Peru Election 2006

Maxwell A. Cameron
May 3, 2006
This is a puzzling editorial in a number of ways. First, there are factual mistakes which are surprising given the authoritative source. The election is not on May 28, for example. It has just been called for June 4. Second, Toledo’s approval rating is not in the single digits, it is at 21 percent according to the last DATUM poll. Admittedly, that is pretty low, but is there any need to exaggerate his unpopularity?
The characterization of Humala as “a military man whose family advocates the shooting of gays, Jews and Chilean investors” seems a little harsh. The use of firing squads is not something that Humala has himself endorsed. Who among us does not have family members who believe crazy things? Equally harsh is the suggestion that of the populist leaders who have come to power in the Andes, Humala would be the “most dangerous yet.” In what sense?
To call the second round an “appalling choice” is also pretty harsh. A colleague of mine commented that there seems to be a missing paragraph here explaining just why Garcia is such an “appalling” option and why he “would make things worse.” I would accept the description of Garcia’s last government, but the question that many Peruvians are grappling with is whether there is reason to assume Garcia and APRA would govern as badly today. The Times offers no basis for judgment.
The final line would seem to be unobjectionable: “There could be no clearer warning than this of the importance of economic development that includes the poor.”
Read also:
The New York Times’ sorry duo
Parecidos, pero no iguales
May 04: Hemos añadido la cobertura y comentarios de los medios de prensa escrita.

Editorial: Peru’s Looming Disaster
NY Times, May 3, 2006
The revolt of Latin American voters against the political class began in Peru in 1990, with the election of an obscure agronomy professor named Alberto Fujimori. The anti-establishment mood has spread, leading to populist soldiers and a coca grower taking the presidencies of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Now Peru may elect the most dangerous leader yet. Last month Ollanta Humala, a military man whose family advocates the shooting of gays, Jews and Chilean investors, came in first in presidential elections. Since Mr. Humala did not get 50 percent, there will be a runoff on May 28.
More bad news: the other candidate will be Alan García, a spectacularly irresponsible and corrupt president in the late 1980’s who wrecked Peru’s economy and presided over the commission of widespread war crimes. This sorry duo topped a field that included several excellent candidates.
The roots of the appalling choice facing Peruvians are evident. As in Venezuela, traditional politicians in Peru have failed to improve the lives of the majority, especially indigenous people. The current president, Alejandro Toledo, has presided over five years of peace, lowered corruption and sustained the strongest economic growth in Latin America. Yet his approval rating is in the single digits. Mr. Toledo squandered the opportunity seized by countries like Chile and Mexico to spread the benefits of growth through targeted education, health or rural development programs.
Both candidates would make things worse. Mr. Humala is no fan of democracy and wants to hold a constituent assembly to rewrite Peru’s Constitution. He was an army captain in command of a military base during Peru’s war with the Shining Path guerrillas. There is credible testimony from several families in his zone that men directly under his command tortured and killed peasants, and that he participated in terrorizing and ransacking the business of a storeowner who demanded payment from his soldiers. Many of his closest aides have ties to Vladimiro Montesinos, a jailed racketeer.
All this is widely known in Peru, yet a large chunk of voters are unbothered. There could be no clearer warning than this of the importance of economic development that includes the poor.
NYT: el Perú está a las puertas de un desastre
La República, 04 de mayo del 2006
• En un editorial, diario lamenta que ambos candidatos lleguen a la segunda vuelta.
Un crítico editorial del New York Times señala que Ollanta Humala Tasso y Alan García Pérez, rivales en la segunda vuelta, conforman “un triste dúo” dados sus antecedentes. El diario precisa que Humala “no es un entusiasta de la democracia y quiere convocar a una Asamblea Constituyente para reescribir la Constitución”. Y a García lo califica como un “irresponsable y corrupto ex presidente”. Luego agrega que es inminente un desastre. Al respecto, el líder del APRA respondió que no había leído el citado artículo, pero que, en todo caso, “ni el New York Times ni Hugo Chávez votan en el Perú”.
New York Times cree que Ollanta y Alan son fatales
Prestigioso diario estadounidense prevé que cualquiera de los dos es peor que Alejandro Toledo.
La Primera, 04 de mayo del 2006
El diario estadounidense The New York Times publicó un editorial lamentando que Perú tenga que elegir en la segunda vuelta de las presidenciales entre Alan García y Ollanta Humala, un “dúo lamentable” que ejemplifica el descrédito de la política en Latinoamérica.
Tras describir al candidato nacionalista Humala como alguien cuya familia aboga por disparar contra “homosexuales, judíos e inversores chilenos”, afirma que García fue un presidente “espectacularmente irresponsable y corrupto”.
Para explicarse por qué se llegó a esta situación, el diario indica que, “al igual que en Venezuela, los políticos tradicionales del Perú no han logrado mejorar las vidas de la mayoría, especialmente los indígenas”.
Además, detalla que el presidente, Alejandro Toledo, ha desaprovechado su oportunidad para impulsar el desarrollo del Perú, como han hecho en los últimos años Chile y México.
“Los dos candidatos –anota– harán las cosas peor. Humala no es un fan de la democracia y quiere convocar una asamblea constituyente para modificar la Constitución”.
El diario recuerda que Humala tuvo un cargo militar durante la lucha contra las guerrillas de Sendero Luminoso, y asegura que hay testimonios de varias familias de que ordenó directamente la tortura y asesinato de varios campesinos.
“Muchos de sus ayudantes más cercanos están vinculados a Vladimiro Montesinos”, el colaborador de Fujimori, actualmente en prisión, apunta.
Para el diario, este “triste dúo” se ha colocado a la cabeza de una carrera presidencial en la que había “excelentes candidatos”.
The New York Times opina que todos estos hechos son ampliamente conocidos en Perú, pero cree que a muchos de los votantes “no les importa”.
Fujimori
En el editorial, recuerda que fue precisamente en Perú donde se inició la “rebelión de los votantes contra las clases políticas latinoamericanas” en los años 90, lo que llevó al poder a un “oscuro” ingeniero y profesor agrónomo
llamado Alberto Fujimori. Poco a poco, este sentimiento “antiinstitucional” se extendió por otros países bajo el liderazgo de “militares populistas y cultivadores de coca”, hasta el punto de que sus dirigentes alcanzaron el poder en Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia, según relata el diario.