beyond the bubble

On April 10, Peruvians headed to the polls — many to avoid a fine for not voting, not out of a particular passion for any candidate — to vote for president. To the dismay of many in Peru and abroad, the division of votes among the many moderate candidates allowed two radical candidates to achieve berths in the second round of voting, slated to occur June 5. The results, the Institute for Legal Defense (IDL) in Peru argued in a press release, reflect a “vote of protest against exclusion.”

Leading the results with over 30 percent was Ollanta Humala, a left-wing nationalist who campaigned on a platform of social justice and increased distribution of wealth. In second place was Keiko Fujimori, a right-wing populist who campaigned largely on the name of her father, former president Alberto Fujimori. The elder Fujimori, while credited by some for defeating the rebel group Shining Path and saving the country from double-digit inflation, is currently serving 25 years in prison for human rights violations and corruption.

Neither candidate is well-liked in Peru, with both showing disapproval ratings of over 50 percent. Winner of the 2010 Nobel Prize for Literature and unofficial Peruvian statesman Mario Vargas Llosa described the choice as between “AIDS and terminal cancer,” reflecting the worry of many of reversing the economic and political stability achieved over the past decade.

Concerns for Humala stem from his radical past that scarcely resembles his more moderate platform of 2011, one which analysts compare to former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Though eventually acquitted after witnesses reversed their testimonies, Humala was once charged with human rights violations for actions in 1992 while he was in the armed forces.

He joined the political scene for the 2006 presidential elections, raising fears as he spoke of radical change to the Peruvian political and economic systems. He ultimately lost to middle-right candidate Alan Garcia. Critics contend that Humala’s Peru would reflect Chavez’s Venezuela with left-wing autocracy and the nationalization of major industries.

While Humala claims he would not nationalize industries if elected in June, he is a vocal critic of multi-national corporations’ high profits in Peru, many of which do not return to the people. Despite massive macroeconomic growth over the past decade and a notable decline in poverty, inequality remains very high in Peru, especially regionally, as many of the benefits of the recent development have been focused in Lima, the capital.

Groups such as the IDL also maintain that another Fujimori government would be undoubtedly disastrous. Unlike Humala, Peruvians do know what they can expect with Keiko, as she effectively ruled with her father a decade ago: human rights violations and an erosion of democracy.

To other Peruvians, however, the stability and security that authoritarian power offers is appealing; the elder Fujimori is still highly regarded by some portions of society who applaud him for ending the two decades violence and the rapid inflation that was ravaging Peru when he took office in 1990.

The future of Peru can only be described as unclear: the next year could see the rise of another “Chavista” regime, a right-wing authoritarian police state or, to the surprise of many, few changes at all, as both candidates claim they do not intend make any radical changes to the Peruvian model. Whether these are ploys to gain the moderate vote, to win on June 5 or sincere assurances of moderation, only time will tell.