Maxwell A. Cameron
The Guardian. Comment is free
April 10, 2006 12:21 PM
Ollanta Humala has emerged as the top vote-winner of the presidential election in Peru. A quick count by the non-governmental organization Transparencia gave the radical nationalist candidate 30% of the vote. This is 20 points short of the 50% plus one vote necessary to win in a first round. Under Peru’s electoral rules, Humala must run in a second round election, which will be scheduled after the official voting results are published.
The runner-up has not yet been proclaimed. The race for second spot between conservative candidate Lourdes Flores, who led an alliance called National Unity, and Alan Garcia, the leader of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA), is too close to call. Transparencia estimated that both have 24% of the vote; the difference between them was simply too small permit a prediction.
Depending on who places in the runoff, Peru will face quite different second round election campaigns.
Humala is a former army commander who led a military rebellion in 2000, shortly after the president, Alberto Fujimori, resigned. He was expelled from the army, then pardoned and given a post abroad. After being forced to retire, Humala devoted himself to organizing a movement that calls for the renegotiation of contracts with foreign enterprises, an end to forcible measures to stop coca cultivation, and the rejection of the recently negotiated North American free trade agreement with the United States. His support is strongest in the provinces, in rural areas, and among the poor.
Lourdes Flores is the leader of the Popular Christian party, and she advocates free enterprise with a stronger emphasis on social policy. Her support is strongest in Lima, and among more affluent, educated, female and urban voters. A campaign between Flores and Humala would pit Lima against the provinces, rich against poor, right against left.
Alan Garcia served as Peru’s president between 1985 and 1990. He mismanaged the economy and the counter-insurgency effort, but in 2001 he made an impressive comeback and nearly won the election in a runoff against current incumbent President Alejandro Toledo. His support is strongest in the north, and is fairly evenly spread across social classes. A campaign between Garcia and Humala would pit an old pol against an up-start, a leader of an organized party against an outsider, a populist-cum-establishmentarian against a radical nationalist.
Should Humala win, the victory will be widely seen as further evidence that the region is turning its back on neo-liberal policies favoured by the United States. Humala has been compared with Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, and Bolivia’s recently elected president, Evo Morales. Like Morales, he opposes US drug policy in the region, and has allied himself with representatives of coca-producing peasants. Like Chavez, he has promised to convene a constituent assembly to re-write the nation’s constitution.
Although Humala is the current front-runner, he may have trouble in a second round. He has been accused to human rights abuses during the time he served as a commander of a military base in 1992. There have also been allegations that elements in Humala’s entourage are linked to Alberto Fujimori’s shadowy spymaster, Vladimiro Montesinos. These and other accusations have tarnished Humala’s image as a tough corruption fighter, and could make it hard for him to capture the additional 20% of the popular vote necessary to win an absolute majority in the second round.
19 replies on “Left in limbo: Will Ollanta Humala take Peru the way of Venezuela?”
Good analysis. I just would like to point out the great mistake that many are making trying to identify Humala as a representative of the Left and with Evo Morales. First of all, Humala is not the Left, at least not the democratic left. How could he be when he has such a bad record regarding human rights? So please, do not insult the democratic left with such a wrong comparison.
Same with respect to Evo Morales. This Bolivian leader is the result of democratic grass root movements. He respects democracy and he is the voice of the unrepresented in Bolivia. You are giving Humala an award that he does not deserve comparing him with Evo Morales. Evo is democratic Humala is not. This latter is an opportunist, Morales is a leader that has worked with the people and now is working with the people. Even though he could have done it, he never led a coup. Furthermore he has never gone against human rights. So please, do not compare Humala with Evo.
I agree totally with Mariana. It appears evident that some would want to link Humala with Morales and others in order to achieve their own self interested goals – FEAR. Many on the neo-conservative right have been fear mongering about Morales for a long time. Here is a very interesting website about his history with the Democracy movementin Bolivia. http://www.democracyctr.org
Other countries would do well to follow this model of Democracy and Humala would not be leading Peru in that direction, I’m sure of it.
