Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/09/2006 | With election, it's Peru's turn to stir concern

Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/09/2006 | With election, it's Peru's turn to stir concern


It's election day in a Latin American country, and once again the leading contender's fiery promises of a new social and economic order electrify the poor and the forgotten, while frightening the business community, the middle class, and American observers.

It's getting to be a familiar pattern in Latin America. This time, it's Peru's turn. And the man at the top of opinion polls is Ollanta Humala, a former lieutenant colonel, who vows to "impose discipline and bring order" to a country only recently emerged from decades of military and authoritarian rule. Humala, like recent winners of many democratic elections throughout the region, is a fierce nationalist and a caustic critic of market policies advocated by Washington. Latin American voters are showing again why Washington's exultations of democracy and free trade fail to inspire this hemisphere. And why speaking up against Washington can win votes.

To anyone wondering just how much change Humala wants, he explains, "The system is the poverty of the people. So, yes, I am the anti-system candidate."

You might think Peru's outgoing president performed poorly. The government of Peru's first indigenous leader, Alejandro Toledo, however, achieved impressive economic growth. Toledo's policies followed free-market rules and scored measurable success. And yet, the shining economic statistics meant nothing to most Peruvians. In the end, there is one problem most Peruvians care about more than any other: poverty.

Despite the impressive growth of the Toledo years, the majority of Peruvians remain trapped in poverty. All the democracy and freedom in the world will not move them enough to outweigh their desperate need to escape economic hopelessness. In their eyes, the free trade and fiscal restraint prescribed by Washington amount to little more than a plan to help the rich get richer. Until Washington and its favored politicians can offer a believable plan to bring tangible results, manipulative politicians will make their election-winning speeches.

Not much is known about Humala, who leads by just a few points over his main contender, Lourdes Flores. The Humala family, however, has an ideological track record that should set no one at ease. The family patriarch, Isaac, espouses a racist ideology holding that "copper-skinned" people are a superior race. He and his wife have advocated the execution of homosexuals, Jews, Chilean businessmen, and Toledo and his wife.

The candidate, like his hero and strong supporter President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, led a failed coup. Villagers say he committed atrocities during his time in the military. He has expressed admiration for Gen. Juan Velasco, one of Peru's dismal dictators, who abolished press freedoms and confiscated private property. He has promised to rewrite the constitution, has threatened to dissolve Congress, and vowed to nationalize "strategic" industries.

Flores and Humala will likely face off in a second round, since neither one is expected to win a majority. If he wins, Peru's best hope is that once elected, he will follow a less radical path than the one he espouses to fire up the masses, as have other thundering Latin American leftists after taking office. The glaring exception, of course, is Venezuela's Chávez.

Leftist governments come in many shapes. Some have strengthened prosperity, freedom and confidence in their countries, while others are busy sowing the seeds of future economic disasters. The common denominator - the one Washington fails to observe - is that they acknowledge the depth of poverty afflicting their nations, and show genuine determination to tackle it.

Not long ago, Washington dreamed that a democratic Latin America would move steadily into alignment with the United States. With every new election south of the border, however, the United States appears more isolated in the region. Voters, expressing their views with their votes, are saying America's vision of the hemisphere does not match their idea of what's best for their lives and their countries.

America's ideals may have helped persuade its neighbors that democracy - a government of, by, and for the people - is the best system. But each country, within its particular circumstances, gives democracy its own flavor. The flavor of young democracies in the years to come, will likely continue to be one not to Washington's taste.


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