The allegations that Ollanta Humala was responsible for human rights crimes places the left in an awkward position as they struggle with who to choose between candidates in the second round. Humala has a platform that resonates with the left, but he has not provided an account of his actions while commander of the military base in Madre Mia and the allegations against him are credible.
In this interview with La Republica, Carlos Tapia, former member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, outlines the reasons for the rise of Ollanta Humala and his ability to capture voters that in the past have supported the left. The interviewer asks Tapia about how, as a former member of the CVR, he can support a candidate accused of human rights crimes. He answers that he supports Humala’s “great transformation” but that the human rights allegations should be investigated. The interview ends on an angry note as Tapia rejects the idea that because he votes for Humala he is a violator of human rights and a “Fuji-Montesinista.”
Tapia appears to have changed his tune since earlier this year when he criticized Humala for his authoritarianism: Ollanta y el ‘neovelasquismo’ electoral; Elecciones: Ollanta y las izquierdas; Carlos Tapia on Ollanta Humala’s Undemocratic Values; Ollanta: ¿policía municipal?
Carlos Tapia: “Ruptura social creó a Humala”
Por Milagros Salazar
La República, 19 de abril del 2006
• El ex comisionado de la CVR confiesa su abierto apoyo al candidato de UPP, Ollanta Humala
• No lo condena por las acusaciones que pesan contra él sobre violaciones de derechos humanos y resalta que tiene una propuesta seria para atender las necesidades de los excluidos.
–Usted sostiene que las elecciones han puesto en evidencia la fractura social del país. Pero ¿cuál es la diferencia de este momento con el escenario de exclusion que siempre hemos vivido?
–La ruptura social es histórica en el Perú. Hay sectores de la población peruana que han sido permanentemente excluidos desde la fundación de la República. Lo nuevo es que los sectores populares han tomado conciencia de su situación de exclusión.
–¿Cuándo surgió ese fenómeno?
–Desde el 90 y por dos factores: los medios de comunicación y el desplazamiento de las poblaciones andinas por el conflicto interno. Antes, ellos creían que su mundo era autárquico, alejado. Pero luego se dieron cuenta de que el mundo de no tener agua, luz, no era compartido por la mayoría. Eso genera un escenario político propicio al desborde popular y a las nuevas apuestas electorales. Los de abajo ya no quieren vivir como antes y eso hace que los de arriba ya no puedan seguir gobernando como antes.
–¿Y origina que Humala tenga un electorado en bandeja?
–Así es. El tema no es denigrarlo al calificarlo como una amenaza. El problema es que esa ruptura social ha creado a Ollanta Humala. Agarra un mapa de las zonas de extrema pobreza, encima pones el mapa de escenarios de violencia política y luego las zonas donde Humala obtuvo más del 60% de votos. Verás que coinciden.
–Usted dice que Velasco también ocupó el poder en una situación similar. Y eso no resulta muy alentador. ¿Qué garantías existen de que con Humala se dé el cambio?
–Por supuesto que Velasco no fue un buen gobernante, violó la libertad de prensa, hizo una reforma agraria que impidió el desarrollo de la economía en el campo, pero su gobierno intentó redignificar a los excluidos.
–¿Y por qué compara políticamente a Humala con Barrantes?
–No comparo a las personas, solo la situación en la que surgieron. Igual fue con Fujimori. ¿Acaso fue un gran luchador social? Lo mismo Toledo. Es un error atacar a Humala como si fuera el demonio y calificar de ignorantes a los que votaron por él. Es una tontería hacer un frente contra la dictadura.
–¿Le parece una tontería criticar que Humala tenga actitudes amenazantes contra la prensa?
–Humala no es un idiota para utilizar métodos antidemocráticos y atentar contra la libertad de prensa: el país sería aislado y habría un efecto boomerang. Todo en la política se paga.
–Lo respalda a pesar de que usted es un ex comisionado de la CVR y él un candidato acusado de violar derechos humanos.
–No estoy para apañar impunidades. Debe investigarse todas esas acusaciones. Si apoyo a Humala es porque debe fijarse una posición sin miedos. Él es el candidato que ha propuesto una reforma tributaria que permitirá obtener mayor recaudación parar superar las desigualdades y tiene un programa integral de reparaciones para las víctimas de la violencia en el cual he colaborado. ¿Qué es preferible?, ¿votar por el Apra con Giampietri o UN con Woodman?
–¿Es mejor votar por los militares vinculados con el montesinismo que rodearían a Humala?
