Archive for June, 2006
Toledo Signs Free Trade Agreement
This story is being followed at Living in Peru.
Interview with Enrique Bernales
Congresistas de UPP evalúan “gesto político” frente a Torres Caro
¿A dónde va el Perú tras el 4 de Junio?
Here is an opinion piece on the election in Peru that a colleague recently brought to my attention. It is well worth reading.
Congress Passes Free Trade Agreement
The Peruvian congress decided to debate the ratification of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States last night. After the debate began a fight broke out as a number of recently elected (but not yet sitting) members of congress broke into the legislature to interrupt the deliberations. At 2:30 am the trade agreement was passed by 79 votes to 14 against, with 6 abstentions.
Source: La Primera, 28 de junio del 2006
Nancy Obregón y Elsa Malpartida, congresistas electas de UPP, intentaron frustrar el debate sobre la ratificación del Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC) con los Estados Unidos.
Ollanta Humala apoyará acciones de protesta contra el TLC
Source: La República, 27 de junio del 2006
Invitado por la Coordinadora Nacional de Lucha contra el TLC, en conferencia de prensa Ollanta Humala dejó muy en claro que respaldará la marcha de mañana y el paro nacional que se realizará el 4 de julio contra la ratificación en el Congreso del Tratado de Libre Comercio con los Estados Unidos.
Nelson Palomino marca distancia con Ollanta Humala
Carlos Torres Caro presenta agrupación Partido Demócrata Peruano (PDP)
El legislador electo Carlos Torres Caro, quien renunció a las filas de la alianza UPP-PNP, presentó su propia agrupación política junto a los parlamentarios Gustavo Espinoza y Rocío Gonzáles, asegurando que ésta no será violentista y presentará propuestas al gobierno buscando preservar la democracia.
Iglesia Católica: Apra debe ejecutar las recomendaciones de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (CVR)
Monseñor Miguel Cabrejos, presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal Peruana (CEP) y arzobispo de Trujillo, pidió continuar con el plan de reparaciones para las víctimas de la violencia política.
Interview with Francisco Durand
Nelson Palomino de “Kuska Perú” se reúne con Alan García
Continuando su serie de encuentros con dirigentes de agrupaciones políticas y sociales, el presidente electo Alan García recibe hoy al líder cocalero Nelson Palomino, recientemente excarcelado, quien acaba de presentar su movimiento político “Kuska Perú”, y con Ulises Humala. Por otro lado, el líder de UPP, Ollanta Humala, pidió explicaciones a los congresistas de su bancada que asistieron a creación del partido del dirigente cocalero.
Ollanta Humala: Alianza con UPP no es indispensable para su proyecto político
UN y Frente de Centro aliados del Apra en el Congreso
Si se suman los votos de los parlamentarios del Apra (36) con los de Unidad Nacional (17) y los del Frente de Centro (9) da como resultado 62 adhesiones, garantizando su gobernabilidad parlamentaria.
Government of Peru rejects interference by Hugo Chávez
The Peruvian government issued a press release rejecting what it called efforts by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez to plant seeds of doubt with respect to the results of the recent election. The Peruvian government insists that the election was conducted with transparency and the results were accepted by the electoral observation mission of the Organization of American States. In a counter-communiqué, Venezuela’s foreign affairs ministry denies that it has interfered in Peruvian politics, saying that President Chávez was the target of offensive statements by Alan García.
Mirko Lauer: Claves para entender al Alan García político
UPP y PNP ratifican alianza política, pero se presenta nueva corriente: Kuska Perú
Aunque Unión Por el Perú (UPP) y el Partido Nacionalista Peruano (PNP) ratificaron su alianza, su bancada ha sufrido la irrupción de una nueva corriente denominada Kuska Perú, una facción constituida por congresistas que representan a los cocaleros dirigida por el dirigente cocalero Nelson Palomino. El plenario no estuvo ajeno a incidentes violentos, Upepistas oficialistas se enfrentaron a golpes con personas relacionadas a Torres Caro.
