Comments on: Presidential Elections in Peru

By: Rafael

Rafael — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:14:00 +0000

You are absolutely right in the sense htat Peru is a country largely defined by hegemony. When cell phones first appeared in Peru, for example, having one broadcasted your high status to anyone in range, and people wore them conspicuously attached to their belts, almost as a batch of distinction in the Bourdieuan sense. The informal market quickly reacted to the symbolic value of the phones, fake ones were made by cottage industries, and sold mostly to middle and lower-middle class customers, just for their sheer symbolic value. Folks displayed them as accessories. And there are many examples like that, of people quick to adopt the standards of dominant groups –distorted mirroring, kind of. Of course, there are many other facets of culture that are the opposite of hegemony, but hegemony is part of the culture nonetheless.

Yet I don’t think that Fujimori’s appeal is hegemonic. As I suggested in the post, I cannot quite put my finger on what explains his appeal, but I am not sure if I’d go with hegemony,. That’s my first reaction, anyways. I have to thinkk about it

By: Laslanian

Laslanian — Mon, 16 May 2011 04:02:00 +0000

reading this and flashing back to the little I knew of Peru when he was President, how about if we appeal to the very nimble and varied concept of hegemony—- and, since I do not know what is going on in Peru right now— possibly also the idea (again a little bit of Freud and a little bit of Bourdieu) that where there is chaos or an overwhelming sense of the unknown or things being in flux, people reach for (any) authority— they prefer a tyrannical father to what they perceive as disorder or chaos or something in between. In a strange way, I think this explains the appeal of Cheney. An ugly, death emanating and chastising figure of control.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Fri, 06 May 2011 03:31:37 +0000

We assume that because she wants to release the thief and murderer from jail, she has repeatedly said that this convict was the best president that Peru has ever had, and because she was a high ranking official, First Lady, during the dictatorship. Hence one could guess that father would have a prominent role if she gets elected. Nothing indicates that Humala’s father would.

By: Chiri Maltrufio

Chiri Maltrufio — Thu, 05 May 2011 13:49:01 +0000

Another Lima resident chiming in… why do we automatically assume that because Keiko’s father was corrupt, she it to? Should we also assume that since Humala’s parents promote the murder of homosexuals and Chileans and the deportation of non-native Peruvinas, that he does to? Let’s take the candidates for who they are, their agendas and what they promote. The “lesser of two evils” should be apparent.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:40:47 +0000

Thanks for the comment Peter. I am also from Lima, saludos. Yes, this is of course a one-sided presentation, as I discuss only Fujimori and not Humala, and as I only discuss Fujimori’s bad points (being a large-scale thief and a murderer who sank the institutional order in my country) and neglect discussing his wonderful side. Hitler also had his good side, all vegetarian and animal lover as he was, a great strategist, a sartorial stylist, as any of the Neo Nazis would agree. But the one-sided accounts of his regime also neglect such good points in part because it is hard to say “sure, he was a mass-murderer but, let us be fair and balanced, also a good guy in some ways” (“so let’s focus on the positive and vote for his kid and number one fan.”) If you vote, my suggestion would be that you consider the notion that voting for Fujimori may be tantamount to legitimizing large-scale thievery and murder. One clarification: the guy who ended Sendero was Kentin Vidal, not Fujimori. Also, if you really think that large scale corruption, etc. sets the basis for progress, then I can only disagree without getting into details.

Yes, poor and disenfranchised folk will vote for Humala, but as they are not a corporate body it doesn’t follow that poor and disenfranchised folk do not support Fujimori as well. It can happen that some would vote for one and some for the other one. As for the liberals cruising around in their big limos while toasting to the victory of the “Chavez clone,” I can only say that I am not a big fan of Humala at all. But, you know , the lesser of two evils, etc.

By: Peter Byrne

Peter Byrne — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:33:33 +0000

This is a completely one-sided presentation. I LIVE in Lima. I can tell you that the only people supporting Humala are the limousine liberals and the very “impoverished and generally disenfranchised individuals” that you cite as supporting Fujimori. I cannot defend many of Alberto Fujimori’s actions. However, he subdued Shining Path and set Peru on the path of economic reforms that have dramatically reduced poverty. Peru is now in a completely different situation now, making the nasty behavior of Alberto Fujimori very unlikely.

And Humala? He is a Chavez clone, financed by Chavez. He is responsible for at least one attempted military coup. Now, advised by foreign political advisers, he has changed his tune. I have no reason to believe that he really has changed.

Not mentioning any of these facts leads me to the conclusion that the author is either uninformed, or has a pro-Chavez agenda.