–No, no, si se comprueba eso sería el primero en condenarlo. Pero no me van a decir que esos militares son manipulados por Montesinos desde la Base Naval porque se estaría afirmando que el ex asesor trabajaba por su lado y Fujimori por el otro.
–Para la mayoría quedó claro que son la misma cosa, por eso existe temor de que la bancada fujimorista pacte con UPP.
–UPP ha sido el único partido que ha dicho que no se puede pactar con los fujimoristas. Aquí uno tiene que asumir sus riesgos cuando apuesta por un candidato.
–¿A ese precio?
–No tengo un compromiso por la camiseta sino por los objetivos. Lo que está en juego es la gran transformación social del Perú. Y no acepto que se me diga terrorísticamente que por votar por Humala, soy un violador de derechos humanos y un fujimontesinista.
La izquierda y el protagonismo personal
–¿Cómo debe interpretarse que intelectuales y técnicos que militaron en la izquierda y estuvieron en la sombra, ahora apoyen a Humala?
–No creo que nadie tenga el derecho de calificar a las personas de izquierda que están con Humala de ser oportunistas o de subirse al carro. Hay un montón de izquierdistas que militaron conmigo que están trabajando en el plan de gobierno de manera consciente.
–Eso no convierte a UPP en un partido de izquierda.
–No, lo que Humala presenta es un proyecto nacionalista, pero las masas izquierdistas sí han votado por él. Y eso se debe en parte a que la izquierda en el Perú ha tenido una performance electoral francamente catastrófica. Susana Villarán que representa a dos partidos nacionales de izquierda y 9 regionales, tiene 0.06% de la votación, el MNI 0.02% y Javier Diez Canseco 0.04%. Compara esos resultados a nivel de América Latina, es una vergüenza, el Perú no se merece eso.
–Pero es el castigo porque no se presentaron como un frente común.
–Cada uno quería ser cabeza de ratón. Buscaron pretextos para apostar por un protagonismo personal. El ejemplo de unidad de Barrantes se dejó de lado y ahora dicen que para las elecciones municipales y regionales volverán a presentarse. Con esos niveles de votación eso significa no tener un sentido ético.
–¿Cómo tomó las críticas de Susana Villarán contra Humala en el tema de derechos humanos y su visita a Madre Mía?
–Lo hizo con intención electoral para dañar la candidatura de Humala.
–¿No cree que lo hizo por convicción debido a su trayectoria en la defensa de derechos humanos?
–En este caso no.
5 replies on “Carlos Tapia on Ollanta Humala”
I have thought to myself that although heavily under media scrutiny Humala’s message stood out as one that might resonate with portions of the population that confront social exclusion for ethnic, economic, or geographical reasons. From my own point of view I have considered the timing of media campaigns against Humala as more than coincidental. I might be wrong. However, untill the accusations with legal implications hurled against Mr. Humala are proven with all lawful processes that ought to be afforded any person under charges, then and only then will yield my support. But this is not to say that the message to which Humala plays towards is not w/o meaning or significance. The right question to ask if one is truly concerned with the plight of the countries ethnic and porr populations is whether Humala is sincere about taking the steps to transform peru. What gives me reason to believe is that Humala, although a person of the country’s middle class, who could have evaded a military career, chose not to do so. Rather he was active in the military during a period of crises where civilian and military lives where under threat by the forces of an hysterical armed insurgency. Furhtermore, I tend to think that a person who has lived with the country’s distinct ethnic community and raised by father, whose ideology although extreme and flawed in that manner, but who sought vindication for the country’s indian people for me has more to offer than career politician groomed from the root and polished by top notch strategist.
Also as I have read other articles regarding Humala, his statements with regard to not forging political alliances, although interpreted by some to be another sign of Humala’s athoritarian nature, was for me an indication that he did not want to play traditional under teh table politics. Namely, this is in regards to Humala’s qualification of Toledo’s coalition with Olivera’s FIM, which Humala concluded produced the corruption that has plagued Toledo’s administration and which Humala sought not to engage. Also Humala’s statements of not forming coalitions but of rather opening the doors of his party and its political project to citizens and political actors who seek to advance the party’s goal, was interpreted by me as being a call for organizing on the basis of promoting and perfecting the party’s political platform rather than being a call for traditional under the table politics devoid of work geared to a common goal but rather for the benefit of politicians strategic benefits. To that end I point to Humala’s willingness to welcome proposals to improve upon or that would be more constructive alternatives to those currently put forth by Humala’s party.
