Archive for June, 2006
Garcia Meets Lula; Andean Leaders Meet in Quito Summit
President-elect Alan Garcia met with the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, in Brazilia. This first foreign meeting may be interpreted as an indication of the policy alignment to be expected from the Aprista leader after he assumes the presidency in July. Garcia has repeatedly expressed admiration for Lula, and he restated this following the meeting—going so far as to say, with respect to Lula’s presidential re-election bid, that his own heart is on the left.
Garcia did not speak about his conflict with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in his meeting with Lula, but he did say subsequently that he has no intention of apologizing to the Venezuelan leader. In previous weeks Garcia has directed harsh words at Chavez for pulling out of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN).
While Garcia was in Brazilia, the leaders of Andean nations were meeting in Quito as part of a summit of the CAN. Bolivia’s President Evo Morales assumed, pro tempore, the presidency of the group. The four Andean leaders–Alfredo Palacio of Ecuador, Álvaro Uribe, newly re-elected in Colombia, Peru’s Alejandro Toledo and Evo Morales–agreed to ask for an extension of a preferential trade arrangement with the United States, due to expire in December this year.
The agreement to request an extension of the ATPDEA followed four hours of tough negotiation because two countries in the region, Colombia and Peru, have already negotiated an FTA with the United States and therefore do not need an extension of the preferential trade arrangement. This attitude was criticized by Morales as “blackmail.” In the end, Peru and Colombia agreed to go along with the request for an extension in the interest of group solidarity.
The four leaders also requested the start of trade negotiations as a bloc with the European Union. Chavez was not invited to the summit, because Venezuela has pulled out of the CAN.
Carlos Torres Caro abandona alianza PNP-UPP
Se agrava la crisis. Carlos Torres Caro, ex candidato a la segunda vicepresidencia de Ollanta Humala, se constituyó en el primer disidente de la alianza PNP-UPP debido a creación del Frente Nacionalista. En una conferencia de prensa que ofreció en el Hotel Bolívar manifestó que se lleva a cinco congresistas, César Pajares, Vicky Leiva, Javier Cáceres, y los asesores Jorge Quevedo y Víctor Girao; y buscará captar a otros congresistas y sectores leales a Unión Por el Perú. Por otro lado, José Vega, dirigente de UPP, aseguró que la salida de ellos es un caso aislado y Antauro Humala apoya este retiro considerándolos verdaderos “nacionalistas”. Hoy día, Ollanta Humala ofrecería una conferencia de prensa para pronunciarse al respecto.
Luis Castañeda y Humberto Lay se reúnen con Alan García
Los lideres de Solidaridad Nacional y Restauración Nacional, Luis Castañeda Lossio y Humberto Lay se reunieron con el virtual Presidente de la República para expresarle su saludo, aunque la prensa comenzó a especular sobre posibles alianzas y apoyos para futuros procesos electorales.
Sólo faltan actas de Japón para tener resultados al 100%
A partir del 2007 habrá voto electrónico
Note to Our Readers
With the second round of the election completed, we are now returning to Canada where we will continue to monitor events in Peru from a distance—and with somewhat less intensity—until July 28, 2006, when the new government is inaugurated. After July 28 the weblog will remain permanently available to anyone who wishes to use it as an educational resource or research tool.
Alan Garcia on Strategy, Power, and Governability
Maxwell A. Cameron
June 11, 2006
Photos: M.A. Cameron
In a meeting with the foreign press on Friday, June 9, Alan Garcia was asked about his admiration for François Mitterrand. The reporter mentioned that Ollanta Humala professes admiration for Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles De Gaulle, and he wondered whether Garcia would reflect on the tension between military men and social democrats.
Garcia said that military commanders tend to give commands and orders; they value order and “verticalize” society. Since the public rejects the tendency of democratic decision-making to be slow, the challenge is to demonstrate that democracy can operate within an authoritative and efficient state.
But Garcia said that it does not take a military man to govern with authority and energy, and this is why he admired Mitterrand. In addition to being an egalitarian republican and a socialist, Mitterrand also had superior tactical and strategic capacity. That Garcia identified closely with Mitterrand in this respect was made manifest in his statement that “a civilian can be a better tactician than a military man”—an obvious allusion to Humala.