I agree with Mariana’s analysis of Humala/Morales. But, I do believe that it is not enough to leave it at that…
Any one person–be they Humala, Morales, or Chavez–is most important as a reflection of what the masses in their particular country are saying and doing, and not in and of themselves. The Left would do well to keep our fingers on the pulse of mass activity, and not over-personalize the objective situation by directing all of our analyses towards the leader.
Yes, it is important to show the contradictions within the leadership, as Mariana did, as well as see their relation to the democratic mass movements. The real question, though, is are these mass movements going to be empowered by the election of these so-called “left” leaders, or is their energy going to be channeled into reformist policies. If the goals of these mass movements are to be made real, there needs to be a continuous development PAST all electoral solutions towards a non-capitalist, human society.
I have lived in countries like Nicaragua when Somoza was under control, in Guatemala when Arana, Rios Montt and the likes were in control, I have lived in Venezuela, before and after Chavez’s turn and in all honesty, there is no clear solution to the problem of democracy. But at times when the decision has been left to the people of the country, not that many go out and vote.
Chavez is in power not because he was elected, but rather because Venezuelans decided not to go out and vote, thus he won with a small % of votes.
The democracy is something that we take for granted and when it is taken away from us, then we cry and pout – I lived in Guatemala in the dark days of political killings and the same in Nicaragua and in El Salvador…
People of Peru – it is your duty to vote and I encourage to exercise your vote, elect whom you wish as this is your country and what goes inside your country is yours and only yours to elect, but do not sit down and wait for other to do it for you because the time may come, just as in Venezuela now, that people will regret to have sit down and act without interest in the outcome.
Right or wrong, it is your choice.
With respect!
Jorge M Paredes
I thank Max for such a great analysis of the situation and for Mariana and Claire for detailing the main differences between the left and the Humalista movement. I would actually go as far as to say that these elections have been a huge blow to the left in Peru. Not a single representative to Congress will be from the left, this from a country that 20 years ago had one of the most thriving organized parties in the left. That of course was Izquierda Unida, that splintered in the 90s, but that continued to manage to have representatives in Congress.
Javier Diez Canseco tried and failed to negotiate with Humala, Susana Villaran who respresents a movement from the provinces was attacked by the Huamlistas.
So does Humala represent the left? I don’t think so. He represents a rejection of neo-liberal policies and a frustration over the economic management of the country, for sure.
Many on the left outside Peru want to claim him as their own, but that is not the case of the trade union movement in Peru nor the long established parties of the left.
So pink/red tide turning? Not so sure, unless a blanket rejection of neo-liberalism is the only thing that remains to being of the left.
Democracy demands a highly qualified citizen. Peruvians (even most educated ones) do not analyze significant amounts of information regarding their options.
(Sarcastic remark: Flores -acording to almost all polls- would win either of both hipothetical second round elections, and peruvians still aren´t sure to get her that far…)
I suggest, people voted for Humala because of a primary identification, without analyzing reasons. Most peruvians are poor, not educated and have little opportunity; so they -with all justice- complain. So Humala always complains “about the fact that”… and people love it. Most people voting for Humala don´t even know what “right/left” means. (Montesinos knows this well…)
The poor, the farmers (people living far from Lima, whose votes we are know waiting for, and which will probably increase Humala´s first round victory) hold a demografic mayority but little wisdom about democratic systems. Responsible for this are lousy political “leaders (again sarcastic)” who have neglected to “lead” the country to greater marriage between different parts of our culture, leaving the poor poor, and the ignorant ignorant, in order to perpetuate themselves as “leaders”…
Democracy without a real sense (and capacity) of citizenship is very risky.
The contradictions of the political personality that is Ollanta Humala has adequately been pointed out by two of the commentators in this topic and while I can not be dismissive of the critique I do question those who it comes from. I tend to agree best with the comment of Mr. Douglas in that it is important to keep a pulse of what the movement represents, and this must go beyond the mear dismissal of its leader. No doubt that in amy movement there are a spectrum of personalities, in Russia an oportunist like Stalin took the reigns of an early peasant and workers revolution and steered it into an authoritarian buerueacratic state, and surely Mao was not the most ardent figure in the movement that broke China free from a cycle of imperial domination.
