Log in

View Full Version : Peruvians Elect Center Left Garcia



Tekun
6th June 2006, 04:45
Peruvians elect Garcia president

Garcia greets supporters celebrating his remarkable comeback
With most of the votes counted in the second round of Peru's election, it has become clear that ex-president Alan Garcia has won a convincing victory.
Mr Garcia polled 53.1% of ballots to 46.9 % for nationalist rival Ollanta Humala, with 93% of votes counted.

The two men had fought a fierce and aggressive campaign.

Mr Garcia, who served for five turbulent years from 1985-1990, told cheering supporters: "We thank the people of Peru."

We must think this night of all of our past errors, about all our defects and make an act of contrition - Alan Garcia



He said the result was a blow for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who had strongly supported his opponent.

"Today, the majority of the country has delivered a message in favour of national independence, of national sovereignty," he said.

"...They have defeated the efforts by Mr Hugo Chavez to integrate us into his militaristic and backwards expansion project he intends to impose over South America. Today, Peru has said no."

The Venezuelan deputy foreign minister said Mr Garcia's election would not bring about an immediate change in bilateral relations.

The two countries withdrew their ambassadors last month amid recriminations over Mr Chavez's alleged meddling in the election.

GARCIA'S PLANS
Prudent fiscal management
Slash government spending
Encourage foreign investment
Ensure foreign companies pay more taxes
Tough on crime
Wants free trade agreement with US revised



Mr Humala accepted defeat but said his nationalist project had secured "an historic political and social victory".

US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said Washington was looking forward "to working with president-elect [Alan] Garcia".

"The best response is that of the Peruvian people (who) decided to vote for President Garcia and not for [Hugo] Chavez's candidate," Mr Zoellick said.

For weeks, Mr Garcia and Mr Humala vying to be president had traded insults and allegations.

Chavez factor

Mr Garcia tried to portray Mr Humala as a dangerous threat to democracy and peace, while Mr Humala reminded Peruvians of the mistakes of Mr Garcia's presidency, which was marked by rebel attacks and rampant inflation.


Ollanta Humala went jogging before casting his vote

Mr Garcia won majorities in the capital, Lima, and along the more developed northern coast, but Mr Humala polled well in the southern and central areas.

The BBC's Daniel Schweimler in Lima says Mr Garcia's biggest challenge now is to unite a politically divided country.

The new president acknowledged the challenges ahead as he greeted cheering supporters at the headquarters of his Apra party in Lima.

"We must think this night of all of our past errors, about all our defects and make an act of contrition," Mr Garcia told supporters gathered at the headquarters of his Apra party.

No-one had been defeated, he said, and promised to work to ensure development in the impoverished south of the country, Mr Humala's heartland.

During the campaign, Mr Garcia frequently referred to the former army officer's involvement in an armed uprising, and criticised his lack of political experience and close ties to Mr Chavez.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5045634.stm


Seems that Peru didn't learn the first time they elected this clown; all the corruption, inflation, and political turmoil didn't convince them to vote for the newcomer: Ollanta Humala

Although Humala isn't the ideal, nor the radical candidate that the bourgeoisie media makes him out to be
I still believe that his election could have infused a class conscious movement which could have evolved into a socialist movement
Or at least he could have nationalized some industries in Peru, analogous to his counterpart in Bolivia, which would have decreased to some degree the poverty level in Peru (which inflicts 50% of the population)

But, its seems that Peruvians rejected Humala because of his proximity with Hugo Chavez
And for this Peru's lower class and working class will have to suffer as a result of Garcia's second term


Its worthwile to note that the majority of Peru's peasants, lower and working class voted for Humala

R_P_A_S
6th June 2006, 04:50
this sucks man. i was hoping for Humala

Mujer Libre
6th June 2006, 06:03
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?

OkaCrisis
6th June 2006, 06:16
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 5 2006, 10:04 PM
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?
I think it's worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think $79) in order to be able to vote at all. So the 50% of the population that is poor, according to Tekun, are effectively disenfranchised.