Hugo Chávez: Alan García is United States’ “lap dog”
American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) spokesperson Jorge del Castillo has asked the government of Alejandro Toledo to take new measures against Venezuela following a statement by its President, Hugo Chávez, who said Aprista leader and president-elect, Alan García, is a “lap dog” of President George W. Bush of the United States. While in Chile recently, in a visit with President Bachelet, García said “we have been victims of political interference and I think that the will (of Chávez) to expand his model of populism and statism does not work in the rest of the countries of the region.” Venezuela is seeking Chile’s support in its bid for a seat in the Security Council of the United Nations. Chile has not yet taken a position.
García Calls for Bloc Opposing Chávez’s Venezuela
During his visit to Chile, Alan García Pérez called for a model of regional integration in opposition to the interventionist policies of Hugo Chávez. “The government of Chile, together with Peru and Brazil, provide an alternative to the model of statism and poor democratic manners that Venezuela wishes to impose.” García also left the door open to a Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Peru.”
The reaction from Venezuela was swift. “García has damaged any possibility of serious relations. There will be no relations with Peru,” said Chávez in a speech in Panamá.
García Meets Bachelet
President elect Alan García met with Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet in La Moneda. In protest, human rights lawyers presented charges against García for human rights abuses during his first term (1985-1990).
Humala calls on García to Reject FTA
Ollanta Humala called upon president-elect Alan García not to ratify the recently negotiated Peru-US Free Trade Agreement.
Dircote halla manifiesto de Ollanta Humala a favor de “Andahuaylazo”
Su situación se compromete. Ollanta Humala podría ser incluido como acusado en el proceso por el llamado “Andahuaylazo”, la Dircote halló en la guantera de la camioneta que trasladó a su hermano Antauro a dicha ciudad un manifiesto firmado por el ex candidato a la república.
Se inicia proceso de transferencia al gobierno aprista
Pugna por liderazgo de alianza UPP-PNP
A horas de su plenario decisivo, la alianza Unión Por el Perú (UPP)-Partido Nacionalista Peruano (PNP) está en crisis. El presidente de UPP, Aldo Estrada, manifestó que si se renueva la alianza con el Partido Nacionalista será con él como líder, mientras que para José Vega, secretario general de PNP, el líder es Ollanta Humala.
Partido Aprista da por cancelada reunión García-Humala
Alan García recibió credencial presidencial
Alan García with vice presidents (elect) Luis Giampietri & Lourdes Mendoza del Solar
Source: La República, 22 de junio del 2006
Alan García recibió del Jurado Nacional de Elecciones la credencial que lo acredita como ganador de las últimas elecciones presidenciales. Manifestó el deseo de llevar adelante un gobierno con la participación de todos los sectores posibles, de amplia base.
A false and damaging dichotomy
Maxwell A. Cameron
June 21, 2006 05:05 PM
Comment is free…
The Guardian
A backlash against free market orthodoxy is gaining momentum in Latin America. As voters in the region turn against the status quo, some are looking for radical change while others are seeking more modest reforms.
Alan García Pérez narrowly won the run-off election in Peru on June 4 by offering a programme of “responsible change.” His competitor, the nationalist Ollanta Humala Tasso, promised a more radical transformation. The candidate most closely associated with the existing economic orthodoxy, Lourdes Flores Nano, did not even make it into the run-off.
A similar race is heating up in Mexico, where voters will choose their next president on July 2. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) is neck and neck with the candidate of the incumbent National Action party (PAN), Felipe Calderón Hinojosa. Polls show the two candidates in a technical tie, with López Obrador gaining on his rival.
Calderón has tried to distance himself from incumbent president, Vicente Fox, by calling himself a “disobedient son” while portraying López Obrador as a dangerous radical and a protege of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. López Obrador denies any connection with Chávez, and has lashed back at Calderón with allegations of nepotism, corruption, and influence-peddling.
A broader scan of the region reveals a lot of diversity within the much-debated shift to the left. In countries including Chile and Uruguay, where democracy is strong, political parties are well organised and corruption is minimal, moderate socialists are advancing progressive social policy agendas.
After a rocky start in her first 100 days in office, Chile’s president, Michelle Bachelet, has made 36 specific promises in areas such as education, healthcare, public security, pensions and labour rights. She redoubled her commitment to reform after surprisingly militant student protests placed her government on the defensive. Another moderate socialist, Tabaré Vásquez, was elected in Uruguay last year on promises to address poverty and unemployment.
In the Andean region, where indigenous peoples have suffered centuries of exclusion and discrimination, where party systems are fragmented and corruption is rife, the backlash against economic orthodoxy has resulted in more radical nationalist and populist movements.
