In a surprisingly radical move, President Evo Morales of Bolivia annouced the nationalization of oil and gas refineries in Bolivia. He promised that this is the first in a wave of expropriations in other sectors including mining, forestry and land.
The nationalization involves the transfer 51% of shares of oil and gas firms to the state. Foreign firms would be given 18% of oil and gas revenues during a 180 days period as they renegotiate their contracts. With these measures, Morales affirms that Bolivia will recover control over natural resources. The state will assume control over industrialization and distribution of oil and gas.
The reaction in Peru has been swift. Eduardo Garivoto, spokesperson for the UPP, said that Ollanta Humala do not propose to expropriate private firms. The goal of UPP is a mixed economy, something in between a strictly neoliberal market and a centralized and planned economy.
Speaking in the Ventana Indiscreta with Cecilia Valenzuela, Alan Garcia said he thought Bolivia’s Evo Morales was making a mistake, but he blamed Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. According to Garcia, Chavez can pursue confrontational policies because it has a immense quantities of oil and that allow him to engage in “tropical fantasies,” but Bolivia has small reserves and a low per capita income and can ill-afford to enter into confrontation with foreign investors.
Bloggers:
See “Bolivia nationalizes oil- and gas resources” in Un Lobo in Peru and “La primera estatización del siglo XXI” in Gran Combo Club for more.
Update May 2: Reactions covered by local media have been added below.
Author: Michael Ha
May 1st: Alan García retains an advantage of 65,012 votes over Lourdes Flores with 99.95 percent of the ballots counted. Flores refuses to concede until every vote is counted. This attitude is sharply criticized by Juan Carlos Tafur in his editorial today. He says that under the guidance of Xavier Barron, Flores has turned her defeat into a “pathetic comedy.”
May 2nd: Barron is presenting a final appeal to the JNE this morning. It constitutes the last item for the JNE to deal with prior to call a date for the second round. The JNE has reviewed all appeals and returned documentation to ONPE. ONPE will provide the election results with all votes counted this evening. Lourdes Flores will publicly thank her campaign supporters on Wednesday, May 3. Raul Castro, elected congress person for Unidad Nacional, has called Antero Flores-Araoz‘s public comments with regard to the campaign as “no fraternal”.
In this interview, Teodoro Petkoff (editor of TalCual and a critic of President Hugo Chavez) says Chavez is blackmailing the Peruvian people by making relations between the two countries conditional upon voters electing who Chavez wants. This, he says, is a violation of Peru’s sovereignty.
Source: El Comercio, 02 de mayo del 2006
El candidato presidencial de Unión por el Perú, Ollanta Humala, visitó Cayara, donde ocurrió una matanza durante el gobierno aprista de Alan García en mayo de 1988.
Read also: Derechos humanos selectivos
With 99.97 percent of the votes counted:
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.627% – 3,757,686 votes
Alan García (Apra) 24.320% – 2,984,796 votes
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.802% – 2,920,265 votes
Gap between García and Flores: 63,606 votes.
With 71 percent of the congressional vote counted, only 5 parties will pass the electoral threshold and take seats in the legislature: UPP, APRA, UN, AF, FC.
Categories
Al Fondo, a la Derecha
In this essay, Ecuadorian political scientist Simón Pachano asks whether Ollanta Humala can be considered of the political left.
Maxwell A. Cameron
May 1, 2006
According to the BBC, Venezuela is spending billions of dollars of its massive oil revenues on projects designed to enhance Chavez’s influence in the region as a counter-balance to the hegemony of the United States. An opaque $4 billion fund has been put at the discretion of the President. It is estimated that Venezuela has already spent as much as $25 billion on various projects to enhance its influence in the region since 1999.
Chavez recently said that if Alan Garcia is elected in Peru he would have to recall his ambassador “because Venezuela will not have relations with that thief.” He then called for Ollanta Humala to win the election: “Ollanta, save Peru, compañero, and you will have all our support!”
These statements appear to be part of a strategy of “carrots and sticks.” If Peruvians voters support Ollanta Humala, Chavez will use his oil revenue to help Peru; if they do not, he will break diplomatic relations. The not-subtle delivery of this message in the middle of an election campaign is seen by Peruvian diplomats as worse than inappropriate–it is contrary to Venezuela’s commitments as a member of the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
In response, Peru recalled its ambassador to Venezuela, Carlos Urrutia. This prompted William Lara, Venezuela’s Minister of Information, to call Alejandro Toledo the “office boy” and “puppet” of George Bush. Lara said Venezuela would not withdraw its ambassador nor fall into provocations. He also said Garcia, who had asked for a debate with Chavez on CNN, lacked the stature to debate with the Venezuelan leader.