I think this is a probable reason that a more right-centrist/liberal government would be elected, opposed to a more 'socialist' candidate, like Humala.

Perhaps this is a good thing for the Peruvian working class though, since they must know that electoral politics does not and will not ever benefit them. So maybe they'll finally get together and overthrow that shit completely. But that's probably just naive optimism. Whatever, naive optimism floats my boat. ;)

Tekun
6th June 2006, 06:18
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 6 2006, 03:04 AM
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?
Apparently yes

Although Humala isn't great, you think they would of learned their lesson the first time they voted for this idiot, guess not :lol:

OneBrickOneVoice
6th June 2006, 06:50
Maybe all the socialists stayed home like socialists here do.

Mujer Libre
6th June 2006, 07:14
Originally posted by OkaCrisis+Jun 6 2006, 03:17 AM--> (OkaCrisis @ Jun 6 2006, 03:17 AM)
Mujer [email protected] 5 2006, 10:04 PM
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?
I think it's worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think $79) in order to be able to vote at all. So the 50% of the population that is poor, according to Tekun, are effectively disenfranchised.

I think this is a probable reason that a more right-centrist/liberal government would be elected, opposed to a more 'socialist' candidate, like Humala.

Perhaps this is a good thing for the Peruvian working class though, since they must know that electoral politics does not and will not ever benefit them. So maybe they'll finally get together and overthrow that shit completely. But that's probably just naive optimism. Whatever, naive optimism floats my boat. ;) [/b]
Thats weird, becuase I was under the impression that voting was compulsory.

Compulsory if you can afford it I guess. <_<

The Grey Blur
6th June 2006, 12:14
This isn&#39;t terrible, it just shows that Socialism is now an actual force in South America


Originally posted by marketwatch.com
While Garcia won nationwide Humala likely took the highest number of votes in more than half of the Andean nation&#39;s 25 departments, many among the poorest in Peru. In the southern department of Apurimac, for example, preliminary results show that Humala won 73% of the vote compared to 27% for Garcia.
Humala also likely won in Cajamarca, in northern Peru, where the giant Minera Yanacocha gold mine is located. Buenaventura holds a 43.65% share in Yanacocha, which is operated by Newmont Mining Corp. (NEM).
Seems like the wretched of the earth got behind Humala


I think it&#39;s worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think &#036;79) in order to be able to vote at all.
No you don&#39;t, voting is compulsory according to this (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/14295008.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_local) article

You actually get fined if you don&#39;t vote

OkaCrisis
6th June 2006, 18:34
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 6 2006, 04:15 AM

I think it&#39;s worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think &#036;79) in order to be able to vote at all.
No you don&#39;t, voting is compulsory according to this (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/14295008.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_local) article

You actually get fined if you don&#39;t vote
A Peruvian co-worker told me about the pay-to-play system there. He seemed legit to me.

I think that registration to vote in an election costs money, and if you&#39;ve registered before, then not registering for any elections thereafter would implicate you with a fine. But if you&#39;ve never registered, and thus never voted, because you could never afford it, I guess you would remain &#39;under the radar&#39;, so to speak, and would escape not only the payment, but also the ensuing fines.

The Grey Blur
7th June 2006, 02:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:35 PM
I think that registration to vote in an election costs money, and if you&#39;ve registered before, then not registering for any elections thereafter would implicate you with a fine. But if you&#39;ve never registered, and thus never voted, because you could never afford it, I guess you would remain &#39;under the radar&#39;, so to speak, and would escape not only the payment, but also the ensuing fines.
:huh:

Just nod your head slowly...

Yeah, you might be right - I would take the word of the actual Peuvian over the Miami Herald

Tekun
11th June 2006, 05:57
Originally posted by OkaCrisis+Jun 6 2006, 03:17 AM--> (OkaCrisis @ Jun 6 2006, 03:17 AM)
Mujer [email protected] 5 2006, 10:04 PM
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?
I think it&#39;s worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think &#036;79) in order to be able to vote at all. So the 50% of the population that is poor, according to Tekun, are effectively disenfranchised.

