The crisis in Peru: Let's not ignore the Orloff effect

Peru is currently facing a drama that is being replicated throughout Latin America: political polarization is leading the country to confrontations.

In the 1980s, a vodka brand launched a brilliant advertising campaign: an individual sat at the counter of a bar and ordered a drink based on this distilled spirit and, when it was time to taste it, he himself, coming from the future, in this case, coming from the next morning, sat next to him and talked about the nonsense of taking that drink with the wrong vodka, as it was being served, and said that he only felt well the next day because he changed his mind at that moment when he was about to take the drink, ordering it to be remade with the right vodka, in this case, Orloff, and still saying that he was so well the next day because of that decision, that's why, when he introduced himself, he didn't say his name, but only declared "I am you, tomorrow".

Time passed and this commercial began to be replicated, meaning that we should look to our neighbors, especially those most similar to us, at least in government behavior, to understand what will happen if we don't make the right choice. Thus, what will happen here in the near future can be foreseen if we look around. Not surprisingly, immediately, even in those days of the late 80s of the 20th century, a time of price freezes, whenever we feared that an economic policy could be the wrong one, we would say: "Look at Argentina, we're doing the same, so she may be our reflection in the future mirror if we continue the same experience", and thus the expression "she, we are tomorrow", with the meaning that we should look around and see what is happening in our region to seek the right practices, instead of choosing inadequate measures. Latin America, at this moment, including Brazil, seems to have decided on a path where it will be enough to look at the neighbors, as it will certainly bring a glimpse of what may happen to everyone, since, it seems, we may have ignored the warnings that are given to us.

Peru is currently facing a drama that is being replicated throughout Latin America: political polarization is leading the country to confrontations, social fragmentation, and, given current conditions, a possible civil war. The situation has alarmed observers who are following the political crisis in its territory and are wondering what led to this state of affairs. Immediately, an answer explodes before our eyes, pointing to corruption and the rise of radical political groups on the left or right as the cause of such a situation.

Over the past four years, Peru has seen a succession of Presidents of the Republic being sworn in and removed with a certain degree of violence, six in total, and all, without exception, are said to be corrupt and have generated a level of repulsion from society capable of producing rebellions and insurrections, to the point of being expelled from their offices and held accountable as destroyers of public order. Alarmingly, even the current Head of State, Dina Boluarte, is already being placed under a vote of no confidence in Parliament, despite having assumed office recently.

However, regardless of the accusations of corruption and radicalism, we must bring to light some discomforts with such evidence, among them: how is it possible that only alleged offenders reach the highest political offices? And, in the same way, how can it be that, in the replacement process carried out by identifying crimes and pointing out criminals, only personalities of the same caliber are the replacements? Or, even worse, how can it be that, with the end of a term, in the subsequent election, the office is won by someone of the same nature? These are key questions, we would say, capable of identifying the crux of the matter, or, as some prefer, the problem that articulates all the problems that end up being derived from it. All the political systems of the countries in the region suffer from the same defect, that of being built with such large internal deformities, that the machine is made to go wrong. But, let's return to the facts now in Peru.

In the Peruvian case, since the fall of Pedro Castillo, more than forty people have died, as reported in the press, with his supporters protesting and rebelling in various parts of the country and receiving harsh responses from Peruvian security forces. Curiously, the same occurred on the opposite side when Castillo tried to stage a coup, seeking to close the Parliament. In summary, by common sense, the country is fragmented due to radicalism - as if it were to arise out of nowhere, or a moral defect of the people - leading to increasingly brutal clashes, with no conditions for convergence. This has been prolonged to the point that even the current governmental authorities who are now in power are being held responsible, among them the current President of the Republic who assumed after the removal of Castillo and Prime Minister Alberto Otárola. The accusations? Genocide and qualified murder, due to the violence of the repression against the "castillistas". Violence, corruption and radicalism, we already have three factors, or problems to be solved! But, where is the crux of the matter? Let's look at another country and try to see if there is anything new.