Asked about the nature of power, Garcia said that power equals blame. Whoever has power is immediately blamed for everything. Therefore, who shares power also shares blame. Power never belongs to a single person or party. He cited political scientist Robert Dahl’s Who Governs? to make the case that in all democratic decisions power is distributed across a wide range of institutions. The politicians who have known how to share power, such as Mitterrand and Bill Clinton, have completed their terms as winners. “Whoever shares power, ends up winning” he said.
Concerning the challenges of governability facing the country, Garcia rejected the idea that he has to privilege the southern highlands where voters rejected him in favour of Humala. He insisted that he has won 7 million votes and is not going in “Humalize” himself (“no me voy a humalizar”). “Let us not forget the majoritarian message of the electorate. My first commitment is to my program and my electorate.”
Garcia also had harsh words for Humala for refusing to accept defeat gracefully. “He does not know how to lose. If one does not have greatness, one cannot lose with greatness. I regret that so many Peruvians have given their votes to people who don’t know how to lose.”
“The waters have returned to their normal level,” said Garcia with respect to the outcome of the election. That is, in spite of fears of an “irruption of something irrational” during the election, the result has been sealed without any disorder. If Humala persists in intransigent opposition Garcia said he would respond with the law. He called Humala someone who has recently left the barracks and needs to learn democratic habits.
Alan García solicita a Ollanta Humala cita concertadora
UPP y UN se disputan Comisión de Fiscalización del Congreso
Interview with Magdalena Chú (ONPE)
El APRA y Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (CVR)
Faltan 186 actas para cerrar conteo electoral
Elections, Democracy and the State
Maxwell A. Cameron
June 9, 2006
It would be hard to understate the success of the second round presidential election on June 4, 2006. In the week prior to the election there was violence on the campaign trail and rumours of possible unrest in certain parts of the country if one of the political parties in contention lost. Yet election day came and the voters turned out in large numbers. They were orderly and peaceful. Yes, there was a confrontation in Arequipa after the polls closed, and there were isolated incidents elsewhere in the country, but by and large the election unfolded uneventfully. On 9:30 pm with over 77 percent of the vote counted, preliminary results were announced by the National Office of Electoral Processes; it was clear that Alan Garcia had emerged as the winner. There was no uproar, nor allegations of fraud. The reservists did not pour into the streets in protest. Everyone accepted the outcome as final.
The election is a big step in the consolidation of Peru’s democracy. Yet it also revealed huge divisions in Peruvian society, and it has exposed the limits of the Peruvian state. One of the biggest divisions is between town and countryside. In rural areas, voters sometimes have to walk for days to get to the polls. Others use public transport, but find that bus companies raise their fares to gouge customers on the weekend of the election. Rural voters often lack basic information about how to vote, or even where and when to vote.
Even more dramatically, many people in rural areas lack basic legal identification necessary to vote. The problem is most severe in the case of rural women. In some rural families, only the head of the household gets an identity card, leaving the rest of the family invisible to the state. A major reason for this is expense. Although it costs less than $10 (31 soles) to get an identity card, this is serious cash for those whose involvement in the cash economy is minimal. It is estimated that as over a million voters lack identity cards, and a quarter of a million people do not even have birth certificates.
Add to this the fact that many rural voters are illiterate and the problem is even more acute. Illiteracy is very high in rural areas. Statistics on this are unreliable, because there is no test of literacy when citizens take out their identity cards. People are merely asked whether they are literate. Rural schools are poor, and older rural inhabitants were schooled many years ago. They may have been taught to read and write at some point, but they are generally functionally illiterate today. Since members of voting stations are drawn by lottery, some of these people wind up becoming election officials on election day. The nice thing about lotteries is that they are democratic, but they also assume a basic level of civil competence. Without this competence, all sorts of problems may occur on election day and can give rise to material errors in the completion of voting returns. In some cases such errors can result returns from entire voting booths (which typically have around 200 voters) being annulled.
