Elections Cast Doubt on Peruvian Democracy and Multilateral Observer Missions
By Alisa Newman
Managing Editor, Hemisphere magazine
 

"Fujimori could have retired a hero, run again in 2005 or attempted to win through fair elections now. He didn't. He held elections that didn't meet minimal international standards�.The elections in Peru were neither free nor fair." So concluded Barry Levitt, director of political analysis for the joint Carter Center/National Democratic Institute observer mission in Peru, during his keynote address at a Florida International University (FIU) conference in June. Participants agreed that the recent presidential elections in Peru were characterized by fraud and irregularities. Opinions varied, however, as to future scenarios for democracy in that country and the efficacy of international observer missions.
 
The conference reunited a panel of academic experts who discussed the Peruvian political situation as part of the Summit of the Americas Center's State of Democracy in Latin America Series last October. University of Miami Professor Steve Stein provided some historical context by reviewing the nature of Peruvian politics over the last 15 years. The civilian governments that succeeded the military in the 1980s were disastrous, he noted; by the time Alberto Fujimori emerged as an iconoclastic candidate in the 1990 elections, Peruvians welcomed his lack of affiliation with formal political parties, institutions that most had come to regard as corrupt and ineffective. As president, Stein pointed out, Fujimori has continued to undermine the country's institutions. Along with political parties, the Congress, judiciary, media and labor unions have been weakened to the point that the presidency and the military are the only viable institutions in national life.
As institutional forums for dissent have been eliminated, the opposition has taken to the streets. All of the panelists predicted problems with governability and increased repression as Fujimori assumes his third term in office. They also warned of economic upheaval as a result of international reluctance to invest or back loans, as well as uncertainty in the domestic business climate.
 
Yet, several of the panelists noted some positive aspects of the elections. David Scott Palmer, professor of political science at Boston University and a member of the OAS observer mission during the first round of voting, cited longer polling hours and increased public involvement in the civic education process. In particular, he hailed the presence of roughly half a million election workers at the country's polling places, in addition to NGO and party observers. According to Catherine Conaghan, professor of political studies at Queen's University in Canada, one of the most significant results of the elections was the wave of popular mobilization they inspired. Peru experienced its largest public protests in recent memory, sending a clear message that the government can no longer count on public apathy and fear. Especially important, she noted, was the degree of middle-class participation in the demonstrations.
 
The impact of international criticism of the elections was the topic of some of the conference's more heated debate. Palmer stressed the role of the OAS and other international organizations in averting a fraudulent victory in the first round of voting. In his view, the decision of opposition challenger Alejandro Toledo to withdraw from the second round was a political miscalculation that signaled the failure of Peru's opposition forces. Overall, Palmer praised the international community's role in "multilateralizing aspects of domestic issues" during the election process. He described Peru as "taking a beating" at the Windsor meeting of the OAS General Assembly, which nevertheless failed to produce sanctions or an official condemnation of the elections.
 
Eduardo A. Gamarra, director of the Latin American and Caribbean Center at FIU, took a less optimistic view of the effectiveness of the inter-American system. Nearly 10 years ago, he pointed out, the OAS adopted a resolution to defend representative democracy in the hemisphere. Since his auto-golpe in 1992, however, Fujimori has defied efforts by the organization to condemn his regime by invoking principles of non-intervention. Gamarra described the Fujimori government as "an authoritarian regime with a veil of democratic legitimacy." Increasingly, he argued, definitions of democracy have been watered down by majority consensus in multilateral forums such as the OAS. He cautioned of the "contagion effect" of Fujimori's example, which, he claimed, has already inspired President Hugo Ch�vez of Venezuela and political aspirants in Bolivia and Ecuador. Finally, he joined the other panelists in expressing skepticism about the ability of a special OAS commission to influence the implementation of real democratic reforms in Peru.
 
In his keynote address, Levitt himself questioned the logic of deploying international observer missions if their criticisms are not heeded by the organizations that send them. He emphasized the value of international observers in acting as impartial witnesses and confirming the complaints of domestic critics. The Peruvian elections, however, revealed both the power and limitations of such missions.