On May Day, Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, fulfilled a major campaign promise by announcing the nationalisation of the gas and oil industry in Bolivia. He has also moved quickly to redistribute land belonging to the state. A national development strategy has been unveiled that seeks to dismantle the legacies of colonialism and the effects of neoliberal policies in recent decades. A major goal of the new government is to recognise Bolivia’s multicultural society in law and in the constitution, and to that end a constituent assembly has been convened.
A growing chorus of observers and policymakers, including the Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer, The Economist, Mexico’s former minister of foreign affairs, Jorge Castañeda, and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has argued or assumed that there are “two lefts” in Latin America, one social democratic and the other radical populist.
These labels are value-laden; in the words of Castañeda, there is a “right left” and a “wrong left.” This tendentious, simplistic, and misleading dichotomy is a hindrance to understanding both the backlash against economic orthodoxy and the various leftwing forces capitalising on it.
There are three good reasons for rejecting the right/wrong left shibboleth. First, the left typically reflects the society in which it emerges; one might as well argue there are right and wrong countries. Second, not all rights and wrongs come in coherent packages. Leftwing movements and parties often do some things wrong and some things right. Third, dichotomising the left leads to mistaken expectations about international alignments and conflicts. In general, radical postures disguise pragmatic intentions.
It is easier to be a moderate social democrat in stable and ethnically homogeneous countries such as Chile or Uruguay than in politically unstable and ethnically divided countries such as Ecuador, Bolivia, or Peru. The constitutional separation of powers, the rule of law, and property rules evolve in diverse ways under different historical and structural conditions.
Evo Morales’ decision to nationalise Bolivia’s oil and gas industry may be a threat to private property and an economic error – it is probably unwise to nationalise an industry when the principal investor, in this case Brazil, is also the nation’s main customer – but the Bolivian leader is pursuing a vision of the national interest that is defensible on both constitutional and democratic grounds.
What is right on one policy dimension may be wrong on another. Chávez, with the unwitting assistance of a largely self-seeking and incompetent opposition, has created a political system with few real checks and balances. He has also attempted to provide basic health and educational services to people who were neglected under the corrupt power-sharing arrangement known as the pact of Punto Fijo (1961-1998).
Chávez should be neither deified nor demonized. He earns plaudits for his commitment to the poor, but, with the supreme court stacked, legislative elections uncontested by the opposition and the president rattling his sabre at the media, it remains unclear whether the Bolivarian revolution can secure for itself a viable political and constitutional framework in which fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed. Indeed, it is doubtful whether Venezuela will be able to hold competitive, transparent and fair elections at the end of this year.
Most of the leftwing movements and parties in the Latin American region fall far short of any ideal of social democracy or radical populism. Castañeda has difficulty deciding whether Alan García is part of the “right” or the “wrong” left. García’s APRA party, clearly “springs from the great Latin American populist tradition,” says Castañeda, but “Chavez’s unabashed meddling in the Peruvian elections may have so alienated Alan García that he actually becomes a European-style social democrat.”
As a causal argument, this is preposterous. Even if we leave aside the fact that García provoked and benefited from Chávez’s interference in the Peruvian election, the idea that the dispute will have a lasting effect on García’s political orientation is ludicrous. The main reason why García will not govern like a European social democrat is that Peru is not a European country. García’s main challenge is to overcome barriers to the inclusion of indigenous peoples in Peru’s apartheid-style society, not negotiate a European-style class compromise.
The absurdities inherent in the right/wrong left dichotomy are exposed when observers use such crude stereotypes to explain international alignments or conflicts. For those who imagine a “serpent” stretching from Havana through Caracas to La Paz, Evo Morales’s radicalism is a product of the dark machinations of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.
Morales, however, is nobody’s puppet. In last week’s summit of presidents from the Andean Community of Nations, he proved to be a consummate pragmatist. Not only did he reject Chávez’s option of pulling out of the Andean Community, he used his leadership to support closer relations with the European Union and to push for an extension of trade preferences and drug cooperation with the US. Bolivia’s behaviour was neither strident nor nostalgic, but perfectly consistent with national interests.
