By the time you read this, we may know the results of the first round of presidential elections, to be held on April 9. Even a week or so before, it was hard to know with any certainty who would come out on top. A second round, towards the end of May, seemed likely, since no candidate would probably win outright with a majority (50% plus one) of valid votes. But the candidate leading the polls in the crucial last days of the campaign appeared to be Ollanta Humala.

The election campaign has not been one in which presidential candidates have dignified themselves by addressing Peru’s long-term problems, or those of its long-suffering people. The leading contenders – Ollanta Humala, Lourdes Flores and Alan García – have each sought to outbid one another for the ‘law and order’ vote, each seeking to exploit the chronic insecurity felt by the average Peruvian. Of the three, Humala comes across as the most convincing authoritarian, though the other two are not far behind.

For those concerned about human rights, it has been a particularly disappointing campaign. In spite of the devastating indictments contained in the 2003 Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report, the issue has hardly surfaced, except in so far as Humala’s adversaries have sought to exploit his alleged ‘war record’ as a military commander in the Alto Huallaga in the late 1980s. The PSG’s appeal to the main presidential candidates to state how they intend to respond to the TRC’s recommendations has – perhaps predictably – gone unanswered. (See the PSG publication – ‘Peru: The 2006 Elections’)

Democratic values are not much in vogue in Peru these days. A recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) makes particularly depressing reading.** This is a comprehensive survey of people’s attitudes towards democratic institutions, across the country and from all sectors of the population. It shows what people think of the type of democracy they have, their lack of faith in representative institutions, the weakness of political organisation at the grass roots, and a deeply-rooted pessimism – especially among the poor – about the prospects of a better future for themselves and their children.

Alejandro Toledo, who bows out as president in July, bears a great deal of responsibility for this climate of gloom, which contrasts with that of hope after the fall of Fujimori in 2000. Five years have passed, and the economic boom which Peru has undergone has brought scant benefit to the vast majority of the population. One in every two Peruvians is still mired in poverty, and the country is today more unequal than before. The reforming momentum of 2000 and 2001 has been largely dissipated, and the majority of Peruvians feel as powerless as before, if not more so.

It is hardly surprising then that Humala – who six months ago was known mainly because of his role as ringleader of a failed coup in 2000 – has emerged into the political limelight. His sudden surge in popularity has little to do with either him or his programme – not much is known about either – but to the fact that he is the ‘anti-system’ candidate. History tells us – even recent history in Peru (viz Fujimori) – to be wary of outsiders who ride to power on the strength of popular dissatisfaction with democratic institutions.

The PSG publication ‘Peru: The 2006 Elections, Parties, Participation and the Human Rights Agenda’ highlights the connection between democracy and human rights, and challenges the policies of those who are seeking public office. The publication is available from PSG – see contact details on back cover.

** Programa de las Naciones para el Desarrollo ‘La democracia en el Perú: el mensaje en cifras’ see: www.pnud.org.pe