Opinion – Latinoamérica21: The Peruvian warning

On the Latin American scene, the healthy rules of the political game can be distorted, but fortunately not much, especially in deeply divided countries, as is the case in most of the region today. This is a lesson that many insist on ignoring, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego. And the latest (dramatic) events in Peru are a reminder of that.

Possibly, the third vacancy attempt promoted in the Peruvian Congress by opposition parties may not have obtained enough votes to remove President Pedro Castillo. But faced with the possibility that his former allies could play a trick on him, the president opted to force the rules of the game and dissolve Congress a few hours before the vote on the vacancy motion. A flight ahead that only helped him discover just how isolated he was. Everyone from the military leadership to deputies from his own party, Perú Libre, rejected the presidential manoeuvre. Today Castillo remains abandoned and alone in the same prison where former president Alberto Fujimori is also found.

When the press and observers try to explain how it is possible that he got to this situation, they emphasize Castillo’s inability to govern the country. And it is certain that his erratic conduct of public affairs is a key factor in explaining this crisis. The count of this year and a half of his presidency shows a spectacular accumulation of stumbles and ruptures. He formed, in this brief period, five governments, sometimes with radical representatives, sometimes with moderates, and even with conservatives. The last major rift was with his project strategist, Vladimir Cerrón, the man who formed the Peru Libre party and brought it to the presidency.

Undoubtedly, this inability to steer the country’s ship is a powerful reason to explain the current situation. However, it is not the only one and perhaps not the most profound. I believe that the fundamental cause is related to the lack of knowledge by the representative elected in June 2021 of the country’s true political composition. It is shocking that the media tend to forget that Castillo won the second round with 46.8% of the vote against 46.6% for his opponent, Keiko Fujimori of Fuerza Popular.

In other words, when Castillo arrived at the Government Palace in Lima, he found a country radically divided. This represented a considerable dilemma: should he carry out the leftist program that elected him or, in view of the division of the country, should he moderate it to try some kind of reunification of the country?

Deep down, this is the same dilemma facing the new progressive governments in Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Argentina. For this reason, I continue to argue that Latin America is not experiencing a new progressive wave, as it happened at the beginning of this century.

The example of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is paradigmatic. His first government was the result of a shift in the electorate towards progressive positions, he won the elections with more than 60% of the vote. Today, however, he barely surpassed half of the electorate.

Both Petro and Boric, Fernández and Lula already know that they will have to govern a country deeply divided, politically and culturally. What is not so clear is whether they are fully aware of the consequences this means in practice.

Peru’s current drama should be a warning to sailors, a lesson learned that should not be ignored. Everything indicates that trying to promote a leftist program in a radically divided country presents enormous risks, which could lead to the search for erratic paths, as happened in an exaggerated way with Castillo.

The task facing progressive governments in the region is complicated. Far from pushing leftist programs in depth, they must find a balance between moderate execution of these programs and broad agreements with opposition forces to avoid a polarization that would lead to ungovernability in their countries. The abyss that Peru is now in should be a powerful warning to many neighboring governments.