Peru. Presidential Election 2011.
panic and despair in the political class
a few days before the election
Arturo Quispe Lazaro
"Ten years later we again think of the defense of democracy."
"is not about electing a president but democracy is at stake"
(Toledo, 7 April, 2011, in finding desperately that the polls do not favor it)
tremor in the political class in Peru a few days before the election. If Ollanta Humala had generated fear and dread in the political class to lead the top of the polls just over three weeks ago, four days before the April 10 election day, panic ensued and further electrified when prohibited the polls published-again shake the political hornet's nest to realize that political calls "democratic" would be out of the race and get your choice of the presidency. The news also affected some media that are not sympathetic Ollanta Humala. It was not the only ones who felt the impact. There was an uproar among his supporters, social networks and online messages. E-mail messages denoting despair. There were accusations and attacks would not stop. It was a crossfire: Toledo against Humala in principle and to a lesser extent against the PPK, the PPK against Toledo and Humala. The Humala against them. However, there was a tacit agreement: do not criticize Castaneda. At this point it is almost a factual finding (by the various surveys) that Castro is out of the war. The reviews have become something like 'all against Ollanta Humala', leaving to look at Keiko Fujimori. Although included, but critics raged against Ollanta, "wolf in sheep's clothing." He turned to remember that immortal phrase Vargas Llosa said some time ago: the choice of terminal cancer or AIDS. Today rejected as not just a phrase with a clear dye undemocratic but also because it contextualizes the emergence of such candidates, who seek to hold for what will come in the future without even saying anything or slide some governments criticized the immediate past-Toledo -Kuczynski and Alan Garcia, who with his favoritism to one sector of society led to these candidates at the position found.
A few days before the April 10, the political configuration in Peru would change after that date, and liberal candidates would be out of contention. The fear was higher in one of the candidates: Alejandro Toledo. He and his supporters have called "the conscience" to "leading democracy" Kuczynski, Castañeda, and APRA have to meet to agree and to face "the leap in the dark and authoritarianism" would mean choice of candidate, "Chavez" Ollanta. Hours later, something not seen during the campaign, Toledo, who had strongly criticized the leader of APRA, Alan García, by meddling in the elections, met in the premises of the CTP, organizing workers Aprista and calls on all candidates with the same idea to meet and agree among democratic forces to confront the candidate Ollanta and Fujimori. In its desperation to reverse its downward trend meets with religious evangelicals and says: "Today we have an obligation to preserve democratic values, we are not for experiments, but we do not want to go back in the 90 with corruption with crime, the violation of human rights. "But he was not the only one who favors the three candidates call" proven democratic orientation "days (April 5) Vargas Llosa supporters, the liberal right, also sought two candidates to renounce his candidacy to support Toledo. Obviously there was a clear concern about the likelihood that the next government is not a liberal, free market if Ollanta out as president. All appeals, attempts to unify around Toledo candidates failed. Especially because the logic, as PPK, "it should give support to the candidate this up and not down "a clear allusion to Toledo, actually the trend, according to surveys are not very hopeful. He said the appeal of Toledo is a "trick" because he realized it falls in the polls want to alarm the public and try to become El Salvador and force the other to give up his candidacy in favor of it. There was no agreement.
What most caught my attention in the case of Toledo, is his statement about democracy: "Ten years later we again think of the defense of democracy." "This is not to elect a president but is into play democracy, "then immediately adds that he is willing to wear the headband and get up to defend democracy. Obviously in the midst of despair you miss to realize that their words express, in my opinion, two missiles against the positions he defends himself: one, a veiled criticism against his government and Garcia, two, an undemocratic attitude be to affirm the headband to march against a candidate he disagrees, and who considered authoritative.
About the first statement, the candidates, that Toledo does not want to go elected, have not arisen by itself, but they are the product of the discontent of the democratic governments that he and Garcia have presided. People feel that they have not ruled for the majority of Peruvians. The policy of "trickle down" economy did not reach the poorest, yes, however, to the affluent and capital. So this gives us an idea of \u200b\u200bwhy the candidate Humala is acceptance of a large sector of the country popular. A similar case is that of Keiko Fujimori. Obviously that does not tell us anything about what they will do if some of them go to the government. The second idea from his statement to put on the headband. This is a call undemocratic. The reading is this: as Toledo is not chosen to reach the second round, and does not like the candidate who would yeah. He will go to the streets to confront him. That in itself is an undemocratic attitude because they do not respect the popular will and vote of the majority. Moreover, today we live in a different context of a decade ago, did not leave a dictator government, and we are much more alert than previous years.
The political moves of the right-wing liberal groups against the advance of Ollanta Humala have been failed by their political shortsightedness and greed of power group, rather than the merits of Ollanta. You miss them or would not see the causes involving the status of their applications. They do not understand why the impoverished country decide to vote for candidates who "are not in favor of the model system." People assume that their decision should be a good design media, marketer of the candidate. On the contrary, far from understanding the vote of the majority of non-liberal positions are described as "elactarados", "ignorant." PPK said of the Peruvian Andes who protested: "this change the rules, contracts, nationalization, is an idea of \u200b\u200bpart of the Andes, where the height prevents oxygen from reaching the brain, that is fatal and fatal ..." (CADE, 2006, Arequipa, Peru), all for not sharing its position and views. Therefore, your approach is not only for his ideological position, but also by a clear vocation authoritarian, undemocratic and intolerant. Hence the misunderstanding of the differences and grievances of the people. In the case of Bagua Alan Garcia called the Peruvian Amazon "second-class citizens" because they disagreed with the award to the Amazonian lowlands. Now in full election these people, the country's poor majority decide to vote for Ollanta and Keiko Fujimori. In the last elections in 2006, after the government of Toledo, Ollanta obtained 30.6% of the vote in the first round. At the end of the Garcia government, after a successful macro-economic growth of 8, 9% in the 2011 elections, Ollanta obtained 31.9% of preferences as reported by Reuters survey (April 9, 2011). Nobody understood then, as two liberal governments that follow the free market model with good macroeconomic performance, people shop for a candidate who, judging by them is "a leap of faith." Here one might ask, jumping from whom? Did many poor Peruvians are not in a vacuum, and many others still have the feeling of living in that condition? Then something wrong with the model. It is possible that this "miracle" economies induce the poor to vote for candidates that they say are supporters of the anti-model.
Thus both candidates, largely out of any sympathy or antipathy that may exist for each of them, arise and emerge as a result of discontent for the Peruvian governments have done little or nothing for them. Toledo acknowledged beaten by polls, "Ollanta has capitalized on the discontent of the people." Then, we should investigate the reasons for the discontent. The democratic, and ethical is to acknowledge its own mistakes and accept the majority decision population, whatever the outcome of 10 April.
Lima, April 9, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment