Archive for May, 2006
La prensa internacional comenta la violencia de ayer
Los hechos violentos ocurridos ayer en Cusco han causado una ola de articulos en la prensa del mundo. Hasta ahora la informacion es confusa, algunos diciendo que Alan Garcia fue atacado, otros que ambos bandos se enfrentaron a los tiros. Aqui se adjunta articulos de varios medios del mundo
Congressional update, May 25, 2006
Here is the latest update on the congressional results, courtesy of Rici, as well as his thoughts on the preferential voting system.
In the ONPE report of May 25, there was a small surge of votes for Alianza por el Futuro in Lima, and a small dearth of votes for Restauración Nacional. This was enough to revert the Lima results to the previous standings (UPP 8, AF 8, Apra 7, UPP 6, FC 3, PP 2, RN 1), making the national totals:
UPP: 45
Apra: 36
Unidad Nacional: 17
Alianza por el Futuro: 13
Frente de Centro: 5
Restauración Nacional: 2
Perú Posible: 2
However, there are still more than 2,000 mesas in Lima unaccounted for, and the results are still very close. According to the May 25 report, RN has 4.7% of the Lima votes and 4.01% of national votes; this is still too close to definitively say that RN will make the threshold, although it still seems quite likely. If it doesn’t make the threshold, based on the current standings, the two RN seats would go to UPP (Madre de Dios) and PP or UN (Lima). In short, we’re not going to know the Lima results until the vote count is complete, which allegedly will happen tomorrow.
In Cusco, the trend continues and it now seems unlikely that Apra will recover enough votes to gain two seats, although it is not impossible.
A number of people are suggesting abandoning the preferential ballot, allegedly to simplify the vote count and “avoid internecine battles”. In my opinion, this would be a mistake. Analysing the preferential ballots clearly demonstrates that voters use the opportunity to select between members of electoral alliances such as Unidad Nacional, and to express preference for particular candidates. “Closed list” voting effectively gives much more control to the party or alliance apparatus which constructs the candidate lists, allowing the possibility for horse-trading and deal-making. Given the general distrust of party bureaucracies, it seems to me unlikely that Peruvian electors would support eliminating the
preferential ballot if they understood the consequences. Unfortunately, the commentators suggesting eliminating the preferential ballot are unlikely to explain the consequences, since most or all of them have a vested interest in empowering party bureaucracies over the popular vote.
There is clearly a problem with counting the preferential vote, but I think it would be better to address this directly, perhaps by looking at practices in other countries which use similar electoral systems, and perhaps by introducing some form of electronic voting, or at least electronic reporting of actas.
I personally believe that the issue of “internecine battles” is a chimera. In the case of an electoral alliance like Unidad Nacional or Frente de Centro, it is surely legitimate for a voter to express an opinion on the relative merits of alliance members, given that there is no certainty that the alliance will maintain itself in the elected congress, as we have seen from the discussions going on within both of these alliances.
PUCP National Poll, May 18-21, 2006: Alan Garcia in First Place
Source. La República, 26 de mayo del 2006
Muestra: 2,032 personas. Margen de error:+/- 2.15%. Cobertura: 130 distritos de 45 provincias en 18 departamentos. Representatividad: 68%. Fechas de aplicación: Entre el 18 y el 21 de mayo. Financiamiento: Universidad Católica del Perú.
Download file
Five Wounded in Battle Between APRA and UPP Militants in Cusco
May 26: Hemos añadido la cobertura de los diferentes medios de prensa.
May 25: A clash between the supporters of Alan Garcia and Ollanta Humala resulted in five people wounded, two (maybe three) by gunshot, in the city of Cusco. Details are sketchy, but it appears that Alan Garcia was on route to the airport when a confrontation occurred with a group of UPP supporters.
The APRA version: According to Jorge Del Castillo, a gunman fired at the caravan carrying members of the APRA party. The gunman was identified by Del Castillo as a retired police major by the name of Marcos Vladimiro Santos de la Gala.
The UPP version: Gonzalo García Nuñez, candidate for the vice presidency of the UPP, rejected the idea that his group was behind the violence, saying that APRA supporters initiated the violence. He said that members of the APRA entourage got out of their vehicles and fired at supporters of Humala.
The version that is being reported on the Channel 8 television at 8 pm this evening is that a mob of Humala supporters attacked the APRA caravan as it approached the airport. The caravan continued toward the airport, but a group of APRA militants returned to the scene of the confrontation and that is when gunfire occurred. Both sides may have been armed.
In recent days both candidates, Garcia and Humala, have experienced violence on the campaign trail. Humala was hit by an egg while campaigning in Comas; fist to cuffs ensued. Garcia was assaulted with eggs in the city of Huacho as he celebrated his 57th birthday, and again today in Cusco. The violence has become so routine that Humala now campaigns with the protection of improvised shields.
Comments by other fellow bloggers: (Casi) estuve en la balacera del Cusco
Ollanta Humala dice que no renunciará a su candidatura
El candidato a la presidencia por UPP, Ollanta Humala, descartó tajantemente que esté pensando renunciar a su candidatura ante las acusaciones de un presunto fraude electoral, tal como afirmaron dos medios locales el día de ayer, basándose en el concepto de que “no habría por qué regalarle el país a un político corrupto como Alan García”.
Reacciones a la denuncia de UPP por supuesto fraude aprista
Prensa chilena: Fujimori es un huésped incómodo
Source: La República, 26 de mayo del 2006. Foto: EFE.
Solidaridad Nacional impone condiciones para renovar alianza Unidad Nacional
Solidaridad Nacional puso como condición al Partido Popular Cristiano que, para renovar con Unidad Nacional apuntando a las elecciones municipales de noviembre y presidenciales del 2011, Luis Castañeda Lossio deberá ser el candidato y líder de la alianza política. En caso contrario, ven muy difícil su continuidad.
APEIM se queja por veto del JNE
La Asociación Peruana de Empresas de Investigación de Mercados (APEIM) se quejó por el veto del Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE) a difundir los sondeos de intención de voto para la segunda vuelta a través de los medios electrónicos (Internet, mensajes de texto, llamadas telefónicas, etc.), denunciandolo como un intento de censura.