The presumption that there will be a growing rift between Latin America’s radical populists and responsible social democrats is belied by Brazil’s measured response to the Bolivian nationalisation of oil and gas, as well as the courteous diplomatic relations between Morales and Bachelet.
Brazil may be pleased that Chávez’s meddling in the Peruvian election backfired and helped García. At the same time, Brazil is leaning toward backing Venezuela’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Tensions between South American countries may intensify, but they are likely to have more to do with national interests than ideological divisions between the so-called modern and archaic lefts.
There is a familiar ring to the distinction between the modern versus archaic lefts. Neoliberal reformers also saw themselves as imposing modernity on archaic societies. In their view, the “right policies” (the so-called Washington consensus, involving privatisation, deregulation, free trade, and the promotion of foreign investment) had to replace the “wrong policies” (protectionism, state ownership, subsidies, regulation of foreign investment). Those who resisted getting the policies right – peasants, unions, import-substituting industries, economists who had not read the “right” textbooks – belonged to the retrograde past. Arrogance and insensitivity got in the way of building sustainable and inclusive political coalitions.
How unfortunate, and how ironic, it would be for the left to make the same mistake.
Corre riesgo de cancelarse reunión García-Humala
Carlos Torres Caro no ejercerá cargos en nombre de UPP
El legislador más votado de Unión por el Perú (UPP), Carlos Torres Caro, durante el quinquenio 2006-2011 no ejercerá ningún cargo directivo en nombre del grupo parlamentario y su bancada lo fiscalizará durante el tiempo de su mandato. Torres Caro defendió su derecho a presidir las Juntas Preparatorias porque la ley establece que le corresponde asumir dicho cargo.
Garcia’s Visit with Lula a Message to Chavez
According to this story in newsmagazine Caretas, Alan García’s visit with Brazil’s President Lula suggests a close relation between the two leaders could augur well for relations between the two nations, especially since Lula’s prospects for re-election are looking more promising of late. There is a tacit message here to Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, which is seen as having failed in its attempt to influence the Peruvian election. Venezuelan vice president José Vicente Rangel accuses García of being a “professional of anti-Chavismo.” Based on the grudging admiration that seems implicit in this statement, I would conclude that the Venezuelan leadership has belatedly realized how well García has played Chávez for his own electoral purposes.
Apoyo: Expectativas sobre el futuro segundo gobierno del APRA
Source: El Comercio, 18 de junio del 2006
Source: El Comercio, 18 de junio del 2006
Source: El Comercio, 18 de junio del 2006
Source: El Comercio, 18 de junio del 2006
Frente de Centro, Restauración Nacional y PP formarán bancada única
Los partidos Acción Popular, Somos Perú, Perú Posible y Restauración Nacional se unieron para formar una bancada en el nuevo Congreso. Este nuevo grupo consta de nueve miembros y llegaría a 15 después del plenario de Unión por el Perú.
Interview with Carlos Torres Caro (El Comercio)
Izquierda y populismo en América Latina
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, ex presidente de Brasil
La segunda oportunidad
Mario Vargas Llosa
El Comercio
18 de junio del 2006
The Second Round Election in Peru: A Preliminary Overview
Rapporteur’s Report on a Round Table Discussion at the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP), Lima, June 9, 2006.
Maxwell A. Cameron
June 16, 2006
Photos by J. Bazo
A round table discussion was held at the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) to assess the process and outcome of the second round of the Peruvian presidential election which was held on June 4, 2006. Martin Tanaka, director of the IEP, and Maxwell A. Cameron, Professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, led off the discussion.
For a summary of Cameron’s comments, click here.
Martin Tanaka said the results of the second round of the election left a strong impression on many observers, yet some aspects of this impression deserve reconsideration in light of the first round. The most powerful image from the second round was a map of a country divided between north and south, and between the coast and the sierra; Ollanta Humala won a majority of Peru’s departments, especially in the south, while Alan Garcia captured the north; Lourdes Flores did best in Lima, and her votes were transferred to Garcia. The geography of the vote created the impression of a powerful fracture along class, region, and ethnic lines, divisions that can be traced to the 19th century and earlier.