I contrast this to Lourdes Flores Nano’s unqualified rejection of working with any of the congresspersons from UPP/PNP and her and Alan Garcia’ openess to court the Fujimoristas congresspersons, whose goal of seeking their leaders release is quite apparent. This political flirtation with a party that has no other platform other than Fujimori’s release, if it were done by Humala would be reason to churn the press’ pro “democracy” writers on high gear. But since the flirtation is conducted by AGP and LFN there is no reason to place any more attention on the matter.
Lastly all the articles Iv’e read on Humala’s supposed links to Montesinismo, or Cacerenho violence or racism is questionable. Not only has Humala distanced himself from his parents and requested that they cease talking to the media, but he has rejected the idea of granting his brother a presidential pardon. Additionally, Humala has rejected the proposition of forging any alliance with the AFP, has persons in his party and among his electorate that are not simply all indian but rahter include, whites, mestizos, palestinian etc. Lastly the articles with regard to montesino require a person make assumption upon additional assumptions which is not sufficient enough for one to declare a Humala-Montesino clique. Until that link is proven and not merely alluded to by questionable journalism, my support will remain with Humala.
Victor,
Flores is done. It’s all orchestrated to preserve the moneyed-folks. Just look at the people on this site that say nothing can be done so SIMPLEtons can keep on taking the mineral wealth. I think Humala’s message is highly resonant. The U.S. should not tell Peru what to do and the U.S. has no right to enforce it’s laws in Peru. The U.S. drug problem is their own consumption problem not Peru’s production problem. If the U.S. handled their problem like Switzerland, it would be far better for everyone, including people in Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. With respect to the indigenous ones’ lack of education. Education is determined by the government who can raise taxes for education and fund appropriate schools. It isn’t genetic at all.
Where can I make a contribution to Humala’s campaign.
A friend of mine knows Humala’s ex-fiancee. She’s the sweetest lady in the world. She swears by his integrity.
Max,
I agree with your comment as to the questions raised against the intelligence of indigenous peruvians or any poor person for that matter. From my perspective it seems like the trickle down economic model that is great for export led giants in peru will not solve the problems of the interior of peru. You as well as I have alluded to the strong work ethic of indigenous peruvians, and I have added that they are not anti market commies. Rather they in their ayllus and peasant organizations are collectivistic. Furhtermore their is a big difference between communism and collectivism, the former alludes to rigid authoritarian control by a Bureucratic cast, while the latter refers to local regional iniciatives not opposed to markets.
Also at no time have I heard anything from Humala that is clearly hostile to the capitalist mode of production. Humala’s proposals go along the line of having the state work not as an expropriative organ that is to control the means of production but rather as a regulatory administrative supervisor with the option of using revenues raised through taxes to either promote development projects or become involved as an eventual associate in the industries in question. Neither of this sounds marxist to me. As Mr. Cameron often says its tepid stuff.
Lastly I analogize the problem with the camisea gas leak and that of traditional peruvian politics. By this I mean that when deals are cut under the table under leadership that does not bargain sternly in the interest of the majority of people but rather with the inclination to lower the bar when it serves individual political interest quality and effectiveness of services that should be realized for the majority of the peruvian people goes down. The result: pipes of inferior quality; gas leaks that produce harmful results on the local environment; ineffectiveness that cost additional expenditures to repair. Similarly with MVL style democracy a representational leak of poltitical effectiveness that produces a centralized trickle of resources that does not effect the rest of the country, that compounds the problem of a sense of abondoment and resenment towards a cynical political class that has not seen to it that the country’s wealth is well managed like a well coordinated irrigation system rather than a centralized trickle or an irresponsible flood. The majority with their work ethic and non anti market orientation deserve a system that is well regulated, that will bargain sternly for the national interest, and that is responsible in open the plumbing beyond that of an ill managed trikle but rather to that of a well thought out and managed system of social irrigation.
What do you think Max?
We want entire Latin America, the whole world to be libereted from America’s imperialistic grip.If Chaveg could do it for Venezuella,let Humala do it for Peru.
Peru will not be any more,
that Humala together with that millionaire Chavez will destroy it and all his fake promise’s will not be coming true.
He will stay there indefinately and reelect himself like Chavez and some other rotten presidents that are afraid when a legal election will come they will be stopped.
I dont know why the mountain people there dont see what he will do.
They are always the majority of voters the ones that rot the country because of lack of education and information.
Goodbye Peru
We loved you
it is sad you will be lost when Humala gets to be President.