The people who follow Ollanta head in that direction b/c the left in peru was smashed by a right wing authoritarian who directed the country on a period of growth that is realized in Toledo’s administration. But it is not so simple the left has not only been attacked on the global scale it has been discredited and the ideological victory of the market has cast parties that advocate for full on socialism in a corner of obscurity.
I will also add that the label of leftist is apt if the debate is in terms of what economic route the country will take. Will it continue along the route of neoliberalism and pursue a trade deal that, again I state, is challenged by many sectors of the nations population who call for the agreement to be scrutinized to determine if it is feasible with the conglomerate of diverse national interest? Not just that of the top 5 to 10 % of the population. Or will those who champion electoral democracy yield to a popular chorus for which the elite in the nation has sought not to listen to, and most poignantly so as with regards to popular opposition to free trade as it now stands.
Also look at the parrellel case of columbia a country in which the current president entered but where a great portion of the population did not vote and where not only guerrilla violence is prevelant but also para-military violence pervades most sectors of society. In that instance an electorally designated president, arrived at not by the votes of all, but b/c of lack popular participation, the population who now seeks an extended duration for the country’s presidency. This is not so disimilar from the authoritarian trajectory of the Fujimori regime. Additionally the current president of Columbia has also been heavily questioned b/c of his involvement and support of such agrresive right wing paramilitaries not only in his native state of Antioquia but also the escalation of right wing paramilitary violence throughout the country. Yes a failure to vote my result in a brash talking person like Chavez but it could also result in technocrat linked to violent paramilitaries coming to power.
Lastly I insist and will continue to argue that the fractures in a country such as peru continues to exist b/c of class of people who inherent a culture as outmoded and dubious as that which is closed to different gender differences arrived at through modernity. These elites and their cultural and intelectual offspring are the inheritors of what I deem the colonial condition one where only gente decente, preparado but never an endio or cholo or less so an ill prepared cachaco can participate in society not just economically at the price of assimilation but also politically with dignity and of a possibility of seeing that one day the great rainbow of ethnicities that is peru blazes forth beyond the deep fisures of a nation in search for a meaningfull identity.
I agree that Villaran and Diez Canseco’s deeds speak for them well but if a party can’t match the purchasing power of UN, or the political sophistication of APRA the party has to bark hard and distinctly to be heard.
Yaw runa miquykuna pishtacukuna noqawan runasimipi perlashnakusunki!
Kawsachum Ayllu Huapmu
First, Perú will not be decided due to the lack of voter turnout. Voting here in Perú is obligatory. Second, since there will be second round of voting there will not be a president that gets the seat based on third parties controlling the deciding votes such as in the election in the US between Gore and Bush. In the US if you do not want to have a voice, you can just vote for Mickey Mouse or Batman. Here in Perú in the second round there are only two choices.
The question now, as of 5pm (Lima) on Monday April 10th, is who will run against Ollanta. Will it be Alan or Lourdes? Right now the unofficial count is Alan’s 24.98% to Lourdes’ 24.88% with 74% of the vote counted. Ollanta would be a long shot in the second round. Those who are going to vote for Ollanta have already voted for him. His current 30% will not increase by much, possibly 5-7% leaving him with no more than 40%.
So… Lourdes or Alan? That is the question.
Victor wrote: The contradictions of the political personality that is Ollanta Humala has adequately been pointed out by two of the commentators in this topic and while I can not be dismissive of the critique I do question those who it comes from
My question: is this a personal shot against these folks? Your comment “I do question those who it comes from” implies that you know them, which I very much doubt.
Let’s keep personal comments out of this discussion, si?