Ollanta Humala lamented the recall of the Peruvian ambassador and tried to distance himself from the dispute by taking issue with both the statements by Chavez and by Garcia. However, he said that he cannot ask Hugo Chavez to cease making statements about Peru. “I cannot ask that of the president. I am a candidate to the presidency.” He said the dispute involved three individuals: Chavez, Garcia and Toledo: “This should not affect bilateral relations. External relations are turning into verbal problems, and this should not be a theme in the election. This is not a problem for Peru, but one between three actors which, leaving aside who started it, everyone laments has reached these levels.”
Humala also said that Garcia does not represent Peru’s sovereignty, and he rejected the claim that Chavez is his political godfather (an accusation made by Garcia). “We nationalists are a sovereign project” he said, “the president of the United States, George Bush is godfather of Toledo and Garcia.” Daniel Abugattas, who will be a member of the next congress for Humala’s Union for Peru (UPP)–mixing his metaphors a little–accused Garcia of mounting a circus and using it as a smokescreen to avoid debating real issues.
Nadine Heredia, Humala’s wife, also disagreed with Peru’s demarche. She deplored the insults and name-calling between Chavez and Garcia, and called for a higher level of dialogue. “We are not in agreement with what has happened” she said. At the same time, she did not believe the dispute reached the point of justifying the recall of an ambassador. According to Heredia, Garcia–who she called the candidate of the right, of the oligarchy–provoked the dispute, and Chavez overreacted. She suggested that Garcia was trying to create a smokescreen to avoid a debate with Humala, and recommended that he have a manzanilla tea.
Garcia said that “Nationalism has become a boomerang against Humala and his protector and godfather. Now, nationalist Peru is against the diplomatic and political invasion of Venezuela in Peru.” According to Peru.21, Garcia appears to enjoy the role of defender of Peru’s sovereignty. He reserved his harshest words for Chavez, who he accused of being a drunk and a thug. “Who does he think he is? Sadam Hussein, and because he has petroleum he can takeover other countries, like Kuwait?”
President Toledo also warmed to the role of defender of Peru. “I will not allow Mr. Chavez or Mr. Morales to express themselves the way they have” intoned Toledo. “Mr. Chavez, learn to govern democratically. Learn to work with us” he said.
The decision to recall the ambassador must have been taken by Toledo personally, since it appeared to catch by surprise an official as powerful as Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, the president of the council of ministers. Kuczynski had advised against escalating the conflict. The Chancellor (or minister responsible for external relations), Óscar Maúrtua, undoubtedly had a hand to play in the decision. He was on record earlier saying “the supreme good of the country is to ensure the election develops normally in Peru.”
Diego Garcia Sayan supports the measure. He is the former minister of external relations who manages the Comision Andina de Juristas (Andean Jurists Commission) a non-governmental organization which is not much liked by Chavez. Before the ambassador was recalled, Garcia Sayan had said that “the statement made on Friday by the Chancellery is quite correct” but he noted that it was missing a logical implication: the recall of the ambassador. “The threats by Chavez are unacceptable. The recall could have practical effects, but it is a symbolic move.” According to Garcia Sayan, the goal of recalling the ambassador is not to break all diplomatic relations with Venezuela but to downgrade diplomatic representation as a gesture of protest.
The decision to recall of the ambassador was supported by Valentin Paniagua, the former interim president of Peru and unsuccessful candidate in the presidential election. The decision was also supported by Lourdes Flores, another unsuccessful presidential candidate who was the target of earlier jabs by Chavez.
All the fuss between Lima and Caracas has gotten the attention of policymakers in Washington. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, issued a press release today in which he said: “restoring peace and democracy required an enormous effort on the part of our countries in decades past, and therefore we should do everything necessary to preserve peace and democracy, and avoid situations that could undermine them.” He placed himself at the disposal of the parties to find a cooperative solution.
Two military officers who signed “oaths of loyalty” to Vladimiro Montesinos remain key players in Ollanta Humala’s entourage.
A thoughtful piece on the current electoral landscape.
Categories
Vote Counting Comes to an End
The vote counting will be done by tomorrow. Once the last 99 returns have been processed, ONPE will have 100 percent of the results ready to announce. Since no party has presented any further appeals to the Special Election Board of Lima Center, the last office open for such appeals, the process can now be closed.