I think this is a probable reason that a more right-centrist/liberal government would be elected, opposed to a more &#39;socialist&#39; candidate, like Humala.

Perhaps this is a good thing for the Peruvian working class though, since they must know that electoral politics does not and will not ever benefit them. So maybe they&#39;ll finally get together and overthrow that shit completely. But that&#39;s probably just naive optimism. Whatever, naive optimism floats my boat. ;) [/b]
Any sources to the "pay to play" system of voting in Peru
Kuz I&#39;d like to use it in arguments and whatnot, but I don&#39;t think many would be convinced if I used the "a Peruvian co-worker told me" approach
Any websites, studies, or documents u know about which verify his claim?

Ander
11th June 2006, 06:29
On one hand I&#39;m disappointed than Humala didn&#39;t win, but on the other hand it&#39;s good to know that socialism has gained a strong foothold in Latin America. Finally the people are realizing that capitalism can&#39;t help them.

OkaCrisis
11th June 2006, 10:15
Originally posted by Tekun+Jun 10 2006, 09:58 PM--> (Tekun &#064; Jun 10 2006, 09:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:17 AM

Mujer [email protected] 5 2006, 10:04 PM
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?
I think it&#39;s worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think &#036;79) in order to be able to vote at all. So the 50% of the population that is poor, according to Tekun, are effectively disenfranchised.

I think this is a probable reason that a more right-centrist/liberal government would be elected, opposed to a more &#39;socialist&#39; candidate, like Humala.

Perhaps this is a good thing for the Peruvian working class though, since they must know that electoral politics does not and will not ever benefit them. So maybe they&#39;ll finally get together and overthrow that shit completely. But that&#39;s probably just naive optimism. Whatever, naive optimism floats my boat. ;)
Any sources to the "pay to play" system of voting in Peru
Kuz I&#39;d like to use it in arguments and whatnot, but I don&#39;t think many would be convinced if I used the "a Peruvian co-worker told me" approach
Any websites, studies, or documents u know about which verify his claim?[/b]

Can&#39;t find anything yet, but I&#39;ll work on it. So far, all I&#39;ve come across is this (http://news.pajamasmedia.com/world/2006/06/06/9065349_EDITORIAL_Alan_G.shtml) article, stating that there are indeed poor and disenfranchised people in Peru:

Mr. Garcia must find a way to keep the economy growing, inflation in check and budget deficits under control -- but at the same time give Peru&#39;s disenfranchised poor a stake in the economy. As long as a significant number of Peruvians -- mostly indigenous and in rural areas -- remain locked out of the system, they will be fodder for the seductive appeal of populism and wrongheaded calls for nationalizing foreign investments, a key part of Mr. Humala&#39;s platform.

(If you Goolge "Peru Disenfranchised", you&#39;ll find many other articles refering to the same thing.)

Also, I found this:

Describes the "reprivatization of the state", political regime, reorganization of society, and other political andsocial changes which disenfranchise and impoverish the majority of the population, in light of the reelection of President Fujimori [emphasis added]
It&#39;s an abstract to an article, whose full-text is apparently not available online, that I found searching the U of T(oronto) database.

Source: Quijano, Anibal. Socialism and Democracy. New York: Winter 1995.Vol.9, Iss. 2; pg. 45

If you (or I) can find the print or full-text version of this (^) article, it may give us the information we&#39;re looking for.

But anyway, it&#39;s 3 am, and time for bed. I&#39;ll come across something concrete at some point, I hope. I&#39;ve also sent an email to a potential source, and will post any relevant information that I recieve.

Too bad word of mouth isn&#39;t considered a legitimate source :)

chebol
11th June 2006, 12:17
Don&#39;t belive the bullshit. Humala comes almost from obscurity to win around 47%&#33;&#33;&#33; of the vote (and an overall majority outside of Lima and Challao) DESPITE the US pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Garcia&#39;s campaign, likely fixing the first round so Lourdes Flores wouldn&#39;t make the final round, and thereby supply the easy option of "right vs left", and starting a scare campaign around Chavez&#39; "interference". (Question: who actually started the war of words between lima and caracas?).