Suggestion that Humala to Withdraw from Race is Denied
Ollanta Humala denied a report by the newspaper La Primera that claimed he was studying the possibility of withdrawing from the election and presenting a complaint of fraud to the Organization of American States. The claim was made by the director of La Primera, Juan Carlos Tafur, on television last night, and repeated in La Primera today. Members of the Humala camp continue to complain about a fraud being prepared against them, a claim sustained by various and sundry allegations concerning a presumed lack of transparency in the electoral process, biases among electoral authorities, and the expectation that APRA will attempt to steal votes on election day.
Los escudos de Humala
Hugo Passarello Luna
Lima 25 de mayo del 2006
Fotos: H. Passarello Luna
Después de los ataques que Ollanta Humala recibió en algunas de sus caravanas por Lima (le arrojaron rocas, tomates, frutas, etc.) los miembros de su seguridad decidieron hacer escudos para protegerlo en las futuras marchas (tienen la formar de la olla con la cruz del voto sobre ella).
Esto es un reflejo del miedo que su seguidores tienen de un posible atentado contra Humala. Siempre que el candidato sale esta rodeado de por lo menos 7 (a veces más) hombres y mujeres con chaquetas rojas que los identifica como seguridad.
Los escudos son el ultimo objeto creado para proteger al candidato que, al acompañarlo en varias campañas pude comprobar, es blanco de algún que otro piedrazo acompañado con acusaciones de ‘asesino.’
En Rimac sus simpatizantes fueron recibidos con algunas naranjas y piedras. Lo mismo se repitió el pasado 24 de mayo en San Juan de Lurigancho. Hay que notar que estos casos son aislados y poco frecuentes, pero pasan en casi todas las marchas.
Lo único que han logrado estos ataques es de aumentar entre los nacionalistas las sospechas y el miedo por el bienestar de su líder. La paranoia latente en el partido crea continuos rumores internos, ideas de infiltrados y una constante orden de estar en guardia. Un ejemplo, el pasado lunes 22 de mayo, corrió un rumor que un grupo alrededor 100 personas iban en camino al Comando Nacional de Campaña para tomarlo. La ansiedad creada dentro del Comando en San Borja hizo que muchos de sus integrantes estuvieran afuera esperando cualquier eventualidad. Finalmente, el grupo de potenciales agresivos (no más de 30) llegaron y entregaron un documento para Ollanta Humala. Luego se fueron y todo volvió a la normalidad. Si bien sus intenciones no eran para apoyar la candidatura de Humala, el miedo creado alrededor de su llegada era parte de esa burbuja paranoica.
La democracia en Perú, por suerte, no es tan sensible a ataques violentos contra candidatos. Pero quizás el pasado militar de muchos de los integrantes del Partido Nacionalista los condiciona a una visión maniquea de amigos y enemigos donde la violencia esta latente.
Hay que notar que la seguridad Humalista no se comporta de manera violenta en sus marchas y sólo se limita a dar espacio al candidato y tratar de parar los objetos arrojados contra Humala. Hay casos en que algunos miembros del partido actúan de manera independiente y agreden o insultan a las personas que gritan asesino y otras acusaciones contra Humala. El sentimiento es que los apristas (así los consideran ellos) están siempre listo para infiltrarse, provocar y arruinar las campañas de Ollanta y por lo tanto tienen que ser confrontados con la misma moneda.
¿Quien empezó? No se sabe, pero las acusaciones vuelan de un lado al otro y se potencian a si mismas.
Las campañas en Perú todavía tienen un sabor de agresión y conspiraciones, en general falsas, pero siempre presentes.
Interview with Lloyd Axworthy
Military Support for APRA a Hoax
A document that ostensibly demonstrates that the military is providing material support for the APRA campaign is, according to El Comercio, a hoax. The document was given to El Comercio, which consulted with the ministry of defense before publishing. The defense ministry confirmed that the document was fraudulent.
Peruvian Government Vetos Venezuelan Election Observer
A Venezuelan election official closely linked to the government of Hugo Chavez will not be acredited to participate as an international monitor in the second round of the election according to the National Election Board. Jorge Rodriguez was identified as one of the election observers who was in the voting booth with Ollanta Humala on election day when Humala was virtually taken hostage by a hostile mob.
Nadine en el Callao
Hugo Passarello Luna
Lima, 25 de mayo del 2006
Photos: H. Passarello Luna
Hoy es el cumpleaños de Nadine Heredia, esposa del candidato nacionalista Ollanta Humala, y creí conveniente dedicar unas pequeñas palabras a esta reciente participe de la política peruana.
El pasado martes Nadine asistió a un breve evento para ella en una base del Callao, a escasas cuadras del puerto.
La asistencia fue grande. Alrededor de 250 personas colmaron la base en un evento organizado por el grupo de ‘mujeres nacionalistas’ de esa base.
Este pequeño acto demostró la dimensión femenina que los Humalistas quieren lograr. Desde que Argentina presenció el fenómeno Evita en los años 40 muchos políticos de Latinoamérica han tratado de emularlo.
Después de vencer en la primera vuelta, los nacionalistas crearon un ‘Comando de Mujeres’ que ayuda a organizar la enorme y activa presencia femenina en el partido bajo la imagen de Nadine como ‘ejemplo de mujer y madre nacionalista.’ Ya es común observar polos (T-shirts) que leen ‘LAS MUJERES CON OLLANTA’ y otro tipo de parafernalia feminista especialmente confeccionados para este nuevo comando y para el pasado día de la madre.
En el Callao, la gran mayoría de los presentes eran mujeres que venían a ver a su líder. En el momento que se formó un nudo de gente en la angosta puerta de entrada, algunas personas demandaban paso con la excusa de ‘Soy mujer.’ Era una tarde de mujeres, para mujeres y con mujeres.
Hubo muchos (muchísimos) oradores durante el evento, pero lo que mas sobresalió fueron las constantes interrupciones de los presentes con cánticos y gritos de apoyo para Nadine y Ollanta. Uno de los que mas llamó la atención fue el comentario de un organizador que dijo: ‘Finalmente, por primera vez en años, tendremos una primera dama nacional’ en clara alusión a los orígenes no-peruanos de Eliane Karp Fernenburg. Y esto fue seguido de todos gritando ‘Nadine es peruana, Nadine es peruana.’
Nadine trata de ser un pilar esencial de la ideología nacionalista, que presenta no solo planes de gobierno sino también modelos de vida a seguir (similar a otros regímenes del pasado reciente).