Tanaka cautioned against failing to delineate how far this image of a fractured nation holds true, and he argued for examining the election results in both rounds in all their nuance and complexity. When the second round election is placed in context, it reveals both ancient fractures and new cleavages, changes and continuities. In some ways, the results of the second round in 2001 and 2006 are very similar. The vote for Alejandro Toledo and Peru Posible in 2001, and the support for Ollanta Humala and the Union Por el Peru in 2006, are virtual mirror images—though much has rightly been made of the larger standard deviation from the mean in the 2006 election. For example, the extraordinarily high vote for UPP in Ayacucho, 83 percent, is new.
Martin Tanaka
The biggest difference lies in an observation made by Alfredo Torres, head of the APOYO survey firm, prior to the second round. Torres suggested that the voters of Cusco have served as a bellwether for national election results; in Peru’s modern democratic history Cusco has never been on the losing side of an election. This, however, has changed with the 2006 election. Cusco voted for the loser. The election also casts the importance of Lima in a new light. Prior to the first round, some observers emphasized the electoral weight of Lima. While the candidate preferred by a plurality of Lima’s voters, Lourdes Flores, did not make it into the second round, Lima was, nevertheless, decisive in arbitrating between the two candidates who did.
Carmen Rosa Balbi agreed that there was a difference between the first and second rounds of the election, but she perceived the different in terms of how the rise of Ollanta Humala changed the political agenda of the campaign. Until the end of 2005, there was an ostensible consensus on the success of the existing economic model and on the need for continuity in macroeconomic management. Polls appeared to show that there was a center-right majority in the country; some opinion leaders suggested that to question the economic model was irrational. Little by little, during the course of the campaign between January and April, this center-right common sense began to change, producing a modification in the agenda. In part, this change reflected the fact that for part of 2005, Lourdes Flores was the most active and visible candidate on the campaign trail. She set the tone for the election because she was the first to start campaigning; the tone changed when other candidates entered the fray.
Carmen Rosa Balbi
As the campaign unfolded, and Ollanta Humala rose in the polls, the successes of the economic model began to be questioned with increasing insistence. Issues like royalties paid by foreign firms, and the need to audit and review contracts with foreign businesses, were placed on the agenda by Humala, and then picked up by other candidates. There was a notable radicalization of the message delivered by Alan Garcia, who echoed Humala’s insistence on the need to revise contracts with foreign companies. Humala did not win the election, but he did contribute to shifting Peru’s political agenda to the left. The fact that he won 47 percent of the vote suggests a turning point has been reached in Peru.
Alberto Adrianzen agreed with the view that Humala had achieved a lot against great odds. As he put it, “Humala received a very high vote in spite of all those who opposed him: his father, his mother, his brothers, Jaime Bayly and most of the media, APRA, UN, Fujimori, the United States, the Church. Never before has their been such a solid front against a candidate.” The opposition to Humala went so far as to paint him as a “fascist,” or as 21st century Sanchez Cerro. Carmen Rosa Balbi seconded Adrianzen’s criticisms of the media, saying that she could not recall such unfair coverage of a candidate in any previous Peruvian election.
Adrianzen also argued that Lima sank Humala. Remove Lima from Peru, Adrianzen argued, and Humala won the election by about 400,000 votes. Lima gave Garcia the advantage he needed to win. Humala won in the highlands and the jungle. What is more, according to Adrianzen, the people who supported Humala voted for him not as an act of protest or out of bad humour alone: he was the political option for those on the other side of Peru’s geographic, regional, social and economic fractures. In the “Indian stain” (the highland areas inhabited by the indigenous people of Peru), Humala received around 70 percent of the vote. His vote was highest in those areas, like in Ayacucho, where there was the most violence during the war with the Shining Path revolutionary movement. Peru may be witnessing the birth of a new political party, a process reminiscent of the 1930s when APRA emerged. Humala has changed the political map.
Alberto Adrianzen
APPA won with conservative votes, according to Adrianzen. Support for APRA was as high as 86 percent in affluent districts like San Isidro in Lima. APRA won with the votes of those who can be expected to benefit from the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Fabiola Bazo challenged this view, noting that APRA won in poor districts as well. In fact, APRA won in every singled district of Lima. On one point everyone is agreed: the election was a divisive one, and the level of tension as very high. As a result, there was a decline in blank votes between the first and second rounds, contrary to what many expected, as well as an increase in the number of spoiled votes.