The 99 returns represent less than 20,000 votes, and the gap between Garcia and Flores is over 65,000 votes. It has been clear for over a week that it is mathematically impossible for Flores to overtake Garcia.
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.62% – 3,757,435 votes
Alan García (Apra) 24.325% – 2,984,485 votes
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.79% – 2,919,473 votes
Gap between García and Flores: 65,012 votes.
Now from Habana, Cuba… The heated debate between president Hugo Chavez and the Peruvian government continued today. Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales signed a trade agreement to “favour all people.” In Lima, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski called the treaty a “merely political” one, because the three nations have little to trade beyond oil. In Caracas, Venezuelan presidential hopeful Teodoro Petkoff criticized Chavez’s interference in Peruvian affairs. This evening in Lima, the Peruvian government recalled his Ambassador from Caracas.
Navigating a Peruvian Political Minefield, By Michael Brush, RealMoney.com Contributor, April 28, 2006 – 2:16 PM EDT
Financial writer Michael Brush says fears of nationalization are overblown. He recommends buying shares in Peruvian mines. Unfounded worries about a radical shift in Peru mean these share will ultimately rebound.
Hugo Chavez has reiterated his hope that Ollanta Humala will be elected in the second round of the Peruvian presidential election and not Alan Garcia, who he characterized as a robber and a bandit. President Chávez threatened to recall the Venezuelan ambassador to Lima if García is elected president. Garcia responded saying that Chavez is not acting like a statesperson and is a hypocrite because he condemns Peru for negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States which is also Venezuela’s biggest customer. This afternoon Garcia challenged Chavez to a political debate on CNN. President Alejandro Toledo has rejected Chavez’ interference in Peruvian political affairs. Garcia has called on the Organization of American States or other hemispheric organisms to intervene in this case. This evening, the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Peru delivered a diplomatic demarche to the government of Venezuela. A spontaneous demonstration against President Chavez took place this evening in front of the Venezuelan embassy in Lima. Demonstrators burned Chavez in effigy.
Read also: Simón Gorila ataca a Alan
Here is the transcript of a dialogue with Martín Tanaka and Santiago Pedraglio on the outcome of the first round and perspectives on the second round of the election in Peru. The dialogue was organized by Palestra, which is produced by the Catholic University of Peru. Download file
Categories
Interview with Henry Pease
Categories
Carlos Chipoco
Chipoco, Carlos. Op Eds on the the electoral campaing. Carlos Chipoco es Miembro de la Comisión Política del Partido Popular Cristiano
Universe: 639 interviews in 39 districts in Metropolitan Lima and Callao. Margin of error: ± 3,95%. Download file
The sample is small and was taken only in Lima, however, there are some interesting findings:
Why do you think Ollanta Humala won the first round?
35.2% Because he is new and against the system with 43.3% of respondents from sector C and 41.5% of the males.
18.7% Because he is a nationalist, with 35.1% of respondents from sector E.
For what reason Alan Garcia would pass to the second round?
20.6% Because he has an organized party with 34.4% from sector A.
For what reason Lourdes Flores may not pass to the second round?
40% Because she is the candidate of the rich. 43.1% of the males, 46.3% of sector D and 43.2% of sector E.
Who was the big winner on April 9th?
37.9% Ollanta Humala and 51.4% from sector E.
Do you believe poll results influence voters?
71.8% responded yes
94.4% of the respondents want a presidential debate and 39.7% want Cesar Hildebrant to be the moderator.
Source: Observa, 28 de abril del 2006
Observa, Observatorio de la Vigilancia Social, es una iniciativa de un grupo de organizaciones que buscan articular, difundir y promover las experiencias de vigilancia social y una cultura de transparencia en la gestión pública.
Congreso aprobó un proyecto de ley que modifica el proceso de elección de los jefes de la ONPE y el RENIEC. La promulgación presidencial de este proyecto de ley implicaría el nombramiento indefinido de los jefes de lla ONPE y la RENIEC. Esta ley beneficiaría a los jefes actuales de estos organismos electorales.
Maxwell A. Cameron
April 28, 2006
Last night I ran into an old acquaintance in the Café Haiti. He told me he has been working on the campaign for Lourdes Flores, and I asked him for his assessment. “The campaign,” he said. The problem lay in a campaign in which Lourdes Flores was depicted as a candidate of the rich. But he also had another more surprising observation: Flores, he said, was marketed like a product. She was surrounded by election marketers and technocrats; the brain-trust of PPC political operators was shunted aside. Politically experienced people like Antero Flores-Araoz were marginalized. “You don’t sell champagne in Abancay,” said my acquaintance. “You can have a great champagne and great publicity, but if people want to drink something else it is useless to sell them champagne.”