La movilización de grupos femeninos bajo el liderazgo de Nadine ha sido efectiva. Pero todavía no queda claro cuales son los objetivos propuestos para que una mujer sea verdaderamente nacionalista. ¿Significa ser una madre? ¿Significa ser una fiel acompañante? ¿O los nacionalistas tienen nuevos roles para una nueva mujer?
Amnesty International denounces “ignorance” of the Candidates with Respect to Human Rights
Amnesty International has condemned the blatant ignorance of both presidential candidates with respect to human rights issues.
Alberto Fujimori will not Be Able to Talk to the Press in Chile
Interview with Antauro Humala
Very interesting interview with Antauro Humala. It looks like the Peruvian intelligence service (SIN) knew about the plans for the Locumba uprising, maybe even exploited it, which is different from saying it was behind the uprising. According to Antauro, the uprising was a reaction to the compromise in which Fujimori would remain in office for one year before new elections would be held.
Humberto Campodónico: Will the Right Continue Governing?
Humberto Campodónico sees a victory by Alan Garcia as a victory for the right. He quotes economist Jurgen Schuldt as saying that APRA’s shift to the right marks a move from “responsible change to irresponsible continuity.”
Ollanta Humala and the Left
Alberto Moreno, leader of the Movimiento Nueva Izquierda, recognizes the similarities between the ideas of his party and those of Ollanta Humala’s Union Por el Peru. Javier Diez Canseco, of the Partido Socialista, however, argues that neither of the presidential candidates in the runoff election deserves the support of the left.
Forum on Sexual Diversity and Electoral Platforms
Representatives from APRA and Union por el Peru will present their party platforms to promote sexual diversity on Wednesday, May 31.
Read also:
– Los homosexuales y Ollanta Humala
– MHoL Communique addressed to Presidential Candidates
– Roundtable: Electoral Platforms Against Sexual Discrimination
– Jaime Bayly Responds to Mrs. Humala
John Crabtree: Peru: the institutional deficit
BBC Interview with Alberto Fujimori
Who Won the Debate?
The consensus in the press seems to be that Alan Garcia won. Mind you, much of this consensus comes out of Lima. Many people believe that Humala reinforced support within his own ranks, while Garcia reached out to the voters needed in Lima to pass the critical 50 percent threshold.
APOYO Flash Poll, Metropolitan Lima: Garcia Won Presidential Debate
Source: El Comercio, 23 de mayo del 2006
Encuesta flash realizada por APOYO Opinión y Mercado S.A., en exclusividad para América Televisión. La encuesta en Lima se realizó entre el 21 y el 22 de mayo de 2006 a 500 electores.
CPI Encuesta Flash sobre Debate Presidencial a nivel de Lima Metropolitana, 22 de mayo del 2006: Garcia claro ganador
Source: El Comercio, May 23 , 2006
Encuesta Flash sobre el debate presidencial a nivel de Líma Metropolitana. Universe: 500 individuals in Metropolitan Lima: Download file
Datum simulacro de votacion nacional, 18-19 de mayo, 2006: Garcia en primer lugar
Source: La Primera, May 23, 2006
Universe: 1,121 individuals in urban and rural areas. Margin of error: +/-3% representing 79.9% of the electorate Download file
Nota: Este fue un simulacro de votacion, no una encuesta y tuvo lugar antes del debate presidencial.
Interviews with Héctor Vargas Haya
OAS Electoral Mission Back for Round Two
The OAS Electoral Observation Mission is reinstalling itself for the second round of the election.
Congressional vote update
Rici kindly offers the following update on the congressional vote count:
As the revision of congressional votes continues, there has been a general trend of slight increases in UPP votes in strong UPP districts. Interestingly, over the last month the total popular vote for all parties has remained virtually the same, but the number of seats allocated to UPP has continued to increase. As of Saturday May 20 (the last ONPE webpage update), the congressional standings are:
UPP: 45
Apra: 36
Unidad Nacional: 17
Alianza por el Futuro: 12
Frente de Centro: 5
Restauración Nacional: 3
Perú Posible: 2
Since my last update, that represents a gain by UPP of one seat from Apra (in Cusco) and a gain by RN of one seat from AF (in Lima).
Both of these contests are very close, and it is possible that they will change again. Cusco is at 89% of polls counted, and Lima is at 77%. In all, counting is finished in 18 of the 25 districts, but slight changes are still possible as a result of appeals.
RN’s popular vote is currently 3.988% and PP’s is currently 3.978%. However, the bulk of the uncounted votes are in Lima, where RN is polling at 4.8% and PP at 6.9%, so I’m pretty confident that both of them will make it over the quota. However, it will be tight, particularly in the case of RN.
In addition to the two districts where the overall outcome is still in doubt, there are a couple of quite close preferential counts. The closest of these is in Piura, where UPP won two seats; the second and third place preferential vote winners for UPP differ by only 6 votes (out of about 14,000). While Piura is theoretically at 100%, I suppose it is still possible that there are outstanding appeals, and a single polling station’s results could alter the order of preferential votes.
There are also quite close preferential races for the only Apra congressional seat in Junin, and for the fifth Apra congressional seat in La Libertad.
If the results stand as they are at present, there will be 35 women in the new congress, by my count, which is just under 30%. That might be a bit disappointing (it is lower than the percentage of women candidates), but it is a lot more than the current congress (or any previous congress), and in my opinion illustrates the importance of open-list preferential voting.
It is also interesting to note that UPP will have congresistas from 24 of the 25 districts, while Apra will represent 20 of the 25 districts. Unidad Nacional only managed to elect congresistas in 10 districts.
Cynthia Sanborn on the Debate
Cynthia Sanborn was on RPP commenting on the debate last night. She read my description of the debate, and wrote the following response:
Gustavo Yamada, Fernando Villarán and I ended up staying in RPP with Raul Vargas throughout the debate and making comments after each block, at the commercial breaks. We watched the debate on the TV monitors in order to be able to transmit to listeners what they were not seeing. Because I think I watched pretty closely, I beg to disagree with a few of your points in the blog summary — about Humala winning on style, and on his closing statement being the strongest.