Looking toward the future, Adrianzen predicted “serious opposition,” and not just in parliament. “Happily,” he said, “we’re finished with good manners.” According to Adrianzen, the “good manners” of the political class conceal conflicts and opposed interests. Humala can be expected to push his agenda through a strategy of confrontation that will be unlike in the past, when leaders challenged each other in public and colluded in private. Humala may be more like Evo Morales—with all due recognition for the important differences between Bolivia and Peru.
Marisa Remy noted that Humala had raised his vote between the first and second rounds from 30 to 47 percent; he came within a few points of winning. She noted the diverse projects within his movement.
Marisa Remy
Taylor Boas addressed the issues raised by Max Cameron concerning changes in institutional rules to widen participation in elections, especially for rural voters. He said that changes in rules generally benefits someone and hurt someone else. In a fluid polity like Peru, it may be harder to detect who will benefit from alterations in political rules, and this can facilitate change. In principle, however, it is not hard to see that a change like the elimination of the fine for not voting would probably affect most those for whom the fine matters the most—the poor.
Boas observed the relatively low salience of regionalism in campaign appeals in the election. He said that in election campaigns there are both elements of supply and demand; candidates can emphasize certain cleavages—class or ethnicity, for example—to the detriment of others. In the case of this election, the regional cleavage was not the focus of much of the campaigning. While he agreed with other participants about significant differences across regions in terms of voting results, and that this could be interpreted as a high rather than low salience in the election per se, his point was that differences between regions are also frequently differences between social class or ethnicity, and the latter were the cleavages that candidates actually emphasized during the campaign. Aside from the use of occasional epithets like “the candidate of Miraflores and San Isidro” (which really means candidate of the rich), no one really claimed that they represented the concerns of one region in particular, or that their opponent represented one region in particular.
Boas disagreed with the claim by Balbi concerning the rejection of neoliberalism. He said the economic model has always been part of the debate in Peru, and in the past it has been heavily questioned by the Marxist left. Humala has continued this, with, perhaps, the difference being that he has combined rejection of neoliberalism with anti-system opposition. That is, the “outsider” candidates who have in the past won the votes captured by Humala in this election, Alejandro Toledo and Alberto Fujimori, were advocates of neoliberal politics.
Taylor Boas
Rici Lake agreed with the assertion by Martin Tanaka concerning the similarities between the 2001 and the 2006 elections. In 2001 Peru Posible won about 60 percent of the votes of the south, while in 2006 Humala won closer to 70 percent. The biggest difference is the decline in the number of blank votes. Another major difference is that Toledo won in 2001 thanks to votes from the south, and Fujimori won in 1990 thanks to the same pattern of votes. In 2006, however, the candidate the south supported lost. The political map is not different, it is the same map as before, except that the left has changed. Toledo was elected by the south and failed to deliver his promises to help the south. After this election, the south does not have to oppose its own winner—it can oppose a winner it did not support in the first place.
Jim Rudolph and Rici Lake
Carmen Rosa Balbi agreed with Adrianzen regarding the media bias against Ollanta Humala. She said that the treatment of Humala was unlike anything seen in Peru before. Turning to the prospects for the future, Balbi raised the possibility of an alliance or coalition between APRA and the UPP. Such a coalition would guarantee nearly 90 votes. However, Humala and his inner circle appear inclined to reject the possibility of an alliance and instead seek to lead the opposition to the APRA government; this attitude has begun to produce divisions within UPP (between Carlos Tapia, for example, and Carlos Torres Caro). Balbi suggested that Humala’s refusal to congratulate Garcia on his victory suggests that he does not understand that there is more to this ritual than a “media show.” Peru is a country traumatized by violence. Offering congratulations to the winner is a desirable demonstration of conviviality.
Moreover, Garcia does not represent the right; the specious idea that he won with votes “lent” to him by the right was aptly dismissed by Garcia when he said that his second round votes were lent by the voters not by the right-wing candidate they supported in the first round. An intransigent opposition by Humala would lead to a continuation of polarization in a country in which protest has not been channeled by social movements, where conflict has been expressed politically but remains unorganized socially.
Martin Tanaka took issue with the idea that media bias against a candidate has never been worse than in this election, saying that in the role of the media in 1990 was worse. According to Boas, the worst case, by far, was 2000, when Fujimori’s security advisor Vladimiro Montesinos bought direct government control over the media. The comportment of the media might have been worse in 1990, though it was probably not as clear a case of net bias against one particular candidate.
