Those who read this column, even occasionally, may be surprised by the stance of this particular piece. Herein, I will vocalize some faith I have in Latin American politics - a rare occasion. Even so, my confidence is limited to the direction in which Peru seems to be headed.
On Apr. 9, Peruvians headed to the polls to elect a new president. Polls leading up to the vote showed that the election was too close to call, especially since the winner would need 50 percent of the votes to avoid a second round.
Lourdes Flores, the conservative Popular Christian Party candidate, had been expecting an easy victory, but polls for the last two weeks have indicated that she will most likely be facing Ollanta Humala of the Peruvian Nationalist Party in a run-off on May 7.
Op-ed columnists and Latin American analysts have meanwhile expounded on the dread of a Humala victory. Conservative editorialist Mary Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal, for example, denounced Humala's public admiration of Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez and indicated that Peru "is in danger of succumbing to yet another bout of corporatist authoritarianism." She also placed much emphasis on Humala's immediate family, which includes a racist communist leader of a father and imprisoned rebel of a brother.
O'Grady should perhaps have used her sway in the journalism world to contact the Humala campaign, instead of relying on hearsay and political gossip. El Pais, the Spanish daily, was good enough to do the leg-work that O'Grady did not.
In an interview with the leftist candidate, El Pais asked about the nationalization of Peru's natural resources, Hugo Chavez, George W. Bush and Humala's family. Unlike a Fidel Castro or an Evo Morales, Humala showed great aptitude and finesse in answering these questions. He specifically stated that he has distanced himself from his family due to their extremist comments, and that he does not admire individuals (like Chavez) but rather situations and experiences. For a Latin American politician, this type of careful wording is most impressive.
Most importantly, perhaps, Humala provided El Pais with his definition of "nationalization." According to him, nationalization simply involves using resources to service the people, not by expropriation, but with government intervention.
For Peru, this is a perfectly logical answer. In a country where one quarter of citizens live without a fresh water supply, the government role in the provision of goods is an important topic. Polls show that Peruvians (encouraged by some church groups) mostly reject privatization, even though the state clearly lacks the funds to meet the public's demand. The fact remains, however, that protests have crippled the country's attempts at privatization in the past. Therefore, moving too quickly in toward this end could reverse the important democratic gains of the last decade.
Moreover, Peru will continue to progress once its senate (and its American counterpart) ratify a free-trade agreement with the United States later this year - a task that is a fait accompli according to many analysts.
Meanwhile, the conservative candidate, Flores, has set forth a promising platform. Humala, however, continues to be vague in regards to his policies and his potential cabinet. Nevertheless, I am confident that a Humala Administration could benefit Peru in the long run.
It appears that the current Peruvian president, Stanford-educated Alejandro Toledo, has taken Peru as far as any technocrat could. Poverty has decreased, the economy has expanded, budget deficits have shrunken, crime has been curbed and inflation has been averted. Indeed, the last few years have been a testament to open markets for Peru.
Still, Toledo has proven himself to be a clumsy politician. His bourgeois life style and his fathering of an illegitimate child have prevented him from connecting with the Peruvian masses. Last year his public approval stood at an astoundingly low eight percent (the lowest of any Latin American president), despite Peru's impressive growth rates. Since then, it has increased, but remains at an anemic 16 percent.
Perhaps what Peru needs is a charismatic leader. Ollanta Humala provides just that. Many may question his politics, but all seem to agree that he is charismatic and likeable (qualities that his opposition seems to be lacking). His fiery rhetoric may well turn out to be electoral pandering. For these reasons, a leftist victory might not be a forgone conclusion.
Toledo has done a good job of entrenching liberal policies; now the country needs a leader to execute them. While the election results are all speculation as of now, it is possible that Humala might surprise us more than Evo Morales. For the sake of Peru and my own credibility, hopefully the coming months will leave me vindicated.