So Humala didn&#39;t win. Oh well. This is still a huge victory for the peruvian people and a massive defeat to the US (which of course, could have been bigger again if Humala had won). The challenge now, as always, is that the Peruvians keep taking the fight to Garcia.

Garcia will have to tow the &#39;left&#39; line, or rely heavily on US munificence, or he may not last out his term.

McLeft
11th June 2006, 13:45
I think the major influence on the outcome of this election was the media. The madia attempted to label Humala as a future dictator but most people don&#39;t even understand that his cause was good. This is a pattern that is repeated all throughout Latin America and it&#39;s called ignorance. Peope are too naive and they only elect the candidate supported by the press.

unema-
12th June 2006, 03:03
Don&#39;t know if this is a big factor but my grandma told me people disliked Humala because his father was speaking for him or something like that.

Tekun
12th June 2006, 13:02
Originally posted by OkaCrisis+Jun 11 2006, 07:16 AM--> (OkaCrisis @ Jun 11 2006, 07:16 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:17 AM

Mujer [email protected] 5 2006, 10:04 PM
I found this reallly puzzling. Did people really elect this guy, who fucked them over first time round, just (in a grotesquely simplified nutshell) to spite Chavez?
I think it&#39;s worth pointing out that in Peru, you have to pay a sum of money (I think &#036;79) in order to be able to vote at all. So the 50% of the population that is poor, according to Tekun, are effectively disenfranchised.

I think this is a probable reason that a more right-centrist/liberal government would be elected, opposed to a more &#39;socialist&#39; candidate, like Humala.

Perhaps this is a good thing for the Peruvian working class though, since they must know that electoral politics does not and will not ever benefit them. So maybe they&#39;ll finally get together and overthrow that shit completely. But that&#39;s probably just naive optimism. Whatever, naive optimism floats my boat. ;)
Any sources to the "pay to play" system of voting in Peru
Kuz I&#39;d like to use it in arguments and whatnot, but I don&#39;t think many would be convinced if I used the "a Peruvian co-worker told me" approach
Any websites, studies, or documents u know about which verify his claim?

Can&#39;t find anything yet, but I&#39;ll work on it. So far, all I&#39;ve come across is this (http://news.pajamasmedia.com/world/2006/06/06/9065349_EDITORIAL_Alan_G.shtml) article, stating that there are indeed poor and disenfranchised people in Peru:

Mr. Garcia must find a way to keep the economy growing, inflation in check and budget deficits under control -- but at the same time give Peru&#39;s disenfranchised poor a stake in the economy. As long as a significant number of Peruvians -- mostly indigenous and in rural areas -- remain locked out of the system, they will be fodder for the seductive appeal of populism and wrongheaded calls for nationalizing foreign investments, a key part of Mr. Humala&#39;s platform.

(If you Goolge "Peru Disenfranchised", you&#39;ll find many other articles refering to the same thing.)

Also, I found this:

Describes the "reprivatization of the state", political regime, reorganization of society, and other political andsocial changes which disenfranchise and impoverish the majority of the population, in light of the reelection of President Fujimori [emphasis added]
It&#39;s an abstract to an article, whose full-text is apparently not available online, that I found searching the U of T(oronto) database.

Source: Quijano, Anibal. Socialism and Democracy. New York: Winter 1995.Vol.9, Iss. 2; pg. 45

If you (or I) can find the print or full-text version of this (^) article, it may give us the information we&#39;re looking for.

But anyway, it&#39;s 3 am, and time for bed. I&#39;ll come across something concrete at some point, I hope. I&#39;ve also sent an email to a potential source, and will post any relevant information that I recieve.

Too bad word of mouth isn&#39;t considered a legitimate source :) [/b]
Thanks for the info bro

I&#39;d started looking for it, but my final exams are this week so I haven&#39;t done my research in a while
As soon as I finish at school, I&#39;ll start again

When I find something I&#39;ll post it ASAP


BTW, thanks for looking into it