Image by Freepik

The Crisis in Peru: A Serious Structural Problem

By Luis Fleischman 

On December 7, Peruvian president Pedro Castillo was ousted from office on the grounds of “moral incapacity” immediately after he attempted a self-coup by attempting to dissolve Congress.

Castillo’s actions followed a move by Congress to impeach the president after Peru’s Department of Justice accused him of being the leader of a criminal organization involved in profiting off government contracts and obstructing justice.  Peruvian law requires that, when an accusation is presented by the Attorney General against a high office holder, it must go through Congress before prosecution begins. 

Since Castillo took over the reins of government in July 2021, the country has faced great political instability and a lack of direction.  In the past year and a half, the president changed cabinet five times, and close to 80 ministers have resigned or were replaced. 

The tempest began when Castillo appointed Guido Bellido as Prime Minister. Bellido admires Castro’s Cuba and is an apologist of the Peruvian Maoist terrorist group, “Shining Path”.  He proposed a new constitution raising flags among some of the president’s allies who were concerned about the possibility that Peru might take the Venezuelan path. Bellido ended up resigning over an investigation of corruption against him. 

After that, Hector Valer, a former Congressman associated with the extreme right was appointed to head the Ministers’ Council. Valer, has been accused of domestic violence by his own daughter and of being associated with a drug kingpin.  The selection generated protests from various political and social sectors, and Congress made clear it would not approve such an appointment. 

In addition, several ministers in Castillo’s cabinet resigned after denouncing corruption in the highest echelons of the state and accusing the president of enabling it. The president’s staunchest allies began to quickly abandon him. 

Castillo proved an erratic character without any clear vision or direction. Corruption and anarchy characterized his government. He was not only corrupt, but he was also not up to the task The fact that the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights rejected Colombian president Gustavo Petro’s request to intervene on behalf of Castillo points to the severity of the latter’s actions. 

Yet massive, violent protests were immediately registered in various regions across the country demanding the resignation of the recently sworn-in President Dina Boluarte and the restoration of Castillo to the presidency. 

It is indeed true that Castillo acted in an authoritarian manner, and it may well be true that all the charges and accusations against him are justified. 

However, what is notable in Peru is that all the former presidents of the country who have served since 1990 have been investigated for possible corruption and bribery (Ollanta Humala; Pedro Kuczynski)), sent to jail (Alberto Fujimori), or are in the process of being extradited on charges of corruption (Alejandro Toledo). One of them, Alan Garcia, committed suicide three years ago when he was about to be arrested on charges of bribery.  

That such a trend applies to so many presidents, obviously signals that this is a problem affecting the entire political class, including Congress.  

In fact, recent surveys show that Congress is highly unpopular in Peru, with 85% of Peruvians disapproving of Congress’s performance.

Multiple members of Congress have been accused or are suspected of illegal acts including money laundering, illicit enrichment, and various other criminal acts.  

In 2019, the then-Peruvian president Martin Vizcarra dissolved Congress and called for new elections after the legislative branch rejected his proposed cabinet twice. A year later, Congress removed Vizcarra on the same grounds it removed Castillo, namely “moral incapacity,” after he was accused of having committed acts of corruption when he served as governor of the Moquegua region. Vizcarra was removed after a short month and a half of debate and was succeeded by the then-president of Congress, Manuel Merino.  Merino resigned after seven days following massive protests against Vizcarra’s ouster. Uncoincidentally, similar protests in support of Castillo are taking place today threatening the Boluarte Government.

So, how is this possible that Peru is experiencing these repeated crises that involve a cyclical spiral of corruption and impeachment? 

Impeaching a president over corruption charges may be constitutional and legitimate. Yet, in all the cases mentioned above, the president was removed just by a majority vote in Congress. It was a move that in parliamentary systems we might label a vote of non-confidence. This is significantly different than what the constitution says or how impeachment should be understood. So, as the Peruvian political scientist Alonso Gurmendi has pointed out, “if Congress can remove the president by a majority vote on the grounds of a vague concept of “moral incapacity”, why do we need a constitution?” 

In such circumstances, impeachment loses its meaning altogether and the law and constitution become a purely political matter. As Alexander Hamilton warned us more than two centuries ago, impeachment runs the risk of being determined more by the comparative strength of factions rather than by considerations of innocence or guilt. It is in this sense that the stability and legitimacy of the state collapse altogether.  Under these circumstances, the “populist reason” is activated. The solution is based on the messianic belief that a strong leader can restore order and even representation, a thought shared by the late University of Essex professor Ernesto Laclau. Congress currently acts as a body of party notables distant from civil society and its needs. Party polarization tends to dominate the public sphere rather than the voices of the people. 

Indeed, Peruvians do not feel properly represented by Congress. They tend to rely on the presidency. Thus, each impeachment seems to be understood as an attack on the popular will and on the common and powerless person on the street. There is a populist instinct in Peruvian society that results from the people’s rejection of politicians, most of whom are in Congress. 

The decline in popular support for the political class leads to popular illusions., which in turn leads to the election of leaders emerging from outside the establishment and, in the worst-case scenario, to the election of authoritarian populist leaders. That was the way Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and Jair Bolsonaro emerged.  Unfortunately, the crisis of the legitimacy of the state affects the entire region. 

This, in my view, is the heart of the problem. It is not merely about one act of a corrupt president who deserves to be ousted. It is not even about right-wing and left-wing policies; it is a structural problem that requires reform to enable inclusive politics and representation, separation of powers, and transparency. How these reforms should be designed should be the subject of a conversation within Peru where various factors need to consider including representation, evaluation of current laws, and adopting a political culture that sustains the system.  How these changes ought to be ideally designed should be the subject of a separate article.   

About Luis Fleischman

Luis Fleischman is a professor of Sociology at Palm Beach State College, the co-founder of the think-tank the Palm Beach Center for Democracy and Policy Research. He is also the author of “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Threat to U.S. Security,” and the author of the book, “The Middle East Riddle: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Light of Political and Social Transformations in the Arab World,” to be published by New Academia.”