Tanaka also insisted that the votes for Garcia were not just based on fear of Humala—thought this may have been true for sectors of the elite. Many voters in Lima supported Garcia because they were won over by promises such as the commitment to support microenterprises. Similarly, voters who did not share Humala’s opposition to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States would have been inclined to support Garcia. With respect to the sort of opposition that Humala will build, Tanaka suggested that the jury is still out. It is not yet clear whether his opposition will be loyal.
Alberto Adrianzen argued that the big issue to address for the future is not governability but representation. The task for Humala is to construct an opposition, based on a set of positions distinct from those of the government. The consensus that has to be built in Peru is not one that will be forged in dialogue round tables among technocrats, which have little to do with everyday life for many people. In politics, conflicting positions and interests need to be represented, yet for many Peruvians the systems fails to represent them at all.
Natalia Sobrevilla picked up the issue of the historical cleavages that have divided Peru, arguing that the north south cleavage can be traced to the importance Cusco has retained over time. She suggested, however, that the headway made by Humala in places like Cajamarca in the second round suggest a cleavage that cuts more along the coast versus highlands divide. The south as a region have never really been articulated. There are old rivalries between Cusco and Arequipa, between Tacna and Moquegua, for example. The efforts to create macro-regions stumbled on this reality. Sobrevilla suggested that the elections for regional and municipal governments in November will provide a measure of Humala’s staying power, and whether he has the organization and bases necessary to build a sustained movement.
Natalia Sobrevilla
Sobrevilla also reflected on the ways in which history is used in contemporary politics for various purposes. For example, the effort to “refound the republic” harkens back to most of Peru’s republican history and in this particular case appeals to memories of the confederation. Humala himself has been innocent of much of this, though his father has been more explicit in making historical references. She also stressed the impressive level of support won by Humala in this election, and argued that the 47 percent of the vote won by the UPP candidate was well in excess of the thirds in which the vote has been traditional divided and the quarter of the vote that the right commands.
Marisa Remy responded to Boas’ question regarding the critique of neoliberalism. She argued that neoliberalism has been uncritically accepted for most of the period between about 1990 and 2002. The media are linked to economically powerful groups that have not only muted criticism but have even demonized conflict within the democratic process on over fundamental questions like the viability of the economic model.
Fabiola Bazo wrapped up the discussion with two anecdotes showing how the APRA party is perceived by voters. The first was a conversation with a taxi driver who expressed his intention to vote for APRA because he did well in the first Garcia government as a money exchanger in the blackmarket on “Creole Wall Street.” She also gave an example of residents of San Isidro who were victims of the economic crisis of the late 1980s and, as a result, voted for Humala. These provide illustrations of the complexity of the processes leading to voting decisions.
Fabiola Bazo and Max Cameron
The main conclusions from this round table discussion were:
1. There are important contrasts between the first and second round results. Analysts should be careful about drawing inferences about how the political map has been redrawn based on the results of the first or second round in isolation. There are continuities between the results of both first and second rounds in 2001 and 2006. The biggest difference is that in the 2006 election the south voted for the losing side.
2. The nature of the opposition that will emerge from this election is still uncertain. Humala can be expected to be a tough opponent, provided he has the staying power and can build on the momentum of the election. Whether his opposition will be loyal or not is unclear. That said, conflict is part of democracy and there should be no presumption that only parliamentary opposition is legitimate.
3. There was some disagreement on whether to interpret the victory by Garcia as a victory for the right or the left. On the one hand, Garcia clearly captured right-wing support and his success in Lima tilted the balance in his favor. On the other hand, he won support from across a broad spectrum of voters in Lima and elsewhere. In general, opposition to neoliberalism appears to have intensified in this election largely as a result of the emergence of Humala.
4. Media bias was an issue in this election, though analysts had different views on whether bias was worse than in previous elections. In general, Humala was seen as having performed exceptionally well given his treatment by the media.
5. Analysts confront a major challenge to sort out the continuities and differences between this and previous elections. It is often said that Peru is a fractured nation, yet the specific fault lines, like tectonic plates, bear stress and shift in often unpredictable ways. This preliminary round table could only touch on some of the key questions. Further research, involving systematic and interdisciplinary efforts, will be necessary to decipher all the hidden lessons from this important electoral process.