Add to this the complexity of the first round election, in which there were over 20 parties competing in three separate elections. Each member of the polling booth had to sign a form to install the poll, to carry out the scrutiny, and to close the poll. These forms were filled in at least 5 times (maybe more if there are lots of scrutineers who want copies), and had to be competed separately for each of the three elections. This meant signing at least 45 forms. In the first round, many members of polling booths were at work by 7 am and still signing forms by 11 pm in the evening—with only the most minimal sustenance provided during the day. The greater dispatch of the second round, and the speed with which results came in, demonstrates the difference that simplicity in the ballot can make.
The problem of the rural voter creates a huge opportunity for state building and the promotion of civil society. For example, peasant confederations could be used to distribute didactic material on voting procedures. Rural radio stations reach out to indigenous voters in their own native tongues, and they could be used to disseminate information about voting. In the process, resources could be channeled into rural areas and linkages built with rural communities. Peasant schools could be used for educating voters about the electoral process. A campaign to document voters would be a big step forward in promoting the presence of the state in rural areas, and the international community could be enlisted to provide resources. The state could also do a better job of getting voting stations into rural areas. More voting stations would help rural voters, especially if they were open for longer hours.
There is a notable contrast between the dramatic conditions that confront voters in rural areas and the hesitancy of officialdom to undertake steps that would make things easier for rural voters. For example, the Peruvian constitution is interpreted to mean that elections can only be held on one single day. This means there are no advance polls, nor can votes be submitted by mail. Advance polls are not logistically hard to organize, and they would take a lot of pressure off the entire system. The postal vote has been used by many countries around the world, and is not difficult to implement. Yet such simple reforms are met with indifference or resistance in Lima by officials and even by non-government organizations.
Electoral officials in Lima debate subtle distinctions such as whether election law permits a ballot to be “single” or “double,” or whether a general election is a single event or three separate elections (presidential, congressional, and Andean parliament). The various bodies responsible for the electoral process—the body that organizes the election, the body that resolves legal disputes, and the body that manages the voter list—wrangle at length over issues jurisdiction and competence. These disputes occupy much of the attention of officialdom, distracting them from focusing on more concrete issues like getting polling stations closer to voters or providing adequate training to the personnel in charge of polling stations. Last year a law was passed enabling the military and police to vote, yet the changes necessary to put this into practice were neglected. As a result, many soldiers were unable to vote because they were under orders to provide security for polling stations on election day. A postal vote would benefit the armed forces, as well as rural voters. It would also help people in jail who have not yet been found guilty. It would be one thing to dismiss the idea of a postal ballot if the state was capable of guaranteeing the vote to everyone legally entitled to vote, it is quite another when the state is denying the suffrage to those entitled to vote under the constitution.
Two aspects of the election process seem to cause serious distress and yet the willingness of electoral officials to address them is next to nil. One is the fact that voting is not only obligatory—the failure to vote results in a heavy fine. This punitive measure is especially harsh on poor people, and is bitterly resented. Why should voting—the ultimate act of popular sovereignty—be legally required? It would be one thing if the state were able to place polling stations near all voters and enumerate all those citizens eligible to vote. But if the Peruvian state is so deficient that it cannot provide legal identity to all its citizens, how can it insist that all should vote? Worse still, the fear of getting fined is a source of reluctance to acquire identity cards.
The second aspect of the electoral process that is unusual is the practice of destroying ballots once they are counted. As a result, recounts are impossible. Instead, when material errors appear in the voting returns, rather than recounting the votes, judicial decisions have to be made about whether voting returns are legally valid. If scrutineers of a political party challenge the results of a particular voting booth, it is not possible to go back and recount the votes. Rather, electoral official must decide whether to accept or reject the voting return. Advocates of this system suggest that the current system is better than retaining the ballots, since arguing over 83,000 voting returns (some 40 percent of which were challenged in the first round of this election) is more efficient than arguing over 16.5 million votes. The difference, however, is that all one can do with voting returns is decide whether they are legally valid. With original ballots the issue is not one of interpretation but one of simple recounting.