Frankly, I think Humala showed an incredible lack of style, clarity or timing, all of which he needed to make effective jabs at Garcia – he came out swinging and took the anticipated aggressive stance, but in my view he didn’t pull it off well. He read a lot from notes, apparently unfamiliar or uncomfortable with some of the issues at hand, and missed a number of excellent opportunities to take the initiative or get back at Garcia’s weak spots. From the very start, when Garcia criticized him for arriving late, he could have made a retort about Garcia making all of us wait in long lines during his past government, but instead he opted for an obvious lie. Everybody who watched TV saw what actually happened, that it wasn’t Apristas who held him up but his stopping for an agua mineral, so what was the point of saying that? Under pressure, what else would he lie about?
(Aside — miiltary professionals are noted for their punctuality, even in Peru, so I don’t think anyone believes he arrived late by accident).
During various other times he could have reminded the audience in general, understandable terms of the errors of Garcias first government — indeed, he HAD to do that to counter Garcia’s image of newfound maturity and redemption– but instead he made oblique references to Rodrigo Franco and Mantilla, which younger voters might not even understand or care much about (unfortunately). Garcia went after Toledo, not Humala, and I think that is what many voters have fresh in mind — replacing an often tardy, often frivolous, often incomprehensible president with somebody serious and authoritative. Like García?
Formerly known as “Caballo Loco”, Garcia now looked extremely tranquilo y sereno. Humala was not able to provoke him, try as he might, and instead let himself be provoked on the Andahuaylas issue — “pisó el palito” as they say, about his brother, instead of changing the topic or getting back at APRA. Really, I thought he was a mediocre sparring partner, at some points even repeating the promises and programs Garcia had just enunciated (“analfabetismo cero”). Even if he did make some good points (the Montesinos issue was a good point, for example, which Garcia evaded), and even if he did put forth some programmatic ideas that differentiate him from Garcia and can resonate with voters (seguridad ciudadana con participacion, fortalecer alcaldes, defensa de RRNN, etc).
In the closing statements, Garcia looked straight at the camera and thanked the Peruvian people (and Dios). Humala read a canned statement, did not look at the audience, and did not thank anyone but himself. The bit about not taking the presidential salary — now who believes THAT? Really, I did not see that as a strong closing statement.
In any case, it was useful to see both of them in action and I think Humala will certainly retain his committed followers after this, but I don’t think that kind of performance in the debates or on the road — is going to capture significant numbers of indecisos. Garcia, for his part, was so full of catchy programs and sound bites that it soon began to sound like too much. But he didn’t really have to worry about this — just had to avoid losing points to Humala and, except for the Montesinos issue, I don’t think he did.
We will see that the polls say, and what actually happens on election day of course.
Cynthia Sanborn is a political scientist who teaches in the Centro de Investigaciones de la Universidad del Pacifico (CIUP). She did her PhD at Harvard University, and works on public policy, democracy, development, and civil society in Latin America.
Presidential Debate: Analysis by Themes
Political Observers Assess the Presidential Debate
Presidential Debate: Local Media Coverage
Read also other fellow bloggers coverage:
– Al día siguiente
– Nubes grises
– Debate entre Humala y García: un agresivo y un redundante
– A primera vista
– Debate – Chino – Da Vinci
The Presidential Debate: Humala Stands up to Garcia, but Scores no Decisive Victory
Maxwell A. Cameron
May 21, 2006
Overall Assessment
The presidential debate between Alan Garcia and Ollanta Humala will probably do little to help Peru’s undecided voters. Garcia won on substance, while Humala won on style. The overall effect is unlikely to be decisive.
The 31 percent of the electorate who voted for Humala in the first round will probably be pleased with their candidate’s performance. In the face of a formidable rhetorician, Humala not only held his own ground, he conveyed a sense of sincerity and passion. His words often came out in a harsh, staccato manner, but he spoke directly to the audience, making solid eye contact with the camera. His hand gestures and body language were consistent with his words. Although he sometimes looked a little spooked about being face-to-face with Garcia, his overall attitude was pugnacious and confident. Humala’s informality was reinforced by his dress. He wore a white shirt, open at the collar, under a brown sports jacket.
The 24 percent of the electorate who voted for Garcia in the first round may be confident that Garcia struck the right balance between appealing to his core supporters and offering reassurances to the new voters he must attract. He wore a blue suit and tie and struck poses that seemed designed to convey authority. He came across as knowledgeable on matters of policy, and his statements were full of concrete policies and proposals aimed at specific audiences. At the same time, Garcia seemed tired and distant. He often looks more shifty than earnest, more calculating than thoughtful, and this reinforces the tendency of voters to see him as untrustworthy.
Given that there were no knock-out blows, and no egregious errors, Garcia may have won a victory by default. Polls conducted prior to the debate showed Garcia ahead by a substantial margin. APOYO gave Garcia the lead by 56 to 44 percent, while the University of Lima gave Garcia an advantage over Humala of 62 to 38 percent. The same polls suggest that about 1 in 5 voters are either undecided, or inclined to cast blank or spoiled ballots. In other words, Humala has an uphill battle to catch up with Garcia. His performance in the debate was strong, but probably insufficient to revert the advantage held by Garcia.
A Strange Beginning
The drama began even before the debate with a delay caused by Humala. Just a few minutes before 8 pm, I was standing in a crowd of journalists in the patio in front of the National Museum of Archeology, Anthropology, and History of Peru in Pueblo Libre where the debate was held. A silver SUV pulled up in front of a nearby canteen called “El Libertador.” Within seconds, the assembled reporters recognized Humala and surrounded him.
Chaos outside El Libertador
Inexplicably, rather than heading for the Museum, Humala entered the bodega and ordered a bottle of mineral water. He then left and rather than getting back in his vehicle, he walked three blocks to the rear entrance of the museum. The walk took over 10 minutes because Humala was mobbed by unruly press. A block away in the background one could hear the chants of APRA supporters who had assembled outside the police perimeter.
Press mobs Humala as he walks to Museum
The debate began almost 20 minutes late, and Garcia, who arrived 20 minutes early, complained that Humala’s behavior showed a lack of respect for the country. Humala denied responsibility for the delay, and blamed it on a “reception” that he had been given by APRA supporters. In fact, the APRA crowd was never anywhere near Humala, and the delay was entirely due to his inexplicable behavior. Garcia responded that stopping for 15 minutes for a “sandwich in the Queirolo” was not a good reason for delaying the debate.