In Colombia, a country that has seen paramilitary groups taking part in its territory for decades, a left-wing President, Gustavo Petro, won the elections and brought doubt and fear to significant segments of his people with his actions, as he indicated he wanted to forgive common criminals and guerrillas. Furthermore, he immediately re-established relations with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, these actions being included in measures presented in his campaign, when he pointed to a general change in the way society thinks, with proposals such as: modification of the economic model, prioritizing land reform; change in the energy matrix, prioritizing renewable energy; social inclusion with gender equality; change in security forces, according to him, to "demilitarize social life," with civil power over military and resuming peace action with the FARC; and tax reform, by which he intends to increase taxation on large fortunes, in other words, lowering the rich to create the sensation that the poor have been raised.

As we can see, he presented the most beautiful suggestions, but to achieve them he will have to trample many of the demands of a significant segment of Colombian society that wants freedom to undertake and less pressure from the state on itself, on the economy, because for the government to do what it wants, it will have to increase public spending by preventing the dynamization and creation of conditions for society to produce the wealth it wants to achieve its social policies. With this, he showed something common in leaders who seek to reach the highest offices using speeches that only reproduce legitimate demands of social segments, but that must be seen beyond simple answers and without showing that they have the ability to do so, even because what distinguishes the amateur from the professional, the leader from the populist, the statesman from the demagogue is not talking about what needs to be done, because anyone can present that, but saying how to do what needs to be done, since the result that amateurs and other types bring is only social chaos, just as it is happening in Peru, Argentina, Colombia - where the vice president says she was under the aim of a bomb attack -, Bolivia, where there is a witch hunt, Chile, where the people are rejecting proposals to rewrite the Constitution with a socialist bias and have turned against the new government and its proposals, in Nicaragua, where the government has been pursuing opponents and priests of the Catholic Church, in addition, of course, Venezuela, where one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the history of the continent is taking place, with refugees spreading around the world, looking for chances to ... live!

In summary, the root of the problem in Peru and other countries in Latin America is the crisis in their political systems. These systems create the illusion of democracy without truly understanding that democracy is not about poetic slogans of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," but rather about the ability of society to control and hold accountable their government officials. In a democratic system, the people have control over the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches of government, and are able to hold them accountable for their actions. The people never truly govern, but rather elect representatives to govern on their behalf. But these representatives can be controlled and punished by those who elected them. This is what democracy is truly about, and the right to vote is just one of the tools that allows the people to hold their elected officials accountable.

In this sense, where is the problem that pervades all of Latin America? Exactly in the fact that the political systems here do not allow the people to control their rulers. Even worse, in each place there are specificities that make them not renew, always the same, if not of the same group, or individuals who use the same practice, since the system generated a machine that generates the same type of political action, without allowing oxygenation. The simple fact of not having oxygenation in politics, that is, the ability for new leaders and new practices to emerge, already leads to the political processes in these places being self-reproductive, that is the reason why one ruler leaves and another enters with the same spirit and behavior, since the machine generates the same thing! The machine is the problem, as well as the real understanding of what Democracy is, and its beautiful and perfect costume, the so-called Democratic State of Law. But, we were talking about the Orloff effect, where does it come in and why Peru may be the "you tomorrow" for other countries in the region?

The Peru is currently facing a drama that is being replicated throughout Latin America: political polarization is leading the country to confrontations, social fragmentation and, under current conditions, possible civil war. The situation has alarmed observers who have been following the political crisis in the country and are wondering what led to this state of affairs. Immediately, an answer emerges, pointing to corruption and the rise of radical political groups on the left or right as the cause of this situation. However, regardless of the accusations of corruption and radicalism, we must bring to light some discomfort with such evidence, among them: how is it possible that only alleged wrongdoers reach the highest political positions? And, in the same way, how can it be that, in the process of replacement carried out by identification of crimes and pointing out of criminals, only personalities of the same caliber are the replacements? Or worse still, how can it be that, with the end of a term, in the subsequent election the office is won by someone of the same nature? These are key questions, we would say, capable of identifying the busílis, that is, the core of the issue, or, as some prefer, the problem that articulates all the problems that end up being derived from it. All the political systems of the countries in the region suffer from the same defect, that of being built with such large internal deformities, that the machine is made to go wrong. But, let's return to the facts now in Peru.

Article published in: https://bmcnews.com.br/2023/01/17/crise-no-peru-nao-ignoremos-o-efeito-orloff/

Marcelo Suano, Political Scientist and Internationalist; Professor of International Relations; Director of the Center for Strategy, Intelligence and International Relations (CEIRI-Brazil).