Another example of a regulation that was made by officials that simply cannot be enforced is the prohibition on the dissemination of polls one week before the election. In the age of the Internet, it is not surprising that the results of the polls conducted in the last week—and there are many such polls—circulate by a host of means and often wind up on the Internet reported by foreign services and returning to Peru. The law would be more enforceable if it prohibited the dissemination of polls for 24 hours or 48 hours before the election day, but one week is simply too long.
Political scientists Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz have argued that there can be no democracy where there is no state. The electoral process in Peru offers opportunities for state building that could, at the same time, reinforce democracy.
John Crabtree: The Return of Alan Garcia
Old left versus new left
Jorge Castañeda
Daily Times (Pakistan)
June 8, 2006
OAS Secretary General Seeks to Improve Peru-Venezuela Relations
José Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, says that he will wait a few days for the passions excited by the election in Peru to abate before seeking to ameliorate relations between Peru and Venezuela. “Nobody likes to be monitored” he said, but at the same time he recognized the role of the OAS is to ensure that “all countries play by democratic rules.”
Ollanta Humala’s Hardline Opposition
Ollanta Humala may have lost the presidential election, but he received 47.5 percent of the popular vote, he heads the party, Union Por el Peru (UPP), that won the largest number of seats in congress (45 of 120), and he won a majority of the vote in 15 of the 25 departments in Peru. Humala is a force to contend with. The question is, what kind of force will he be?
Early indications are that he will be a tough opponent. He refuses to congratulate Alan Garcia on his victory; he expresses no confidence that the Garcia government will be a good government; he rejects the idea of a 100 day truce with the new government; and he says he will lead opposition to the FTA in the streets as well as in congress. Humala also plans to field candidates in the municipal and regional governments in November this year, and he has proposed the creation of a Nationalist, Democratic, and Popuular Front (FDNP). He says the front will be nationalist rather than leftist.
There are also early indications that it will be hard to hold together the disparate elements within the UPP. A series of fights have already broken out. The first dispute occurred when Aldo Estrada, a founder of UPP, said that now the elections are over Humala is not his leader. This dispute has been papered over, but it no doubt reflects deeper divisions between older members of the UPP and the newer members, many from the Nationalist Party of Peru, who joined when Humala assumed the leadership of UPP. The second dispute has broken out between Carlos Torres Caro and left-wing leaders, notably Carlos Tapia, that joined UPP during the campaign. Torres Caro appears to believe that Tapia the left wing are behind the idea of the FDNP.
The role of the opposition is critical in a democracy. A strong opposition will be necessary to keep the executive honest. Playing the role of opposition will give Humala a chance to demonstrate his ability to work within the democratic system.
Debate on Parties, Preferential Vote and Electoral Threshold
Most of the action on this blog today is in the “comments” section under the posting on “Constructive but Fragmented Opposition in Congress” below.
Lima Decided the Second Round Outcome
Rici has provided tables with the latest numbers. Download file
He writes:
“I changed the colour-coding so that the department is just coloured according to the majority winner, regardless of whether they got 50% or not, which makes it easier to compare the results to the 2001 second round (also included). There are lots of things that could be said about the comparative results, but the most interesting observation is how similar the two elections were, outside of Lima.”
He also provided the comparable results from 2001. Download file
“In 2001, Perú Posible won 16 departments plus Lima. In 2006, UPP won 15 departments. The ten departments in ‘the excluded south,’ as mapped by La República today, are on both of these lists. (Apurímac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cusco, Huancavelica, Junín, Madre de Díos, Moquegua, Puno, Tacna). So are Amazonas, Huánuco and Loreto. The margins of victory are comparable, although generally more dramatic in the 2006 election.
However, when you look at Lima, the picture changes completely.
Note also that the number of blank/null votes was much higher in 2001.”
Just to drive the point home, I think it is fair to say that the big contrast between 2001 and 2006 is the voting behaviour of Lima, especially the poor voters. The fact that APRA carried Lima–every single district of Lima–in 2006 decided the outcome of this election.
Results as of 6:30 pm, June 7
According to the ONPE website, with 98.95 percent of the results computed, APRA has 52.54 percent of the popular vote, and UPP has 47.46 percent.
