Election season is the one time every few years when democracy, in its purest possible form, takes place among the people of a country. It is the one time when everyone’s vote has true and equal value, when everyone’s voice can be heard. And this season in a country like Peru is a call for consciousness about a latent social conflict that the wealthiest wish to ignore.
On April 10th Peru had presidential elections. Of the five candidates who dominated the polls, three belonged to democratic parties with similar solid proposals about the best way to continue the high economic growth rate which has steadily been increasing for the last decade. Although these candidates received more than 45% percent of the votes when combined, they egotistically avoided forming a coalition and consequently each candidate did not gather enough votes independently.
Therefore the other candidates, Keiko Fujimori and Ollanta Humala, made it to the second round of elections, which will take place on June 5th. The two contenders’ ideologies seem a threat to the country’s fragile stability. Keiko Fujimori is the daughter of our last dictator, Alberto Fujimori, who under the guise of eradicating terrorism during his presidency from 1990 to 2001, managed to dissolve congress in 1992, violate human rights on several different occasions and reach the highest level of corruption in Peruvian history. He was, however, popular with the lowest economic classes, as he would give away free food and clothing to keep them satisfied. It is feared that Keiko will follow in his footsteps.
On the other hand, Humala possesses a very radical nationalistic ideology and on several occasions has shown admiration for the political practice of Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez. He ran for President in 2006 with a condemnatory attitude towards the Peruvian constitution and lost by a small percentage. His speech is now more moderate, though his intentions seem unchanged. If he is elected it is feared that he will implement Communist measures such as the nationalisation of private companies, which would discourage foreign investment. The question then is why in a country like Peru, where progress and economic growth seem to make the daily headlines, does stability seem to hang by a thread every election season?
Although Peru has a representative democratic system, it is hard to tell if it is really representing the wants and needs of the majority. Despite the fact that it has had a constant economic boost in the last decade – reaching 9.1% last November – this growth is not reflected in all the areas of the country. It has a high poverty rate of around 34.8%, social expenditure is half the average spent by other Latin American countries, and the standard of public services, such as health and education, is poor. With these facts in mind, it is hard to believe we’ve had a relatively stable democracy throughout the last decade.
Economic growth is not synonymous with sustainable development. And although it can contribute to society as a whole, in the long run, if it is not well managed and the benefits are not well distributed, it will only create a greater gap between classes. When such injustice is taking place in a country, it is not surprising that those whose rights and needs are being ignored decide to vote for less traditional parties, whose policies and promises but sound convincing enough to make these excluded citizens feel part of the system.
Peru’s future is uncertain, as none of the two candidates competing for power have reliable records. But if this complex scenario has anything to offer us, let it be this lesson: it is not possible for a country to develop sustainably without involving the whole of its population in the process. It is when individuals are provided with equal opportunities that they can develop themselves fully and moreover, develop as a nation. When the opposite happens, social conflict arises and democracy ends up at stake.
Jorge Carbajal
Tags: decay
