There have been more than 60 deaths since mobilizations first struck on December 11 in Andahuaylas province in Peru’s Andean region. Meanwhile, social and political pressures seem to have already exceeded the bounds of reason without stopping the violence or the deaths.
And without concrete signs of a call for general elections – for the Executive Branch and Congress – as demanded by the overwhelming majority of the country. A project that went something along those lines was defeated in Congress on Tuesday. Some for delaying the change of government until the distant May 2024, when 73% of the population is now demanding a general election. For others – particularly the far-right congressmen – the opposite: for bringing the election calendar forward to 2024, if they wouldn’t stop until July 2026.
These hitherto inconclusive pitfalls and parliamentary votes occur when Congress has reached its lowest historical approval level (7%) in the context of an incessant spiral of mobilization and confrontation. It seems to have lost the compass and exits are few.
Within a tragic paradox where the political and institutional system seems to have collapsed in the tragic context of dozens of deaths, some economic variables seem paradoxically sound – inflation, trade balance, fiscal balance, etc. – which until now seems to be the case too belong to the best in Latin America. Ma not troppo. This paradox may end if things continue as they are.
The agency responsible, Moody’s, lowered its outlook for the Peruvian economy to negative on Tuesday, January 31st. He believes that “social and political risks have intensified, threatening successive governments in the coming years with deterioration in institutional cohesion, governability, policy effectiveness and economic strength”. On Wednesday, February 1, however, the giant mining company Las Bambas, based in the Andean province of Cotabambas, ceased operations. With one of the largest copper deposits in the world, no less than 2% of the world’s copper is being produced – or was being produced until last week.
It is difficult to imagine what will happen while a kind of fear is spreading in various media and sectors of society given today’s unease about the future. Three dynamics simultaneously interact and feed each other, undermining possible exits and contributing to the growing fear of the future in this uncertain panorama.
First, social protests, unprecedented in the past two decades, with the active participation of an overwhelming majority of people who have done and continue to do so peacefully. It is true that they have not lacked the use of force by some and, on the other hand, the excessive and irrational use of force by the public order apparatus, which has already caused dozens of deaths.
As a national protest, its main focus is in the southern Andes and more recently in Lima – a city of migrants – where thousands of residents have also moved these days, moving their protest marches to the capital. The agenda is broad. And it points to substantive problems that are essentially related to the state’s neglect of fundamental critical aspects, such as the catastrophic state of the health and education systems or the state’s ineffectiveness in improving infrastructure.
In this complex dynamic, as usual, there is a little bit of everything in social protest. And that dark interests within the protest’s broad legitimacy have tried to fish in troubled rivers, leading things to acts of confrontation that go beyond the protest. The fact that there have been multiple attacks at airports and 16 judicial offices that have resulted in the destruction of files in circulation raises the question of what benefit unlawful groups might gain. Think of the powerful illegal miners or drug dealers.
Second, a widespread sense of frustration, dissatisfaction, and mistrust of public institutions. Especially before the government and Congress, with the explicit reference to the evanescent legitimacy of these two branches of the state, in which the legislature with its premature degree of recognition takes the cake. Meanwhile, 74% of the population think President Boluarte should resign and resign. In other words, there is practically nothing left.
Another thing: social media. As part of the “public” they are also a core part of the majority disapproval and distancing of 58% of the population. Disapproval reaching 77% in the south of the country, the most mobilized region and in action since the protests began in December.
Third, polarization, increasing and acute. Of such a level and depth that at the moment it seems to be closing the avenues of dialogue and national unity. We now live in a tense and arboreal dynamic that has tensed all environments and affected social and friendly relationships, making meeting spaces difficult to create.
On the one hand, energetic voices—minorities, that’s true—crying for a military solution.” The chant, “We’re at war because Communism wants to take power,” is chanted daily by an extremist congressman who used the argument— or pretext – used to directly oppose the snap elections that the country is calling for. On the other hand, there is certainly no such thing as the ghostly “communism that wants to take over power”. But there is another radicalism that is growing and widespread: that of “everything going away” as a condition for progress. He would first have to put down the protest, bring forward the parliamentary elections and convene a constituent assembly as a quasi-magical space for a solution.
The collapsing and failing political system is presented with few immediate options. In reality, the clearest and most obvious is a move forward in this year’s general election, both for the government and for Congress. An option that, until a few days ago, was not on the menu of the Executive Branch and the Congress majority, but which, in the heat of tension and confrontation, reality has loudly put on the agenda.
But so far only that, without a way out or agreements. Congress – which does not want to leave – already rejected a tentative election proposal by a large majority this Tuesday. Recently, the executive branch submitted a project to Congress to bring forward the elections to October this year and the transition to January 1, 2024. Few predict the chances of success for a proposal that is very ambitious in this context. So everything indicates that the country would continue until July 2026 in the unsustainable “business as usual” of the authorities surveyed.
In this grand context, it is evident that simply bringing forward this year’s elections would not per se resolve problems, challenges and tensions that have very deep and complex explanations. But I would take a breather. It would ease tensions and restore a scenario in which substantive responses could be considered, requiring political and institutional conditions that do not currently exist.
To achieve this, it is said, the immediate resignation of the president would force the election push. It’s not that true. Key sectors of Congress interpret that the advance would apply only to the executive branch and not to a “general” election that includes the legislature. Given the overwhelming opposition of the legislature, this biased interpretation would be socially and politically untenable. It could lead the country to a higher level of confrontation and a “que se vayan todos” of unpredictable virulence.
The current political system does not provide more and incidentally raises problems that go beyond what can be solved with an electoral initiative. There are fundamental gaps that have accumulated with decades of marginalization and neglect by the majority, with public policies that have perpetuated and prolonged those gaps. This would mean reshaping fundamental public policies and their priorities. Unfortunately, this is nowhere near feasible under the current and immediate conditions.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits