Ollanta Humala's win is a promise to Peru's poor

[Judi Lynn]

Ollanta Humala's win is a promise to Peru's poor
The left candidate's victory in Peru's election is part of a firm pattern of independence and social progress in South America
Mark Weisbrot guardian.co.uk,
Monday 6 June 2011 23.00 BST


The victory of left-populist candidate Ollanta Humala in Peru's election is a "big fucking deal", as Vice President Joe Biden famously whispered to Obama on national TV in another context. With respect to US influence in the hemisphere, this knocks out one of only two allies that Washington could count on, leaving only the rightwing government of Chile. Left governments that are more independent of the United States than Europe is now run Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Peru. And Colombia under President Manuel Santos is now siding with these governments more than with the United States.

This means that regional political and economic integration will proceed more smoothly, although it is still a long-term project. On 5 July, for example, heads of state from the whole hemisphere will meet in Caracas, Venezuela, to proceed with the formation of Celac (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States). This is a regional organisation that includes all countries except the United States and Canada, and which – no matter what anyone says for diplomatic purposes – is intended to displace the Organisation of American States. The new organisation is a response to the abuse of the OAS by the United States (which controls most of the bureaucracy) for anti-democratic purposes, most recently in the cases of Honduras and Haiti.

These institutional changes, including the vastly expanded role of Unasur (Union of South American Nations) are changing the norms and customs of diplomatic relations in the hemisphere. The Obama administration, which has continued the policies of "containment" and "rollback" of its predecessor, has been slow to accept the new reality. As a result, it does not have ambassadors in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador.

The election is also important for Peru, for a number of reasons. As conservative Peruvian Nobel literature laureate and politician Mario Vargas Llosa said, Humala's win has "saved democracy". Former president Alejandro Toledo said, "The people have won, democracy has won, the memory of the people won. The people have opted for economic growth with social inclusion." Indeed, it would have sent a terrible message to Peruvians, and the world, if the daughter of someone who is in jail for multiple political murders were elected president. Although Keiko Fujimori made some efforts to distance herself from his crimes, she was still running on his name and legacy, and with the help of his advisers.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/06/ollanta-humala-peru-election

[Derechos]

1. This is a great article

And what a contrast to what many in the American press have been writing like the interview with the Inter-American Dialogue that I posted yesterday.

[Peace Patriot]

3. I'm on dialup and couldn't watch/hear that interview. What did those rats have to say? nt

[Peace Patriot]

2. Important stats: 60+% of Peruvians live on $3/day.

Another: Peru's rightwing /"neo-liberal" (rich elite) government produced an average economic growth rate of almost 6% over the last decade, and though there was some reduction in poverty, most Peruvians remain very poor. Venezuela's kickass leftist government (mixed socialist/capitalist economy) produced a sizzling 10% economic growth rate for five straight years (2003-2008), during the height of U.S./local rightwing destabilization efforts, then dropped to 1%-2% during the worst of the Bush Junta-induced worldwide Depression--putting their average GDP for the decade about the same as Peru's--but the Chavez government has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by over 70%, maintained social spending during the Bush meltdown, doubled college enrollment, provided free health care to the poor, and maintained low unemployment, earning Venezuela designation as "THE most equal country in Latin America," on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean.

The difference between Peru and Venezuela--given their similar level of economic growth--is who benefited. Peru, following the "neo-liberal" model (max corporate exploitation, benefiting only a few--the U.S. model), now has a rich urban elite (much like Venezuela developed in its pre-Chavez, "neo-liberal" period) with a vast underclass living in stark poverty with little hope of advancement and with the profits from Peru's natural resources bleeding out of the country. Venezuela, rejecting the U.S. model vigorously, has spread the wealth, gained controlled over their (huge) oil resource (such that, as oil prices rise, the poor benefit) and is poised for continued and great general improvement in the coming decades, with an educated and hopeful population that feels empowered, and that rates their own country among the best in the world on criteria of democracy and happiness.

The question is: Why didn't Ollanta Humala blow Keiko Fujimora out of the water? Why the close vote--when leftists in the region win 60% majorities running against the "U.S. model"? Not only did Fujimora represent that model, she represented the very worst of that model--as in Alvaro Uribe's murderous criminal enterprise in Colombia (funded with $7 BILLION in U.S. military aid) and as in her father's murderous regime which, among other things, forcibly sterilized thousands of Indigenous women (and some men). How could "48%" of Peruvians support this?

I think it is a very great puzzle. Humala should have won by a much bigger margin.

I suspect that Humala, originally a kickass leftist, turning himself into a "centrist," is responsible for the narrow win*, i.e., the poorest, most disaffected Peruvians sat out the election. But I'm not sure. Is there something about Peru--special circumstances that I don't understand--that could produce this U.S.-type result, whereby a "liberal" can win narrowly but with little or no mandate for change and hamstrung by the far right? We KNOW what is causing this in the U.S. It's very simple: ES&S/Diebold, a far rightwing corporation, has an 80% monopoly over the voting results, with e-voting machines everywhere in the U.S. using 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls: a made-to-order corporate election theft system. But, as I understand it, Peru had only a very minor experiment in e-voting in this election. They also had a lot of international election monitors. So direct election fraud is not the cause.

One other thing: Voting is compulsory in Peru. So how did that (estimated) 10% of disaffected voters (who would have given Humala a leftist mandate more typical of the region--60%) register their protest? Since most of them live in remote rural areas, possibly they "just couldn't get to the polls" and government officials overlooked their failure to vote (as an ignorable minor infraction) because they didn't want to them to vote anyway.

Could this be the explanation? (We would need to know what percentage of Peruvians actually voted, and the demographics of the non-voters.)

I believe that this is the group of voters--mostly remote rural/Indigenous voters--who gave Humala his big 15% surge in the final round of the last presidential election, after Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales endorsed him (with Morales being the more important endorsement of the two--first Indigenous president of neighboring Bolivia). The corpo-fascist press has 'framed' this as the Chavez/Morales endorsement causing Humala to lose that election. But I think the opposite is true: Their endorsement was responsible for novice, underfunded Humala almost winning it, to everyone's surprise. I think the Chavez/Morales endorsement (esp. Morales) brought out the remote rural/Indigenous vote.

However, even with a big turnout of remote rural/Indigenous voters, the result at that time was approximately 50/50. Alan Garcia (rightwing/"neo-liberal") won it, but not by much. In this current election, the political spectrum was wider. Humala vs Garcia was fiery leftist vs rightwing/centrist. Humala vs Fujimora was leftist/centrist vs far rightwing madness. Think Kerry vs Bush Jr. How did this come out so evenly? (We know how THAT come out so evenly.)

-----------------------------------

*(I just read an article about Italy's recent by-elections, in which the left won a bunch of surprising victories by staying left. The analysis said this is the trend. "Centrism" is out; kickass leftism is in. I don't know if there is much parallel to Peru, but there certainly has been a parallel throughout the rest of Latin America, where "centrism" has been discredited--for good reason--and kickass leftism wins 60% majorities.)