In recent years, Peru has had more than a dozen prime ministers, including you, and six presidents. The last to complete the full mandate was Ollanta Humala, in 2016. How can this situation in the country?
The political instability you just described, with changes in presidents, high rotation of cabinets and ministers, is explained by the fact that there was a political confrontation that started with a misinterpretation of the Constitution. The concept of “emptiness due to permanent moral impotence” was used in an impermissible way, which forced the resignation of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski [que sucedeu a Humala]. And from there, the political crisis was practically uncontrollable. It must now be said that this explosion of popular protest was the cause of Pedro Castillo’s failed coup attempt.
Was there really an attempted coup? Couldn’t he dissolve Congress as he tried?
Yes, it was a failed coup. Peru’s constitution allows the president to dissolve Congress if it censures or denies confidence to two councils of ministers. What Castillo did was imitate [Alberto] Fujimori in his speech, that is, to attempt an unconstitutional dissolution of Congress. But unlike Fujimori, whose self-attack worked, it didn’t in Castillo’s case. But remarkably, he took that step.
And why did it fail?
Because in an exceptional case, the Armed Forces and the National Police did not support this coup adventure and this should be emphasized, because the behavior of the armed forces of Peru was something very different from the past.
If the armed forces had supported it, the situation today would be completely different.
Precisely.
Do these people who have taken to the streets almost daily for more than two months demanding the resignation of President Dina Boluarte represent all of Peru or just a part of it, as she herself says?
Democratic protests are fair. There is a sector that undoubtedly complains in the south zone that has other complaints reasons. For example, how is it possible that the state that now has economic resources does not provide the entire country with drinking water? The curious thing is that in the southern zone, where most of the protests take place, the region of Peru is governed by left-wing authorities, by regional left-wing movements, which, in the case of drinking water, defend, for example, the monopoly of the 50 public water companies, which do not provide in this fundamental element of living with dignity. To give you an idea of the drama, Peru surpasses only the Dominican Republic and Haiti in drinking water coverage. And this is really unacceptable. In addition to the righteous protests, there are now also acts of vandalism. Setting fire to a police officer is an inhumane act. It is a crime that must be punished. There have also been some infiltrations. But these protests, which initially called for the release of Pedro Castillo, have already pushed that motto aside. What they want now, what the sector of the radical left wants, is the rupture of the constitutional order in Peru, by convening a constituent assembly, which is not foreseen and without even complying with the constitutional procedure. They also demand the resignation of the president. But we must be clear, not only the government is responsible for this crisis. So is parliament. We can therefore say that there is complicity between the government and parliament in deepening the crisis of political instability in the country.
The president proposes to bring forward the election, but Congress does not approve it. Why?
Congress sets aside President Boluarte’s requests. In this case, congressmen, a significant number, prioritize their personal and party interests, leaving the national interest aside. There is no other explanation.
They worry about their position and not being elected again…
Precisely. I said it clearly, I think that’s understandable. Now, saying or affirming, as some sectors do, that there is a dictatorship in Peru is not correct. Ms. Boluarte came to power in scrupulous respect for constitutional succession procedures because Castillo staged a coup. Now Boluarte had been Minister of Castillo for a year and a half, kept silent and approved of all violations, violations and corruption scandals by Castillo and his cronies. Because we must not forget that the fundamental reason for the failed coup is the serious criminal charges of corruption. Of which he is not accused by the opposition, not by parliament, but by people from his intimate group. And is it ultimately clear that the president’s secretary is fleeing the country? That the minister of transport and communications, who manages the largest amount of treasury money, flees the country? Letting your carnal cousin flee, accused of corruption? This deserves justification. And here it is necessary to criticize the attitude of other Latin American presidents.
Who are you referring to?
López Obrador, from Mexico, Petro, from Colombia, Arce from Bolivia and Fernández, from Argentina, who tried to cover up not only a failed coup in Peru, but also acts of corruption. Mr. Castillo is in prison under a court order, not as the President of Colombia falsely said, who was arrested without a warrant. There was interference from left-wing governments here that is absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible. And what is striking is that in the end Boric, the president of Chile, who seemed to maintain neutrality with regard to internal politics – because this is a matter of internal politics – also made assessments that did not correspond to reality. Why? The following reflection is needed. Why does Latin America tolerate dictatorships like Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, and is now trying to defend Castillo politically? What is happening to democracy in Latin America? And for this reason it is necessary to reject this undue interference by these countries that are supposedly sister countries.
Do you think the elections, when held, will resolve this crisis?
Problems cannot be solved overnight let alone acts of violence. Peru has suffered from terrorist violence in the recent past. We know that problems cannot be solved by force, on the contrary, they get worse. For this reason, the leaders of the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church, academics, business associations called for peace and the restoration of order. I think this is important so that through dialogue, which is fundamental in democracy, we can put the country’s problems back on track and resolve them through constitutional means. That is what a democracy is supposed to do. Unfortunately, this polarization causes the extremes, the extreme left and the extreme right, to collide and in the long run it is the people, the citizenship, that are harmed.
But what should President Baluarte do?
What President Baluarte has to do is abide by the constitution, something her government has failed to do, and guarantee freedom, that is, its political and economic content, in general terms. There is a crisis and the country cannot continue in this situation, it will also have to consider whether its continuity in function affects the situation. There are important sectors, from the right and the left, that are beginning to call for his resignation.
Does the lack of any support in Parliament make the situation more difficult?
Yes, it has no support. Because your former comrades are now your greatest enemies. Of course they use despicable arguments saying that she became a “right winger” overnight when she is not.
What role does Fujimorism still play?
Keiko Fujimori, the People’s Force group, is an opposition. At the moment, he is also part of the group that did not approve of anticipating the elections. That is, he supported putting the president’s requests on hold, through constitutional reform, because what needs to be done is a cut in the mandates of both the government and parliament.
Would the situation be different if Keiko Fujimori had won the election instead of Pedro Castillo?
It’s very hard to say, but at least we knew that Castillo had no authentic, democratic beliefs, that he had no experience, that he had no academic training, and that he was accompanied by a proclaimed Marxist-Leninist party. Mariateguista, as they say in Peru. But in reality, his reign turned out to be more disastrous than previously thought. About Keiko Fujimori, like I said, it was the lesser evil. It was no guarantee either, but at least in recent years, unlike her father, she adhered to the rules of democracy. Moreover, she did not flee the country, she went to prison. That is to say, there are differences of opinion with his father, but certainly the heavy legacy of Fujimorism from his father’s dictatorship motivated him to fail in two elections and that, in this case again due to anti-Fujimorism, he lost the elections.
Are there personalities in Peru that you think could serve as a consensus candidate to unify the country?
It is difficult…
Many of the former presidents are on hand with the justice…
Precisely. But I trust that alliances can be formed in defense of the constitutional democratic order in the time left before the elections.
Source: DN