Evo Morales and Humala aren’t the same… oh please…wake up!!! He is exactly like Chavez, Morales, and Castro and would like nothing more then to be in permanent control of his country… which Chavez and Morales are doing. Venezuelans have gone to vote in record numbers for every presidential election it was the recent parliamentary elections that Venezuelans did not go out to vote and that was to show that Chavez doe not have the support he says he has. Chavez has made Venezuela worse off economically and how is this good for the poor. Morales will do the same for Bolivia and Humala for Peru if elected…
Yes I agree with the comments of anon lets keep personel comments out of this. When I question a comment it is the interest represented not the person in and of themselves. I will say that all the people who also comment with a degree of insight and prognostication as to political personalities that they do not personally know and whose political work has not yet been realized or even concluded should also not make individualized attacks. But maybe if I had a crystal ball I would.
I am intrigued by the idea of Humala as caudillo, and more nationalist than leftist. Polls say Peruvians have lost their faith in democracy, ergo, a caudillo makes sense.
Is he maybe more caudillo than communist? I wonder.
I don’t get the same vibe from him as I do from Hugo Chavez, whose whole existence seems to be predicated on getting the US’s attention and starting a fight. Humala doesn’t seem like that.
Sure, he is friends with Hugo Chavez, but is he really truly anti-US? I have not caught such an undercurrent, I am doing searches of this guy, looking for anti-US statements and I don’t find any. He may be just a caudillo. I wonder if he wouldn’t in this case resemble Lucio Gutierrez?
He definitely doesn’t draw the emotional intensity of support that Morales did in Bolivia.
He also has curious cultish ideas, such as antisemitic ones that aren’t really mainstream.
I am also intrigued by his links to Fujimori and Montesinos. The latter had ties to the rise of Chavez. But I read that poor people in the mountains who remember how Fujimori sent troops to protect them from guerrillas were many of Humala’s base. Fujimori was a guy who was more right than left, it seems. Could Humala be the same? Another caudillo?
He seems like such an anachronism from another era, a regression to the past, if you ask me.
Nobody who wants to be in power will ever show their “true selves” otherwise, they will never be elected.
Chavez’s initial issue was with the government internal problems such as corruption, partisan benefits within each political party, etc; then he took upon himself to persecute the “rich and well to-do”, lately it has been the US government.
Humala is not saying or being agressive as Chavez; however, the time will come where it will be convenient to be so – Why, you may ask ? It is a social issue where leaders tell their followers what they want to hear. There is a point in any stablished government where the momentum is lost and desperation begins to set in – at that time, leaders begin to tell their followers what they want to hear – is there a need for Chavez to include offensive remarks towards the US every weekend in his radio talk show ? the answer is no – but that is what his followers want to hear and they take delight in hearing it.
Our Latin American leaders prefer us to be ignorant of the issues as it is easier to control ignorant masses than well educated and well informed masses. The greater the level of ignorance, the easier it is to control the giant.
The fact that Humala has be-friended Chavez and most likely has sought out advise from him, should concern the people of Peru – just look at Venezuela today, and it is almost guaranteed that Chavez will most likely find the way to influence Humala.
Power changes people’s visions, it has hapenned all thoughout history where good intentions were twarted by absolute greed for control.
When we talk about democracy we must ensure that we let people know that they must vote with their “knowledge” and not with their “emotions” – Venezuela voted with their emotions in 1998 – and how they regret that today.
Just one more thing for the list. In an interview to a Brazilian journalist (See El Comercio) Humala has said that he and UPP have won 3 to zero (meaning that he has won the presidential election, congress, and the andean parliament). So, does this mean that he consider the other big democratic forces that will be in Congress (APRA and UN) zero? does this tell us how he perceives “the rest”? for him the rest is zero, that’s it. He is not even president yet. However he is already consider the rest zero. A small detail but important to reflect about. A little phrase that reflects what he has in mind.
I might add that Alan el caballo loco also had a particular taste for political hegemony during his stay in office. And that a democratically elected president who played the race card well to get in now fails to listen to popular support for a referendum on free trade.
But another thought is that many of the lighter skinned political commentators and even some bloggers like to deem voters who vote for PNP/UPP as people who don’t know how to vote. Hmm so if you vote for who they tell you to vote for they are smart and know how to vote but if not they just don’t get it. No wonder people have rejected teh likes of MVL and now Lourdes. Altough I think its the crowd that surrounds Dr. Flores Nano more than her who deserve this blame. Hey if democracy is lynching candidates and sequestering other law abiding peruvians from voting just b/c alot of better off peruvians have time to throw a hissy fit, then thats a serious indictment on that class of people. Hey you guys beat up niseis when alberto was surging ahead of MVl why wouldn’t you do it to others. Colonial condition and the VIP republic, you’ll never learn.