El “Mea Culpa” de Ollanta Humala
El ex candidato por Unión por el Perú, Ollanta Humala, reconoció los errores que lo llevaron a ser derrotado por el Partido Aprista en la segunda vuelta, anunciando que no violentará el gobierno de Alan García y que lo felicitará por su triunfo.
JNE Proclaims Alan Garcia President
Having computed and processed 100 percent of the ballots, the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE) announced the official results of the second round of the presidential election the other day. Not to be outdone, the National Election Board (JNE) proclaimed Garcia president-elect, thereby bringing the electoral process to an end. Garcia assumes office on July 28, 2006.
Voters’ Remorse
Alejandro Toledo, reviled during most of his presidency, now has a remarkable 54 percent approval rating in Lima as he approaches the end of his term. Voters in the capital may be starting to think better of their leader as they brace for a second APRA government. Or perhaps, to paraphrase the Bard, nothing in his presidency became him like the leaving it.
Interview with Farid Kahhat: Bolivia’s Pragmatism
Bolivia has proven to be more pragmatic in its relations with its Andean neighbours than might have been anticipated by those who presumed that Bolivia would follow Hugo Chavez and leave or disrupt the Andean Community of Nations. Farid Kahhat, an expert on international relations, suggests that Bolivia is taking a pragmatic approach to issues like the negotiation of an agreement with Europe, rather than following Chavez’s obstructionism. Once again, this suggests the shallowness of the rhetoric of “axes” or “ejes.”
Encuesta Post Electoral de la U. de Lima
Source: La República, 15 de junio del 2006
Ficha técnica
UNIVERSO: Hombres y mujeres residentes en Lima Metropolitana y el Callao, entre 18 y 70 años de edad, de todos los niveles socioeconómicos. MUESTRA: 500 personas. SUPERVISIÓN: 30% de la muestra mediante la técnica de la visita. APLICACIÓN DEL CUESTIONARIO: Sábado 10 y domingo 11 de junio de 2006. REPRESENTATIVIDAD: 94,69%. FINANCIAMIENTO: Universidad de Lima.
¿Una ley para sancionar a los tránsfugas?
Interview with Jorge del Castillo (APRA)
UPDATED: Elecciones al 100%: APRA ganador con 52.625%
Source: La República, 14 de junio del 2006
La Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (ONPE) entregó los resultados de la elección al 100%. Alan García (APRA) obtuvo el 52.625% de los votos (6’985,017 votos válidos), mientras que Ollanta Humala el 47.375% (6’270,080 votos válidos).
Total de Electores Hábiles de las actas computadas: 16’494,906. Actualizado al 100.000% de actas computadas el 13/06/2006 a las 15:06:33 horas
Junio 14: Hemos añadido los comentarios y/o análisis de los medios de prensa.
Repercusiones por la renuncia de Carlos Torres Caro
En conferencia de prensa, Ollanta Humala calificó la salida de Carlos Torres Caro, Isaac Meckler, Rocío Gonzales y Gustavo Espinoza como un “acto de deslealtad” hacia el proyecto llamado Frente Nacionalista, mientras que el padre del ex candidato a la presidencia, Isaac Humala, calificó de “parásito, piojo, comodín y aventurero” al virtual congresista de la república y Aldo Estrada, ha advertido que no es ningún “incondicional” de Humala y que no le permitirá ningún intento de boicot al gobierno aprista. El futuro partido de gobierno manifestó que no se negará a conversar con Torres Caro.
Carlos Meléndez (IEP) sobre el “Outsider Perdedor”
Interview with Alberto Adrianzén
El analista político y sociólogo Alberto Adrianzén manifestó al diario La República entre otros temas que la derecha tiene una actitud destructiva en contra de UPP, que se busca desvirtuar al humalismo como opción política y un interés por liquidarlo como oposición.
Javier Portocarrero sobre el sur andino
Interview with Carlos Tapia
Interview with Carlos Torres Caro
¿Lourdes Flores candidata el 2011?
El congresista Xavier Barrón planteó la reelección de Lourdes Flores Nano como próximo presidente del Partido Popular Cristiano (PPC), para el periodo 2007-2011, alegando que “no existe nadie que la pueda reemplazar en el puesto”.