Human Rights and Governability
The most notable aspect of the first part of the debate, which dealt with the topic of human rights and governability, was what was not said. Humala did not mention the massacre at El Fronton, which occurred under Alan Garcia’s government in 1986, nor did Garcia raise allegations about human rights abuses that Humala is accused of having committed when he commanded a military base in Madre Mia.
The press room in the Museum
Garcia opened by calling for a social democracy based on liberty, tolerance, and the respect for the separation of powers as an impediment to the abuse of power. He dismissed the need for a constituent assembly. Humala said Peru’s democracy does not represent the Peruvian people or serve national interests, but rather economically powerful groups and transnationalized interests. He said that governability must be based on social peace, and this requires attending to the needs of the poor.
In his reply, Garcia attempted to cast Humala as a representative of Peru’s long tradition of military involvement in politics. He also alluded to Chavez, saying Peru’s sovereignty would not be threatened by a petroleum power in the Caribbean. Humala insisted that his vision of governability requires recovering control over natural resources. He compared the current regime of control over resources, in which the resource belongs to the nation until it is extracted, as being like saying a child belongs to its mother until it is born, and then it is taken away.
Garcia responded by saying he favors renegotiating with foreign capital, but not by taking a leap into the void, along the lines of the Bolivian government of Evo Morales, which would result in capital flight, and unemployment. Garcia acknowledged that Humala has won votes in the south of Peru, but said that the inter-oceanic highway that he wants to see built would not be possible under such conditions.
The Economy
Humala rejected the economic model based on the export of natural resources, which has led to the growth of inequalities, and he used the contrast between the beaches of Asia and Ventanilla to make the point. He argued for development based on internal markets, within a framework of macroeconomic stability. Humala asked why Peru, a country that exports oil and gas, has the most expensive petroleum in the region. He made a specific, and quite dramatic promise: to reduce the price of petrol and gas by 30 and 25 percent respectively.
Garcia rejected this promise, saying that a sharp cut in the cost of petrol and gas would deprive the state of income needed to support a range of programs such as pensions. At the same time, he also made a series of specific proposals like building more ports and roads; promoting agriculture and microenterprises; providing water for 50,000 low-income inhabitants of Lima; and reducing fees for services.
Humala asked Garcia whether he was in favor or opposed to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Garcia did not answer, but limited himself to saying that he would provide compensation for groups affected by foreign competition.
Education, Health, Decentralization…and Corruption
On education and health, the candidates largely repeated themes they have been hammering away at throughout much of the campaign. It was during this exchange, however, that the toughest words were exchanged on the issue of corruption. Garcia criticized Humala for receiving $300,000 in salary as a military attaché in South Korea and France. Humala responded by saying that he would reopen a hard-labor camp in the jungle for former presidents who had committed acts of corruption, including those who ended their terms with numerous properties.
Garcia complained that the level of the debate was being lowered, but did not defend himself. Humala persisted, mentioning the recent statements by Vladimiro Montesinos and asking “if he could, for whom would Montesinos vote?” He also asked Garcia if he would release Montesinos. Garcia replied saying Humala was imprudent in asking this question, since he had already released Montesinos. This was an allusion to Humala’s “semi-uprising” in Locumba. Humala responded by pointing to links between APRA and Montesinos, beginning with Agustin Mantilla, who was caught on a Vladivideo taking money from Montesinos. He reiterated that Montesinos’s statement was a “missile” aimed at destroying his candidacy, he restated the question “for whom would Montesinos vote?” and he insisted he would not release Montesinos.
Garcia reproached Humala for asking whether he would pardon Montesinos. The matter is in the hands of the judiciary, and it is not up to the president to make such decisions said Garcia. He said the notion that the president could decide whether or not to pardon a prisoner reflects the sort of non-democratic style of government epitomized by Hugo Chavez. Humala insisted that presidents can offer pardons.
Security for Citizens
The final segment of the debate dealt with security for citizens. Garcia attacked Humala for wanting to place the police under the control of municipalities, saying this would destroy the police force by breaking it up into 1,800 micro units. Humala rejected this claim, saying that the police should be under the control of democratically elected authorities, and that this in no way would involved breaking up the force.
Garcia insisted that mayors are not police chiefs, and said Humala’s plan was dangerous. He then thrust the knife in deeper: “we defend the police, we do not kill them.” This was an allusion to the uprising in Andahuaylas led by Ollanta Humala’s brother, Antauro. Humala seemed shaken by Garcia’s statement about killing police; momentarily, he seemed to lose focus. He responded saying that he had fought for the honor of his country, but he did not address the charge directly. Garcia joked that Humala reminded him of the popular phrase (attributed to the brother of a Peruvian gangster) “I am his brother but I don’t know anything.”
Closing Thoughts
Humala had by far the stronger closing statement. He swore he would renounce his presidential salary and only collect his military pension; he would get rid of the 1993 constitution and convene a constituent assembly; he would fight corruption and uphold the rule of law; he would implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and that he would recover control over natural resources and protect national interests. Garcia had a weaker closing statement in which he rejected hatred and confrontation, called for unity and peace, and emphasized the world of opportunities open to Peru. He asked for God’s blessing on all homes and illuminate Peru’s path.
Torres Caro repeats claim that Humala was late because of Apristas
On the way home I asked my taxi driver what he thought of the debate. He confessed that he was a Fujimori supporter who had voted for Martha Chavez for president, APRA for congress, and Rafael Rey Rey for the Andean parliament. He said he was still undecided for whom to vote in the second round, but he seemed very impressed with how well Humala had stood up the Garcia. He also liked the promise of cheaper gas. His assessment of the debate: it was “a tie.”
El Libertador
En el debate con los Humalistas
Hugo Passarello Luna
21 de mayo del 2006
La noche fue de un clima de fiesta. En la calle frente al Comando de Campaña de Lima del UPP se colocó un gran escenario, una pantalla gigante y un ensordecedor sistema de sonido. Todo estaba preparado para hacer llegar el debate a todos los nacionalistas que estaban en el lugar (alrededor de 700).
En las horas previas al debate se arengó a la multitud con música folklórica, música de campaña y cánticos proselitistas.
La cúpula del UPP que no estaba en el Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Antropología se acurrucaba frente un viejo televisor en la base limeña. El virtual congresista, Daniel Abugatas, que no pudo entrar al debate y tuvo incidentes con la prensa, estaba junto con los demás nacionalistas.
