El Presidente

The Peruvian presidential election is over now that Keiko Fujimori has conceded defeat to Ollanta Humala, but it is clear that the country is very divided. The United States faces a period of "wait and see" regarding the winner and it is anyone’s guess how he will perform: either as a force for good for Peru and for the region, or as a once and future advocate of leftist populism who erodes democracy now that he has won the presidency. This is not a small matter because U.S. interests (and those of Colombia, Brazil, and Chile) are best served by a Peru that continues to play the role that it did under Garcia as a strong advocate for free markets and free trade and one that continues to improve in terms of democracy and good governance.

Barely more than half the voters have chosen a former military official who was involved in a coup, is accused of committing human rights violations, and until his political fortunes demanded it, was a strong ally of Hugo Chavez who had planned to take Peru down the path that Chavez has forced Venezuela upon for the last ten years.

Humala had been defeated in 2006 by the pro-U.S. and pro-business Alan Garcia but Humala figured out that President Lula Da Silva of Brazil had the right approach: a leftist who promotes free market economics, trade and warmer relations with the United States, at least on international economic issues, has a better chance of being elected, not to mention helping his countrymen and not becoming a pariah like Venezuela.

Those voters who chose Humala were many of the poor and indigenous who have not seen much gain during the good times that the Garcia administration oversaw; they’ve also chafed at the lack of progress in combating corruption. Humala also had the support of some of those who are better off who, following the lead of intellectual and novelist Mario Vargas Llosa and former president Alejandro Toledo, voted against the daughter of a man who was corrupt and who committed human rights violations against civilians in his attempts to wipe out the Maoist Shining Path terrorist insurgents. To be sure, many poor and indigenous voted for Keiko Fujimori precisely because they remember fondly the efforts of her father to combat the Shining Path; and of course she got the majority of the votes of the middle and upper classes who don’t want a new government to squelch growth and investment. Those would be the people who spent the last couple of days taking their money out of Peru before Humala takes it from them, as they suspect he will do.

And it was a very close vote. In sum, a little more than half the country was willing to vote for a demonstrably bad guy who nevertheless might care more for their particular needs than the other candidate; and a little less than half was willing to vote for a woman who is the daughter of a bad guy who nevertheless might continue to promote growth and take a hard line with a resurgent Shining Path.

There are at least two encouraging possibilities for the future. First, Humala could really mean it when he said during the campaign and says now that he intends to follow the Lula model as well as keep relations with the United States positive. Whatever his motivation for abandoning a hoped for Chavismo for Peru, he could truly intend to stick with this rhetoric. Looking around him at the basket case that Venezuela is becoming (and Argentina, Ecuador, and Nicaragua) it should be easy for him to see that staying in office and being reelected are tied to performance in office in terms of economic improvements and battling corruption. The Brazil, Colombia, and Chile models are the better to emulate. He might also be thinking of how hard it would be to follow Chavez when he does not control much of the rest of the government, nor vast oil fields. I don’t put much faith in his having had a true epiphany regarding his philosophy and ideals. Second, Fujimori might really mean it when she says that she intends to a lead a loyal but firm opposition that will continue to secure the gains of the free market economics and closeness to the United States that Humala’s predecessors practiced. Freed from any pressure to spring her father from prison now that she lost the presidential election, and able to speak for the forces of liberal economics and pro-U.S. sentiment that control a lot wealth and votes (as well as the votes in the legislature of many Humala opponents), she has the chance to improve her image in Peru and abroad.

But there are less encouraging scenarios: Humala could be an arrogant ideologue who tacks back to his true leftist populist beliefs, or he could find himself dependent on Chavez’s largesses to remain in power and to increase his power. We saw that scenario with Zelaya of Honduras: Chavez is a demanding master who foments much trouble for his acolytes. And Fujimori could talk a good game now but really intends to create chaos for Humala in an attempt to make sure he fails and thereby improve her chances in the next election. She has a shot again soon because Humala is very unlikely to control the legislature like Chavez did and not keep himself in office by manipulating his power and constituents.

As I said at the outset, we must wait and see how each of them will perform, but we can and must do more than that. Now is the time for the United States to increase, not decrease, our support for democracy and good governance; to keep the pressure on Humala and the Fujimori-led legislature to put politics aside and focus on the needs of the Peruvian people. Peruvians need continued commitment to free market economics, the only engine of growth that provides jobs and improving incomes. They need good relations with their neighbors and with the United States. And they need strengthened democratic institutions, a constitutional and representative democracy that is just and robust.