This is an interpretation that seems to be gaining ground. The other day, Arturo Woodman noted errors of political judgment, including underestimation of Alan Garcia (something my friend confirmed). Today there is an interesting interview with Felipe Osterling, an old PPC stalwart, who says: “this campaign was carried out basically by technocrats and not by politicians.” Of course, there is a reason why people like Osterling and Flores-Araoz, not to mention Rafael Rey Rey and Jose Barba Caballero, were pushed aside—they are not leaders who have Flores’ broad popular appeal. But an appealing candidate is not enough—solid political judgment and experience is also required to win an election.
Read also: La olla de Dionisio
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.66% – 3,752,036 votes
Alan García (Apra) 24.33% – 2,976,508 votes
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.73% – 2,903,777 votes
Gap between García and Flores: 72,731 votes. (0.60%)
On April 25, Ollanta Humala paid tribute to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, founder of APRA, by visting his tomb during the second day of his tour to La Libertad. APRA followers responded angrily to the tribute and destroyed the floral arrangement. Humala also faced a hostile crowd the day before.
Today, local media covered the reactions of Humala and Alan Garcia to the incidents in La Libertad. Humala claims to be a victim of intolerance from supporters of APRA (also known as bufalos), while Garcia argues that Humala shows a double face by moving away from victimizer to become a victim to gain support. The hotililty in La Libertad is analyzed in an interview with Jorge Bruce. Bruce argues the fact that Nadine Heredia, wife and partner of Humala, did not go to the cementary with Humala was a sign the candidate anticipated a reaction there.
Source: La República, 26 de abril del 2006
Read also: Peru Election: First Punches
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.67%
Alan García (Apra) 24.33%
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.73%
Gap between García and Flores: 73,374 votes. (0.60%)
Arturo Woodman, Lourdes Flores’ controversial vice-presidential running mate, argues that negative attacks on Flores hurt her in the first round election. He also reveals that there was controversy within the Unidad Nacional alliance over how seriously to take the threat of Alan Garcia. One advisor (possibly Guillermo Paredes) told Flores not to worry about Garcia, while Glorisa Ramírez had a different view.
Update: Arturo Woodman was interviewed by Rosa Maria Palacios in Prensa Libre on Wednesday night. During this interview Woodman talked about the campaign. Below we reproduced the views of a fellow blogger on this interview.
Ya lo máximo ya
Ya tengo el poder, 26 de abril 26 del 2006
– Rosa María Palacios: “Lo que pasa, señor Woodman, es que en el Perú la riqueza está muy mal vista. A diferencia de otras sociedades como Europa o Estados Unidos, en el Perú hacer dinero se ve mal, por eso usted tal vez no debió aceptar la invitación de Lourdes Flores”.
– Arturo Woodman: “Efectivamente, en este país no hay una cultura del éxito”.
—-Prensa libre, miércoles 27 de abril del 2006.
Esta gente ya es demasiado. Me parece insólito como pueden ser tan tercos y tan poco autocríticos. Ahora resulta que Lourdes Flores no está en la segunda vuelta porque la gente en verdad es “resentida”, desprecia la riqueza, le gusta ser pobre y quiere que todos sean pobres. Cuando, según esta lógica, en verdad en el Perú, el que quiere, puede hacer plata. Así de fácil.
Este tipo de razonamientos se hacen parte del sentido común, conozco gente que piensa así. Como si fuera un floro que el país es desigual e injusto; como si no hubiera exclusión y racismo, como si las leyes fueran iguales para todos, como si la educación y el acceso a la salud fueran iguales para todos. Como si no supiéramos todos que a la gente con plata lo único que le interesa es tener más plata ellos y por eso la mayoría no les da su voto.
Si en el Perú hay desconfianza hacia la riqueza, es porque esta es estructuralmente ilegítima, y ese es el problema que hay que atacar, o por lo menos, admitir. Los resultados de la primera vuelta no le han enseñado nada a nadie: “Lourdes ha perdido porque la gente es bruta, por culpa de los cholos resentidos”. Asu. El panorama, en verdad, es cada día más desolador.
Source: La Primera, 27 de abril del 2006
Según Alan García, el astro argentino de fútbol, Diego Armando Maradona, vendría a apoyar la campaña de Humala por su afinidad con Hugo Chávez y Evo Morales.