Cuando finalmente comenzó el debate, el silencio invadió el lugar. Pero brevemente. Una oleada de silbidos recibió las primeras palabras de Alan García.
Todo cambió cuando Ollanta Humala habló. Con bombos, cornetas y cánticos, eran bienvenidas sus promesas, como la comentada rebaja del 30% al precio de la gasolina. Fue muy aplaudido su comentario sobre Vladimiro Montesinos: “¿A quién, si pudiera, votaría Montesinos?” en referencia a los recientes comentarios del ex –asesor fujimorista sobre el levantamiento de Lucumba.
La seguidilla de dardos que siguieron a este comentario fueron escuchados con
mucha atención, negando con ruido los dichos de Alan y con silencio y aplausos los
de Humala.
Cuando el debate finalizó todos parecían acordar que Humala había hecho un gran trabajo y que Alan había sido tomado por sorpresa. El clima de fiesta retornó como maremoto a todos los presentes. La cúpula nacionalista se unió a la multitud abajo en la calle: Humala estaba en camino para agradecer el apoyo de sus simpatizantes. La ansiedad aumentó y con ella la música y la alegría.
Cuando finalmente llegó el candidato se revivió ese caos de corridas, saludos y gritos. Todos compartían un sentimiento de victoria.
Humala estaba eufórico y arengó a su gente a participar como personeros en la segunda vuelta. Advirtió sobre un posible fraude en las mesas, como ya había denunciado Lourdes Flores. “¡Cuidado con que pase eso!” sentenció (¿amenazó?) el nacionalista.
Atacó también a lo que dicen las encuestas y aseguró que ellos están primeros en todas las provincias.
La gente respondía con gritos de apoyo.
Ollanta Humala, a pesar de lo que se esperaba, hizo un debate interesante. Más allá de los seguidos titubeos que ofreció durante todo el debate, habló como sus militantes querían: con fuerza, decisión y sentenciando para todos lados.
¿Habrá conseguido convencer a algunos indecisos o habrá reafirmado su digno 30%?
Las repercusiones de este debate, si las habrá, se verán en las próximas encuestas. Y de no confiar en ellas, habrá que esperar hasta el 4 de junio.
Los medios internacionales y el debate
Aca estan las primeras reacciones en los medios del mundo sobre el debate entre Garcia y Humala. Las opiniones son dispares: algunos marcaron que Humala se presento lucido y seguro mientras que Alan no gano por knock-out como se esperaba. Para otros el debate no brindo ningun ganador. Muchos hicieron eco de la llegada tarde del candidato nacionalista. La BBC percibio a Humala como un pobre orador con una debil capacidad para entender la politica peruana pero firme con sus planes.
Presidential Debate: Preliminary comments
Fabiola Bazo
May 21, 2006
First Theme: Democracy, Governance and Human Rights
8:30 pm: First part has ended. Even though Humala had a rough start, and was rude with Alvarez Rodrich at the beginning of the debate, I would say Humala won this first section of the debate.
Second Theme: Economic Policy and Fight against Poverty
Humala was the first to speak. He looked more comfortable. His speech focused on exclusion and inequality. He talked about families and mothers.
Garcia focused on macro issues: employment, Sierra Exportadora, Banco Agrario, water for all.
Humala is taking about overcoming instead of fighting poverty. His proposal focused on access to water, eliminating clientelism.
Garcia replies with a message for women and youth.
Humala asked Garcia if: (1) he is for or against the FTA with USA and (2) what is his view on ownership of natural resources.
I have to agree with Inka. The debate is getting boring…
Third Theme: Social Policy and Policy against Corruption
Humala and Garcia focused on social policy.
Garcia talked about policies to address gender disparities. He also mentioned Humala’ salary as military attaché in Paris and Seoul.
Humala talked about specific measures to deal with corruption. He said he would not free Montesinos.
I would say they are even so far.
For more real time commentary: El debate
Fourth Theme: Decentralization
21:06 pm Garcia replied to Humala’s comment regarding Vladimiro Montesinos by stating that Humala helped Montesinos to leave the country in 2000.
21:09 pm Humala reminded Garcia that Agustin Mantilla was in a vladivideo. Humala repeated he would not free Montesinos.
21:11 pm Garcia replied the judiciary decides the future of an individual in a democratic regime; it is authoritarian to argue that you [Humala] would free somebody.
21:13 pm Humala replied the president can pardon a prisoner.
No big surprises yet.
Fifth Theme: Citizen safety
Garcia talked in macro terms about this issue, while Humala started from an anecdote based on conversations with ordinary people and then went to policy proposals. Humala comes across as grounded, a “bottom-up” guy talking in plain language. Garcia comes across as a “top-down” politician. More knowledgeable but less appealing, I would say.
21:28 pm Garcia reminded Humala of the popular saying: “I am his brother but I don’t know anything” (“soy su hermano, pero no se nada”) referring to the Andahuaylazo as a reply to Humala’s comment that his brother Antauro has to respond to justice and Garcia has to give explanations about the mirages bought during his government.
21:30 pm Humala replied by asking Garcia about the activities of the Rodrigo Franco paramilitary group during his government.
21:33 pm: Humala made a very strong closing statement by promising he will (1) not receive his presidential salary, (2) go back to the 1979 Constitution, and (3) implement the Truth Commission recommendations. Garcia thanked Humala and gave a non-confrontational closing statement.
21:46 pm According to Cesar Hildebrandt it was a tie. He is very dissapointed because the candidates did not provided specific proposals and how they would achieve their ambitious goals.
22:00 pm….It was a boring tie with regard to substance. With regard to popular reach, probably Humala won. Any thoughts?
Humala and the Peruvian flag
8:20 pm: Alvarez Rodrich has requested Humala to take away a flag from his podium before starting his presentation. Humala did not want to do it because there was nothing in the rules against having a national symbol and that he is not embarrassed of thhe Peruvian flag.
Humala apologized for his delay due to APRA supporters.
Flash: Ollanta Humala has not arrived yet
Alan Garcia arrived on time around 7:40 pm.
It is 8:05 pm and the debate has not started. Nadine Heredia has arrived to the site and Ollanta Humala has not arrived to the museum yet. According to Cesar Hildebrandt. This is a “groceria.”