Crisis within UPP
Only two days have passed since the runoff presidential election on June 4 and already disputes are breaking out within the Union For Peru (UPP) party. Aldo Estrada, founder of UPP, says that Ollanta Humala is no longer his leader. At issue appears to be Humala’s call for the formation of a National Democratic and Popular Front. Carlos Tapia has accused the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) of seeking to exploit divisions within the UPP. Jorge Del Castillo of APRA says that Humala announced the front without consulting UPP, and this, not meddling by APRA, has produced divisions. There are 19 members of congress who come from UPP, the remainder of the 45 seats are held by those loyal to the Peruvian Nationalist Party (PNP) of Humala.
Juan Carlos Tafur warns Humala against following Evo Morales and seeking to destabilize the APRA government. The comparison is not apt: Humala lacks the support of a powerful indigenous movement and an organized political party. His main goal should be to build a strong mass party organization.
Constructive but Fragmented Opposition in Congress
In spite of the new electoral law that established a 4 percent threshold that must be achieved by parties in order to hold a seat in congress, the congress that will be inaugurated on July 28, 2006, will be highly fragmented because many of its new members were elected as representatives of alliances that are already showing signs of disunity. As the only disciplined party in congress, APRA is likely to be able to cut short term, informal deals on specific issues with many smaller groups, however, it will be hampered after the brief 100 day honey moon period offered by some legislators by the high level of legislative fragmentation.
OAS Preliminary Report
In a press conference in Lima the chief of the OAS mission in Peru presented his preliminary report on the election of June 4. In his remarks, Lloyd Axworthy recommended that Alan Garcia seek to overcome the social divide between rural and urban voters and to focus on social inclusion. He called on Ollanta Humala to devote his efforts to constructive opposition. Axworthy noted that the Peruvian authorities had taken their objection to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s interference in the Peruvian election to the General Assembly.
Nicolas Maduro, president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, was also an observer in the Peruvian elections and he called Peru’s electoral system “anarchronistic.” He denounced the media campaign against Humala as “brutal” and financed by the United States.
Member of congress and former foreign minister Luis Gonzáles Posada called the OAS useless and compared it to a car with a powerful engine and flat tires.
Interview with Javier Azpur (Propuesta Ciudadana)
APRA favorecerá a pueblos del sur del país
Source: La República, 07 de junio del 2006
Whither Garcia?
Alan Garcia promises that the next minister of finance will be neither a statist nor a globalist. He is open to debating the Free Trade Agreement with the United States in the next congress, and has said he has no interest in leading a movement against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In fact, having won the elections, Garcia demonstrated little interest in continuing the dispute with Chavez.
Santiago Pedraglio asks whether Garcia will govern from the right or the center-left, like Lula and Michelle Bachelet. He warns that the biggest opposition to his government will come from the left, and hence he would be wise not to govern from the right. Meanwhile, the challenge on the left is to build an organized political movement.
Resultados al 97.786%
Source: La República, 07 de junio del 2006
Results at 97 percent
Courtesy of Rici, we have results at 97.173%, extracted from ONPE’s web pages (uploaded by ONPE at 6:30 a.m.).
Rici writes: “García’s majority is now 666,266. There are 472,378 voters in mesas which have not been counted plus 2,237 challenged votes. So it is now mathematically certain that García won.” Download file
“For comparison, I’ve included the summary of the first round (Resumen1.pdf) in roughly the same format (also using percentage of total votes, not valid votes).” Download file
At 97.46% of the votes computed, 52.5 percent favor Garcia and 47.5 percent favor Humala.
10:00 am ONPE Presidential results at 97.17%
Alan Garcia 52.57% (6’795,584 votos válidos)
Ollanta Humala 47.42% (6’129,318 votos válidos)
666,266 votes between candidates
¿Alan García es el Anticristo?
Videíto no manda
Tregua política al APRA
Peru Takes Dispute with Venezuela to the OAS General Assembly
APRA: Measures Proposed for the First 100 Days
Mauricio Mulder se ha opuesto energicamente a la conformacion de asociaciones de trabajadores apristas (ATA). El APRA propone para sus primeros 100 dias medidas que fomenten austeridad en la burocracia estatal, reactivacion del banco agrario, dinamizar el banco de la Nacion, licitacion de carreteras, creacion de una zona franca en Puno.