You may notice that Maradona’s t-shirt has a picture of Ollanta Humala. We wander where he bought it…
La Republica reported today 15 cases of hostility against presidential candidates and media reporters during the electoral campaign. Lourdes Flores was target of seven of this attacks.
Source: La Republica, April 25, 2006
DATUM Internacional Survey: Download file
Update, April 26.
We have added to this post an interview with Manuel Torrado, Datum’s Director. He warns that the race is still close and that the gap between Garcia and Humala is not great enough to presume that Garcia would win a second round victory. If we take the total votes (not valid votes), the 43 to 37 percent difference is (barely) within the margin of error. That is, if Garcia is really at 40 and Humala is also at 40 percent (which this poll cannot rule out), then we have a tie. What is more, 20 percent of the voters could still go either way. Torrado confirms that the race is largely between north and south, with Garcia currently leading in Lima.
Preliminary Comments
Maxwell A. Cameron, April 25, 2006
The first poll conducted following the April 9 presidential election has been released. The survey firm DATUM interviewed 1,126 respondents. The findings are within a margin of error: + or – 3 percent 95 percent of the time, and the sample represents 79.9 percent of the electoral population. Interviews were conducted in urban and rural areas in: Lima, Callao, Cusco, Áncash, Loreto, Piura, Puno, Arequipa, Junín, Ayacucho, La Libertad y Lambayeque.
The DATUM poll shows Garcia in the lead with 43 percent of the vote and Humala trailing with 37 percent. 17 percent would cast blank or spoiled ballots, and 3 percent are undecided. In terms of valid votes (omitting the undecided or those casting spoiled or blank ballots), Garcia has 54 percent to 46 percent for Humala.
Regarding the 17 percent who say they will cast a blank or spoiled ballot, if the margin starts to look too close for comfort some may alter their intention and make a decision. My guess is that Garcia rather than Humala would benefit, but that is just a hunch based on the presumption that anti-Aprismo animates the spoiled ballots crowd, but anti-Humalismo may trump this in the end. If we look at the breakdown of the spoiled/blank vote by income group, it decreases steadily as you move from A/B (29 percent) to C (19 percent) to D (16 percent) and E (14 percent). There is more unhappiness about the choice between candidates among the AB voters than among the D or E voters.
According to the data presented by DATUM, it would appear that much of the vote for Flores has begun to migrate to Garcia. Consider the vote breakdown by gender. Whereas Humala would have received 30 percent of the female vote in a race against Flores, he gets 34 percent against Garcia. In other words, 4 percent of the female vote has moved from Flores to Humala. However, Garcia has 44 percent of the female vote, fully 10 points more than Humala.
In terms of age distribution, the biggest gap between Humala and Garcia is those in the 26 to 35 year range. Whereas 35 percent of them support Humala, 45 percent of them support Garcia. Humala may be picking up some of Flores’ young voters.
Garcia now has 57 percent of the voters in the urban A/B sectors, while Humala has 12 percent. Humala’s 12 percent is up from the 9 percent he would have picked up in a race against Flores. Garcia is also well ahead of Humala in the C stratum: he has 52 percent to Humala’s 25 percent. However, in the D and E groups (by far the most numerous), the two candidates are virtually tied at 40 or 41 percent in each.
We have been arguing that this second round will be largely a fight between the north and the south, with Lima up for grabs. At this point, Garcia has 49 percent in Lima, to Humala’s 32 percent. Humala is going to have to make a major push to win votes in Lima if he is to have a chance of winning the election.
In the south and central regions, Humala dominates with over 54 and 53 percent respectively. Garcia has a 56 percent lead in the north. The west is leaning toward Humala with 38 percent to Garcia’s 33 percent. In general, Humala does better in the rural areas.
The DATUM poll suggests that levels of approval of both Humala and Garcia are low. For that matter, the level of approval of all three of the front-running candidates is low. My problem with this question is that I have no idea what it means. What does it mean to say “I disapprove” in answer to the question “Do you approve of the public efforts [the Spanish phrase is “labor publica”] that are being carried out by…?” The problematic wording raises larger issues concerning polls.
This poll does not predict who will win the next round of the election. It provides a snapshot of current voter preferences. Since it was conducted before the official first round results were announced it may reflect the fact that there are still many voters who have not really begun to process their new choice.
Also, campaigns matter. Here I have to disagree with colleagues who say that neither polls nor debates influence the process. The impact of polls is probably over-stated, but polls matter to strategic voters. Debates can have a huge impact. In general, campaigns matter and this one has just begun.