Ollanta Humala has arrived at 8:10 pm. His late arrival has not impressed journalists covering the event.
8:12 pm: the debate is set to start. Augusto Alvarez Rodrich is introducing the rules of the debate. Alvarez-Rodrich announced Humala is not in the set yet.
8:16 pm: Humala is in the set. Debate has started. Garcia is the first to speak.
The Presidential Debate
The presidential debate between Alan Garcia and Ollanta Humala is today. It will be carried live on the Internet by CPN radio at www.cpnradio.com.pe and by TNP at www.tnp.com.pe. The debate starts on Sunday night, May 21, at 8:00 pm. “Peru Election 2006” will follow the debate and post reactions and commentary. Readers are encouraged to send in comments before, during, and after the debate.
The broad consensus among observers is that Humala has the most to gain, and, contrariwise, Garcia has the most to lose in this debate. Humala’s second round campaign has been fraught with scandal and he is trailing badly in the polls. Even worse, the statements made by Vladimiro Montesinos just two days ago have added to the pressure on Humala, and raises the stakes of the debate. Although it is hard to know how Montesinos’ intervention will play out, it would appear to place Humala even further on the defensive.
Since Garcia is the clear front-runner, the debate offers Humala a chance to do some damage. Since he has little to lose, and much to gain, he will probably go on the offensive. He will attack Garcia’s record in office in 1985-1990 and capitalize on public’s distrust of the APRA leader. Garcia will exploit his superior rhetorical skills and try to cast Humala as a representing a dangerous leap into the void. We may also see efforts by Garcia to link Humala with presidents Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez, while Humala may seek to cast Garcia as the candidate favored by international business, the right, and the US Embassy.
Commentary by other bloggers:
– El debate: Las preguntas que debieron hacerse (y que aun pueden responder)
– Las preguntas de peruexilio para el debate
– El debate
– Debate presidencial más allá del morbo
Interviews with Raul Morey
Raul Morey resigned as secretary of ideology of the Nationalist Party yesterday. He was one of the founders of the party.
Interview with Julio Cotler
Rosa Maria Palacios on Vladimiro Montesinos’ Statements
Debate sobre situación de los pueblos indígenas.
Hugo Passarello Luna
Lima 21 de mayo del 2006
El pasado viernes, en vistas del debate entre los dos candidatos presidenciales, se realizó en el Colegio Real de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos un debate entre el UPP y el APRA sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas.
Participaron por Unión por el Perú, el educador y sociólogo Dr. Edmundo Murrugarra Florián, responsable del Plan Educativo del Partido Nacionalista Peruano, y por el APRA el antropólogo y filósofo Dr. Oscar Murillo Serna, presidente de la Comisión de Pueblos Indígenas del Plan de Gobierno del partido aprista.
El debate giró en torno a la situación de desigualdad social en que viven los pueblos indígenas, en particular los referidos a la educación, la inter-culturalidad y el bilingüismo.
A diferencia del debate del día anterior (sobre seguridad ciudadana) en el cual el representante del UPP fue duramente criticado, este evento se caracterizó por una interesante e igualitaria discusión entre los dos presentadores.
Ambos discursos fueron recibidos con interés por la audiencia pero hubo mayor congruencia con las declaraciones hechas por el Dr Murrugarra Florian. Este abogó por la redefinición la ubicación de las herencias culturales. Según Murrugarra siempre hubo una jerarquía entre las culturas presentes en el Perú, estando la indígena siempre por debajo de las otras.
También hablo de la necesidad de descolonizar el Estado y de establecer uno pluricultural, sin jerarquías.
Por su parte, el representante del APRA criticó la visión de su par ya que su teoría de la dominación es anacrónica y ‘binaria’, digna de los años sesenta. También acuso la propuesta nacionalista como mesiánica, fundamentalista y neo-populista.
Sin embargo el Dr. Murillo estuvo de acuerdo que hay que llegar a un estado de igualdad cultural por medio de una reestructuración de la relación entre Estado y nación (en crisis, según el, desde hace ya unas décadas). Abogó por la búsqueda de un consenso y no el desangramiento del país.
Un representante indígena se quejó que las propuestas de los dos partidos no son claras y que sólo sirven para sumar votos. Pidió que se escuchen las recomendaciones que los indígenas tienen que hacer. Estas fueron entre otras, la necesidad de respetar sus lenguas originales, su estilo de aprendizaje y la ‘descolonizacion de los conocimientos.’
MHoL Communique addressed to Presidential Candidates
Pronunciamiento del Movimiento Homosexual de Lima (MHoL) dirigido a los candidatos Alan García y Ollanta Humala publicado en el diario La República, sábado 20 de mayo de 2006.
Analysis of Audio Tape by Vladimiro Montesinos Concerning Ollanta Humala
Maxwell A. Cameron
May 20, 2006
El Comercio has provided a transcript of the audio tape that was released to the press containing explosive comments by former president Alberto Fujimori’s intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, regarding Ollanta Humala and his uprising in Locumba on October 29, 2000. The tape was apparently made in secret, perhaps in the Callao Naval Base, and then leaked to the media by Montesinos’ lawyer.
The transcript is worth reading carefully for a number of reasons, but first a caveat: Montesinos is a pathological liar whose words should not be taken at face value. As one of his associates put it, Montesinos is “amoral, and has no principles. He functions according to his interests and objectives. It does not matter to him whether he steals a little or a lot; whether he blackmails a few people or lots of people. He can be enchanting when he wants to and [when he] has something to gain. When angered, he is a moral enemy; when he cries or laughs it is calculated” (quoted in Cameron 2006: 282-283).
There are two parts to Montesinos’ statement.
The first part of the statement by Montesinos reveals the extent of Peruvian military involvement in Fujimori’s re-election effort in 2000. According to Montesinos, the re-election campaign involved the distribution of stoves to popular kitchens, the circulation of propaganda, the organization of meetings, and the deployment of 80,000 scrutinizers throughout Peru. It also involved close coordination with the electronic and print media.
The mobilization and deployment of scrutinizers was undertaken by the intelligence service of the Peruvian army, under the leadership of Ruben Wong Venegas. Ollanta Humala, according to Montesinos, was responsible for organizing scrutinizers in the south of Peru, using Locumba as a base. In particular, he was charged with the task of recruiting reservists and other retired military personnel to serve as election officers, both in the first and the second rounds of the election.