But on another note I think the hegemony issues afflicts all peruvian political actors. Egoes are not easily put aside by any party or actor. It appears that reputation and other important matters, perhaps cash under the table, are at stake to let that happen.
thank you
Hello;
WHO are you people? Do you do research, or do you just like to see your baseless predjudices in print?
I am thinking of Jorge here. He expounds on his premise that Hugo Chavez was elected in Venezuela with, I believe that he said, “a tiny %” because according to him, the mass of Venezuelans sat on their hands. Factually his assertion is a load of GUANO which none of you other incipient social Einsteins had the jam to dispute.
The truth is that in 1998 Hugo Chavez Frias and the MVR won 56.2% of the popular vote. The nearest rival was Henrique Salas Romer and the PV which garnered 39.97%. The total opposition vote, adding all parties was 43.8%. Chavez won with the largest margin in forty years of Venezuelan elections. Perhaps you will admit to an error in your research, or is it prejudice?
Oh, and before you start whining again about people sitting on their hands in that election, 63.76% of registered voters cast ballots. The result was certified by the Carter Institute.
For the sake of comparison only, that hero of Democracy GW Bush Jr. gathered 51.0% to Mr. Kerry’s 48.0% in 2004. The total opposition vote including Mr. Nader was 49%. But, of course USAmericans do not sit on their hands. They are educated, understand the requirements of social and democratic responsibility, and always understand what are the issues and the leaders who represent the best interest of the Republic, yes? So why did a mere 60.7% of the Democratically Superior Nation on Earth show up to vote? Who are truly the backwoods boys of democracy?
I agree with you on one thing Jorge, the People of Peru need to find the back bone that, on several occaisions now, the People of Venezuela have demonstrated. The People of Peru have to find the courage to vote out those who represent systems which keep them living in filth, while a quarter or less of the population, in league with multi-national corporations and USAmerican Governmental interests, grow even richer; on their tears, and sweat and blood. That is the point isn’t it George, a FREE vote. I am so certain that you really support that double edged sword.
No, I do not have to be polite, my facts are there, you are a propagandist, you have none.
Nils Fredrickson
Dear Nils,
so 60% turnout is a “mere 60%” while 63% is clearly a counterargument to the claim that Venezuelans did not get out to vote. Interesting.
Even more interesting is the fact that slave countries with high presence of evil multinationals (Chile, Brazil) are better off than the really free ones, like Venezuela and Cuba.
You all seem to know what you are talking about, but what you’re going to see is Alan Garcia Perez winning the Peruvian election. I grew up in Peru (Lima & Chimbote) and go back every year, and have heard from all my Peruvian friends since Sunday and they all hope that Ollanta Humala does NOT get in…if you really want to know the truth, Humala doesn’t stand a chance against the APRA honchos and if I had my way, it would be Alberto Fujimori taking over Peru again!!!! Peru has never seen a better President than him…
Personally, if Humala lives up to his words, and simply holds foreign corporations accountable, there is no reason for investors to flee.
Peru is a nation with staggering potential, and yet grinding poverty is everywhere. Why? Simply because capitalism doesn’t work? No.
I believe there are two fundamental problems. First, the government regulatory apparatus is broken. With a few, relatively inexpensive payoffs, foreign corps can obtain carte blanche. I’m certain that millions in taxes remain unpaid, and (ultimately expensive) environmental damage is going unpunished. Until the government finds the will to collect the revenue it’s due, and then use it to build a proper infrastructure and solid institutions, not much will change.
The other problem is the banking system. Interest rates are usurious, if you’re able to get a loan to start a small business or buy a home. How can the average joe get ahead, paying 20% for a mortgage or small business loan? A system of microfinance is badly needed. The peruvian people are very entrepreneurial — but without capital their talents are wasted.