Interview with Antonio Zapata (Historian): North-South Cleveages
ONPE Results at 95.597%: Political Map
Source: La Republica, 6 de junio del 2006
La agenda Humalista: Frente Nacionalista Democrático y Popular (FNDP)
These are some latest developments:
– A “co-government” scenario between Union por el Peru-APRA is out of the picture. Instead, UPP and the Nationalist Party will form a new alliance to participate in November elections: Frente Nacionalista Democrático y Popular (FNDP). This front will focus on calling upon the independent left and not the leadership of established political parties such as the Socialist Party and Movimiento Nueva Izquierda.
– 19 newly elected congresspersons, originally UPP, may leave the nationalist alliance to represent their party interests in congress. UPP leaders do not favour a FNDP. A decision will be taken on June 17.
– Gonzalo Garcia is being discussed as a candidate for mayor of Lima.
Interview with Carmen Mendoza del Solar: Plan Sur
El día después para los nacionalistas
Hugo Passarello Luna
5 de junio del 2006
Fotos de H. Passarello Luna
Luego de conocerse los resultados oficiales de la ONPE ayer por la noche el centro de campaña nacional del UPP fue testigo de un continuo exilio de ‘militantes.’ Parecía que como tan rápido se llenaron las filas del nacionalismo así se comenzaba a vaciar.
Para cuando Humala se retiro de su centro estaban junto a él sus más fieles seguidores y un solo fotógrafo: yo. El “Comandante” se retiraba con una esforzada sonrisa.
El día después fue tranquilo para los humalistas. Quizás por el aplomado cansancio de esta dura campaña o quizás por el dolor de la derrota, el cuartel general estuvo mas tranquilo que lo habitual, con menos visitas y con algunas luces apagadas.
Ya faltaban muchos de aquellos que tan ávidamente habían corrido junto a Humala.
Los que todavía seguían allí y los que llamaban por teléfono compartían la misma pregunta: ¿Y ahora qué?
La siempre dificil relacion con la prensa
Durante el día se vivió solo un pequeño incidente cuando un simpatizante que llegaba al centro agravio a los periodistas presentes con un insultos y amenazas. Ese sentimiento de decepción con los medios fue mas virulento la noche anterior cuando, luego que Humala aceptara los resultados de la ONPE, la prensa se retiro en una lluvia de insultos y algún que otro forcejeo con los simpatizantes que estaban fuera del centro de campaña. “Prensa corrupta”, “Amarillos” y demás adjetivos fueron lanzados contra los periodistas.
Second Round Election Results
Rici has provided us with up-to-the-minute electoral results in several tables. The first provides election results by Department at 95.6 percent of the votes computed. The next tables shows results by provinces of Lima, by regions abroad, and by districts of Callao and Lima.
Perhaps the most astonishing finding is that APRA has won in every single district of Lima.
To read the tables, Rici writes: “In the attached file, the percentages are of total votes, on the basis that I believe the blank/spoiled ballots are really ‘neither of the above.’ The name of the division is colour-coded green or red if Apra or UPP, respectively, won at least 50% of the total vote.”
Download file
La opinion de Santiago Roncagliolo sobre las elecciones
Santiago Roncagliolo (ganador del premio Alfaguara 2006 por Abril Rojo, una novela marcada por la acción de Sendero Luminoso y la represión del gobierno de Fujimori) escribe su breve opinion sobre la nueva composicion de la politica peruana.
Chancellor Oscar Maurtua – Speech to OAS General Assembly
Cobertura de la prensa extranjera
Declaracion Mision de Observacion del Parlamento Europeo
Alan’s back – but different?
John Crabtree, Comment is free… The Guardian, June 5, 2006 03:55 PM
Second-time round Peru’s new president favours ‘liberal economics’. Washington is happy; less so are other Latin American leaders.
Interview with Alan Garcia (Washington Post)
Mi experiencia como miembro de mesa II: Crónica de una victoria anunciada
Photo: Liliana Ching
ONPE at 77.331%: Nuevo Mapa Político del Perú
Source: La República, 05 de mayo del 2006