The prediction of Mario Vargas Llosa and fulfilled his prediction as the Peruvians in the second round will have to choose between cancer and AIDS or AIDS and cancer (which each label to candidates who passed to the second round choice). The emergency information, the volatility of the electorate and the polls that were changing as the weeks went by gave full validity to the claim. However, already accomplished the first round and waiting for the second would be worthwhile to consider the nature of the situation in which we find ourselves trying to play down the extent possible. I will not become an advocate of populism both are given if left or right, since in all cases are harmful to democracy. The story of Laclau on mobilizing the masses and transgressive forms of politics will leave that to recount the experiences or the Bolivarian Kirchner likes so much. However, faced with the inevitable should be a few questions, starting with trying to explain why the Peruvian people voted and voted and who are responsible for who has done one way and not another and responses must include, of course, political elites, but also economic.
is true that Peru has grown fantastically in recent years and the middle class drew on many social groups once more disadvantaged. Just take a walk in Lima or in the main cities of the country to realize it. Nevertheless, there are many more that have not emerged from the prostration and who, in times of plenty, claim their share of the pie. Peruvian political system, and his former party, has been rolled and the image the public has of its politicians and major republican institutions (parliament, justice, political parties) is at least unfortunate. Only the president is saved something and that, on good account, by the messianic character who is often credited to the presidency, still seen as powerful, and feeling that exists in this strongman and many other companies in the neighborhood.
To top it off this negative image was reflected in a campaign to forget and will not appear in the case studies of any material guru. The single redeeming exception, which largely explains what happened, was the campaign of Ollanta Humala, by far the best from the perspective of electoral marketing. The consultants sent by Lula allowed the leader "left nationalist" as some call it, or populist dry as others call it, to develop a cohesive and coherent speech, yes from the perspective of their own claims and interests. While Humala was a candidate, at least publicly, the more spent on the campaign and this is also reflected in the won popular support.
Another matter entirely is to Keiko Fujimori, the only free from the constant ups and downs of the polls. She always remained strong at around 20%, a very solid floor to put it into the second round. It is clear that there are still many Peruvians who, for various reasons, live with regret the government of his father. It also worked caudillistas messianic elements present in the winner of the first round. By contrast, the rest of the competitors got from the beginning to the whirligig of mediocrity all season and did not get out of there. Pedro Pablo Kuczynski was perhaps the main exception, but his start was too late to scratch those just over 600,000 votes were needed to reach the second round. It is obvious that the dispersion of votes of the urban middle little help.
While this is not the time for a sensible analysis of the reasons for the failure of the candidates more "traditional", would be appropriate for those who have benefited from growth in recent years to take note of this result because depending on what happens in the second can drift around a path or not, but could also happen that will witness dramatic changes, which would undoubtedly be the best news you could receive. Some surveys
equality between Humala and Fujimori in front of the second round is at the moment, very close. The big question is how Peruvians will vote on it. And here we are far from typical interrogation made to young children if they want more to dad or mom. On this occasion would have to change the terms of the issue who refuse or who fear less so. In this sense, the vote of fear and mistrust are the determining elements the next election result.
Whoever wins will have to make generous promises to attract many voters who are missing. Humala need 20% more votes, and Fujimori almost 28%. These are impressive figures. If we add the cruising speed reached by the Peruvian economy, the scope for populist experiments is reduced, which does not mean the complete irrationality imposed once again in Latin America. But Humala's efforts to move closer to Lula Chavez instead of, or the anxieties of Fujimori to remember its democratic roots are there. Anything can happen in the second round and, more importantly, anything can happen next. It is desirable that the winner is able to maintain the current growth path of restoring popular confidence in democracy and its institutions. At the moment it is only good words and be followed closely everything that happens in Peru.
By Carlos Malamud - Analysis - Information and Analysis in Latin America.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment