Political crisis in Peru 2020

 On Sunday 8th of November 2020, David Choquehuanca, the new Vice President of Bolivia, gave the opening speech at newly elected President Luis Arce’s inauguration ceremony. In grave tone and with alluring  conviction, the vice president spoke of a new era, one in which the energy of the ayllu, that mythical Andean community that integrates all dimensions of life in one whole, would repair existing divisions and rancor, putting “we” before “I” . However, in coastal Lima, Peru, little more than a thousand kilometers away, beyond the Andean apus, that energy was not present. On the contrary, a parliamentary conspiracy to remove President Martín Vizcarra from power was gaining followers. With 105 votes in favor, 4 against and 19 abstentions, the presidency was vacated due to "moral incapacity”. 

The parliamentary conspiracy had found its pretext in alleged bribes received by President Vizcarra in his time as Governor of Moquegua, an accusation that was being investigated and that the President denied. Many qualify the parliamentary act as a "coup", but technically it is difficult to argue the case in those terms. The presidential vacancy due to "moral incapacity" is in the Constitution. It has undoubtedly been used for political purposes, but the formalities were complied with and a qualified majority of much more than the 87 votes required by congressional bylaws was obtained. As there was no acting vice president, the line of succession passed directly to the president of Congress, Manuel Merino, who assumed the interim presidency until the elections scheduled for April 2021 and the ensuing transition period ending July 28th of  that same year.

The reasons for the conspiracy are manifold and, sadly, none of them very dignified. It was evident that the private interests of the parliamentarians came into play, especially in the case of the reforms foreseen for the certification of private universities that were directly affecting important parliamentary leaders. Others sought to have greater influence in the Executive to protect themselves from corruption processes against them, or to achieve the dismissal of current convictions that affected members or sympathizers of their political groups. These are but a sample of the kind grievances in play.

Street protests have emerged with force. It behooves all of us to observe whether they  continue to grow or if, over time, they diminish and peter away. For many of those on the streets, the conspiracy was a usurpation of power and people have the right to insurgency. Such an argument has been sustained by the Peruvian Association for Human Rights and cannot be ruled out, but it does not help that Martín Vizcarra himself has not filed any cause against the parliamentary action and has decided to leave the palace without further ado. In his exit speech there were similarities with the speech of former Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo, who was also the victim of a parliamentary conspiracy of very dubious legitimacy, and also chose not to fight it out.

Peru is perhaps one of the countries where political disaffection and the loss of prestige of the Congress have reached the most critical levels. The unicameral Congress designed in the 1993 Constitution, during the Fujimori era, already came with the seal of shortening the legislative process as it was considered useless and cumbersome. Not so much because of the conceptual characteristics that underpin the existence of a legislative branch, but because of the quality of its members. That loss of prestige of the  congressmen and women, fueled by their misbehavior and to the detriment of the responsibility and good work of others, has not stopped undermining the foundations of Peruvian politics.

According to the LAPOP barometer of the Americas[1], in the 2018-2019 biennium Peru had the highest degree of tolerance for closing Congress in Latin America. With an astounding 58.9% tolerating such an occurrence. Far from the second on that list, Mexico, with 28.1%. During Martín Vizcarra's period, this process has only been worsening. His dissolution of Congress in 2019 was very popular and in the referendum that took place during his administration, the majority of Peruvians voted in favor of limiting the mandate of the members of congress to a single term. In the extraordinary congressional elections of 2020, we saw aspirations for a functioning congress shattered. The legislature was populated by an inordinate plurality of parties and movements, none of them obtaining more than 10% of the vote.  Furthermore, it was a Congress in which the Executive did not have any explicit political-partisan support. Such a formula was prone to disaster somehow and at some point.

The systemic contradictions seem obvious. Peru continues to be a democracy and continues to uphold the separation of powers, but it cannot do so without a decent, well-organized, ethical and effective Congress. The path that Martín Vizcarra took, of keeping distance from a discredited Congress, was the option he had left, but in the long run the foundations of Peruvian politics must be repaired. Repairs that, in our view, ought to include rebuilding the party system. The parties should exercise the function of amalgamating, filtering candidacies, establishing programmatic frameworks, guiding parliamentary action and much more. It seems clear that this has already come to an end in Peru. Even the traditional parties, such as  Popular Action of Merino himself, no longer recognizes their leaders. The left that supported the Broad Front saw how their "representatives" voted in favor of the vacancy, with the sole exception of Rocio Santiesteban, and now are distancing themselves from the parliamentarians. We are afraid that if new political movements do not keep this in mind the current vicious circle will continue.

The newly appointed President of the Council of Ministers, Antero Flores-Aráoz, is trying to  take back the reins of public management. An activity that has no time to lose as the country faces the most daunting public health and economic crisis. In the background of this process there are three possible paths; that of the failure of the interim government unleashed by internal struggles in Congress, that of the insurgency that leads to the fall of the current government, or a government that somehow manages to reach April and then July. Manuel Merino promised to respect the date of the election. That that is the key for survival.

If they fulfill the promise of the elections, the current process may, in the ende, have characteristics similar to the recent Bolivian crisis. An interim government, weakened by a very doubtful  legitimacy due to its  origin, but that respects the promise of elections and that finally puts things back on the right track. The big difference is that Bolivia has the MAS, a mass party that managed to channel the popular vote, Peru might reedit its fragmentation.

[1] See https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/peru.php