP-PNP Alliance
How long will the alliance behind Ollanta Humala last if he is not elected president? Not long, according to the secretary general of the APRA, Mauricio Mulder. Of course Mulder is trying in a not-so-subtle way to make a point here: APRA is the only organized and disciplined party in Peru.
Post Mortem for Unidad Nacional
Ántero Flores-Aráoz, Arturo Woodman, and Marco Parra offer their evaluations of the Unidad Nacional campaign.
See also: Un fracaso mas si importa. Razones de la derrota de la derecha peruana