In a press conference called late last night, Ollanta Humala dismissed the claim that was sent to Locumba to organize reservists as scrutinizers. Why, asked Humala would he be sent to Locumba to do this? He had been previously posted in Huancayo, the capital of Junin, which would have been a more logical place for such activity given its electoral weight.
The second half of Montesinos’ statement inadvertently reveals the limits of his own knowledge. Specifically, he appears to lack a clear understanding of why Humala led the uprising in Locumba. Montesinos implicitly offers three quite distinct interpretations of this event. Each interpretation coexists uneasily with the others.
The first interpretation is that Humala’s uprising was a “farce” and a ruse aimed at providing cover for Montesinos’ flight from Peru. Montesinos goes on to support this by saying that a serious military rebellion would have counted on support among military brass and the public, and would have threatened Fujimori’s power. Humala’s rebellion, if that is what it was, “never put at risk the continuity of the government.”
Curiously, Montesinos never offers any material evidence that he orchestrated Humala’s rebellion, something he ought in principle to be able to do. He merely reiterates the assertion–which has been a subject of speculation from the moment that the rebellion occurred–that the “farce” was a smoke screen.
The second interpretation offered by Montesinos is that Humala sought notoriety. In this view, the rebellion was aimed at creating a “personal image,” presumably with an eye toward a future political career. At least prima facie, this interpretation seems at odds with the first view. At the very least, it suggests a different motive for the Locumba rebellion.
A final interpretation is that Humala “lacked contact with the reality of the country.” Montesinos says there was a “possible dose of madness” in Humala’s actions, since the “strategic objective” were never defined. This seems to run contrary to the view that there was a clear strategic objective: to provide cover for Montesinos’ flight.
The inconsistencies between the various motives that are attributed to Humala give the reader the strong impression that Montesinos himself lacks any clear sense of what motivated Humala to lead his rebellion in 2000. That alone would seem to discredit, at least to some extent, Montesinos’ central claim: that Humala was helping to facilitate his departure from Peru on the Karisma yacht.
Note
Cameron, Maxwell A. “Endogenous Regime Breakdown: The Vladivideo and the Fall of Peru’s Fujimori,” in Julio F. Carrion, ed. The Fujimori Legacy: The Rise of Electoral Authoritarianism in Peru. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Penn State University Press, 2006.
Vladimiro Montesinos Intervenes in Runoff Election
Vladimiro Montesinos made statements apparently aimed at undermining the candidacy of Ollanta Humala. In a tape recording leaked to the press, Montesinos called Humala an opportunist and said that, as a military officer under the orders of the National Intelligence Service (SIN), Humala participated in illegal activities in support of the candidacy of Alberto Fujimori in 2000. He also said that the military rebellion led by Humala later in 2000 in Locumba was a farce that never placed the Fujimori government at risk.
Fujimori on Human Rights Abuses
When it comes to human rights abuses committed during his government, Alberto Fujimori always insisted they were “isolated events.” Freed from prison on bail, Fujimori returned to this refrain in his first statement to the press. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet insists that the judiciary in her country is autonomous and that the release of Fujimori on bail does not send any political signals to Peru.
Debate del UPP y el APRA sobre seguridad ciudadana
Hugo Passarello Luna
Lima, 19 de mayo del 2006
Ayer por la noche, en el Hotel Meliá de San Isidro, representantes del APRA y del UPP debatieron acerca de sus proyectos sobre seguridad ciudadana. El UPP fue el blanco directo de las críticas de los panelistas presentes por su intención de ‘descuartizar’ a la Policía Nacional Peruana (PNP) al querer pasar la administración de dicha institución a los municipios.
Por el UPP presentó el Coronel (retirado) José Goycochea y por el APRA el General de la PNP Danilo Guevara.
El evento fue organizado por la Fundación Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, el Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, el Instituto de Defensa Legal y la Comisión Andina de Juristas. Contó con la presencia de distinguidos panelistas: el ex-ministro del Interior, el Sr. Gino Costa Santolalla, un General de la PNP, Enrique Yepez Dávalos, y el ex-viceministro del Interior Carlos Basombrio Iglesias.
El evento empezó con la presentación de Goycochea quien negó que vaya a descuartizar la PNP. Entre otras cosas, el Coronel sentenció que la inseguridad es un problema sistémico, no de la policía, sino de los políticos que el pueblo elige.
Fue interesante su discusión sobre las causas del crimen entre las cuales incluyó a la pobreza, a una educación deficitaria, una cultura de la violencia y la genética familiar (¿?). También hablo de la ‘crisis moral del hogar en el cual el padre y la madre tienen que trabajar y los chicos no tienen quien los eduque.’
Por su parte, el representante aprista tuvo un moderado discurso. Un punto interesante fue la intención de crear AMERICAPOL (siguiendo el ejemplo de EUROPOL) para mejorar la seguridad en la región.
En general ambos candidatos coincidieron con sus objetivos que comprendían, entre otras cosas, mejorar y aumentar los recursos de la PNP y lograr una mayor transparencia en todas las instituciones que trabajan para la seguridad.
Fue de nuevo el UPP que llamó mas la atención abogando por legislaciones más duras y por reinstalar los valores (¿?) en las escuelas para educar a los jóvenes.
El debate tomó una dirección diferente cuando se le brindó la palabra a los panelistas. El Coronel Goycochea fue el blanco de todas las críticas.
Como la mayoría de los presentes eran personas cercanas al tema, toda la discusión se centró en áreas administrativas de la seguridad. Los panelistas reiteraron y confirmaron la intención del UPP de descuartizar a la PNP al pasar su manejo a los municipios y criticaron muy duramente esta idea.
Otro punto que se remarcó fue el plan del UPP de otorgar a la policía poder de detener preventivamente por delitos menores. Lo cual, según los panelistas, era peligroso ya que se prestaba a abusos y a un posible aumento de la corrupción.
El Sr. Basombrio Iglesias dijo que el APRA había presentado medidas con lógica moderna, acorde a la actualidad, mientras que las del UPP fueron ‘novedosas y controversiales.’
Antes de finalizar, Basombrio agregó que era importante notar el mensaje político que el UPP envía al poner a cargo del área de seguridad doméstica a un militar.