If Humala runs a great campaign and wins the runoff, that does not necessarily mean this poll was wrong. It may mean that the initial distribution of voter intentions changed in the course of the campaign. By the same token, the polls did not miss the fact that Garcia was holding steady through most of the first round and that Flores was in decline. The best polls showed the two candidates very close which, as it happened, was accurate. The polls did generally understate support for APRA. This is not necessarily because the polls are bad; it may be because there is a “hidden vote” for APRA.
The record of DATUM is not terrific, but nor is it terrible. On April 5, 2006, they placed Garcia and Flores in a tie with 24 percent, and gave Humala 26 percent. Obviously, they were off (by twice their 2 percent margin of error) with respect to Humala but they did place Humala as the front-runner and reported a tie between Garcia and Flores. APOYO was marginally better (giving Humala 27 percent). During the blackout period, CPI circulated a poll that had Flores in the lead.
In short, polls have biases and some polls have more biases than others. Leaving aside the issue of whether people answer pollsters truthfully, there are potentially important sample biases that affect most polls in Peru. It is costly to reach into the countryside and measure the support of candidates like Humala who may be strongest in rural areas. The lesson? Polls should be treated with caution and interpreted carefully.
Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.69% (3,748,167 votes)
Alan García (Apra) 24.32% (2,970,132 votes)
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.70% (2,895,159 votes)
Gap between García and Flores: 74,973 votes.
The issue of whether the FTA should be submitted to a referendum is being examined by a constitutional commission of the congress. Some argue that the issue should be placed before electoral authorities, not the legislature. In any event, the congress will have to decide whether to proceed with this initiative, the real purpose of which may be to force a public debate. On the strategy of the opposition, see arguments made by Javier Diez Canseco.
Whereas two members of the Fujimori clan–the daughter (Keiko) and brother (Santiago) of the former president–won seats in congress, Martha Chavez, the presidential candidate, was frozen out of the second round. Chavez shows signs of regret over the contrast between the success of the congressional slate and the disappointment of her own presidential aspirations.
April 26th: We have added a La República interview with Salomón Lerner Febres published today.
Read also:
Hasta los grandes se equivocan
Interview with La Ventana indiscreta: Carlos Tapia declara su apoyo a Ollanta Humala
La izquierda boluda
Recordar es volver a vivir
Prisionero de sus contradicciones
April 20th: Local newspapers have picked up some reactions fron leaders of the Peruvian Left to Carlos Tapia’s change of tune
Source: La República, 26 de abril del 2006
The brains behind the APRA campaign are meeting to talk about second round strategies. Apparently the idea of a “social front” will figure prominently.
Presidential rivals do battle over Peru’s history
By Hal Weitzman in Trujillo, Peru
Financial Times on line, published: April 26 2006 00:12
For Weitzman, “the Humala-García contest pits two of Peru’s most powerful political institutions against each other: Apra, its oldest and most formidable party; and the military, which has governed the country for much of its recent past. The two have clashed many times but never has the confrontation been channelled so starkly through the electoral process.”
You will need a subscription with FT.com to read the whole article.
Categories
Julio Carrion on the Second Round
Political Science professor Julio Carrion (University of Delaware) offers his analysis of the second round in the Diario Financiero (Chile). Professor Carrion has written for this blog and participated in a forum on the election we organized last December.
In this essay, Mario Vargas Llosa makes the case for an alliance between APRA and Unidad Nacional. Two things are extraordinary about this argument. First, Vargas Llosa was a bitter adversary of APRA in the 1980s. Second, as Mirko Lauer noted on Rueda de Prensa last Sunday, the formation of an alliance between the much-maligned “traditional political parties” (Popular Action and the Popular Christian Party) and his own movement, Libertad, contributed to the electoral defeat of Vargas Llosa in 1990. Lauer expanded his argument in his La Republica column today.
Most of the commentary generated by Vargas Llosa’s op-ed has been negative. We have reproduced the views of local analysts, published in the last two days, below.
Read also: Los sueños húmedos de Varguitas; Alianza electoral? Para que?
Categories
Interview with John Crabtree
APRA proposed a social front without success in June 2004. The proposal has been resurrected as a potential campaign strategy for the second round.
Previous postings on the subject:
En el Apra crece consenso por candidatura única para próximas elecciones
Le llueven críticas al Frente Social por su composición
No hay puntos en comun entre el APRA y AP
Alan García equivocó estrategia electoral