Ollanta Humala, a left-wing nationalist, has won the presidency of Peru. He obtained a narrow margin, probably four or five percentage points, over his contender, Keiko Fujimori (the final official count was not available at the time of writing). As I suggested in a previous post, Keiko Fujimori, a right-wing populist and the daughter of Alberto Fujimori, ran with the goal of freeing dad and dad’s buddies from prison, where they presently spend their days on charges ranging from large-scale thievery to murder. Many Peruvians feared, myself included, that electing Keiko would be tantamount to transferring these criminals from their cells to the offices of government. For at least the next five years, the duration of Humala’s future administration, this will not happen. For now, Peru has avoided the embarrassment of legitimizing, via the popular vote, one of the worse banana republic dictatorships in Latin America.
The future with Humala is uncertain. Throughout the campaign, he was accused, again and again, of “Chavismo,” of being but a sidekick to Hugo Chavez, bent on applying the obsolete and even ridiculous Chavista template to Peru. To counter this notion, Humala, dramatically and operatically, swore on the bible to scrupulously follow not Chavez’s but Lula’s steps, promising to actually strengthen the market with private as well as with state-oriented investment, while also building programs to increase redistribution of wealth.
No one realistically expects a Brazilian miracle in Peru within the next five years. But in a deeply polarized country, with an already large and zealous right-wing opposition, Humala has no choice but to fulfill his moderate, market-oriented promises. It is likely, therefore, that the economic growth that Peru has been experiencing in the past decade will continue, perhaps after an initial period of internal market speculation and attendant problems such as devaluation and an increase of investment risk indexes.
A couple of reflections
To be very schematic, two left wings seem to be emerging in Latin America. On the one hand, there is the old-guard, populist, anti-imperialist, caudillo-dependent, big-government-oriented left wing headed by Chavez (“capitalism may have ended life on Mars”). On the other hand, there is a socialist in name, but social democratic in practice, left wing, which is clearly market-oriented, pragmatic, generally concerned with redistribution of wealth, and with the environment, education, science and technology. After Lula, particularly, but also after Ricardo Lagos in Chile, José Mujica in Uruguay, Mauricio Funes in El Salvador, and others –this sort of modern left wing is generally seen as successful, politically and economically, and thus as a viable political alternative.
Keiko Fujimori
Humala’s victory seems to be an indication that, probably on account of the “Lula effect,” this type of left-centrism is gaining ground in Latin America. Often headed by formerly radical Marxists such as José Mujica and Dilma Rousseff, presidents of Uruguay and Brazil respectively, both of whom were actually former guerrilla fighters, this new left is rising as a clear alternative to both Chavismo as well as to so called “savage neo-liberal capitalism.”
The bad news is that Keiko Fujimori obtained almost half of the votes in Peru. Politics in Latin America have been a very important source of backwardness and violence. The fact that Fujimori almost got elected is a reminder that banana republic populisms and Mafioso political parties are not dead in this part of the world.
Fujimori made economic reforms that brought down Garcia’s super inflation and brought free trade into the country. He worked hard to get rid of terrorism from 2 prominent terror groups. Can you at least admit that? Reuters does as does CNN and other outlets when Alberto’s name is mentioned. There was corruption and other stuff sadly, but one can’t forget those 2 amazing achievements. Like many Peruvians,I have my doubts about Humala. Will he turn into Chavez? Maybe not. But he seems inept and is already starting to contradict himself. I wouldn’t be surprised if this new administration ends up being one hot mess.
I do not know enough about Peruvian politics specifically to add to this—- but I want to add to the dialogue in some way because there are really important points. I like Rafael’s identifying of a kind of third way—- and in a way, this may be a sign of maturing or finding a real voice. I get the appeal of Chavez. But he is not the answer. And I get the appeal of neo-liberalism but it seems to make a lot of former thinkers and revolutionaries uneasy.
One thing we should all do, as human beings, is never argue for despots who happened— sometimes as a by-product— to do one or two good things for a country. There is no doubt that no matter what the situation in Peru, Fujimori should not be returned to power or in any way vindicated. Say the same about Pinochet in Chile (though we know that he had a lot of popular support). I say the same about much of American government—- what we did in Iraq. I think Cheney and Bush are war criminals. What Kissinger did in South America, war criminal. I believe, as Hitchens points out in the beginning of his book on Kissinger, that Americans cannot yet think this way (are we too young)—- we have a hard time balancing or believing that someone with power, considered legitimate by the majority, may be a criminal. Most people in most places across the globe have no problem with that notion. I do not believe that this is because we are less corrupt—- and I need to stop here, because I will end up saying what I often think— we are an imperialist country with imperialist blood on our hands. And we cannot be anything like a true democracy because we are a (flailing) empire. And never the twain shall meet.
Thanks to both of you for commenting. Sorry, Eva, I don’t really want to discuss the idea that mafia state so utterly corrupt and murderous set the basis for progress in Peru. I will say only that Kentin Vidal, not Fujimori, defeated the Shining Path, and that the “reforms” introduced by Fujimori consisted in following IMF neo-liberal, “Structural Adjustment” models which, having failed in Latin America, today not even the IMF recommends (models that, having thus failed, are in fact largely responsible for the emergence of the new left discussed above, which arose precisely as an alternative to these sorts of reforms).
But, Lisa, yes, I would argue also that there is a successful third way in Latin America. In the nineties, most people thought that the left in Latin America was dead, i.e., limited to utopian projects and to the sort of dictatorships that we see today in Venezuela. Today, and more and more, this sort of modern left is seen as a good alternative.
And I have to agree with you as well: dictators from Stalin to Hitler to Kim Il sung –to Sulla, in Rome– have had popular support. I am not happy to say this but the truth uis that, being Peruvian, I have learnt to live with the uncomfortable idea that murderers and thieves will be defended by regular folk, and by the church, and by the media, often eagerly so, even by those whose lives suffered the most.