Can a Chávista become a Lulaista?

Peru's Ollanta Humala and the rebranding of the South American left.

BY MICHAEL SHIFTER | MAY 23, 2011

As political makeovers go, Peruvian presidential contender Ollanta Humala's has been striking. The former army officer backed a military coup in 2005, and was the consummate outsider during his first bid for Peru's highest office a year later. He ran proudly as a fiercely anti-system candidate and a self-proclaimed admirer of Venezuela's populist, leftist president Hugo Chávez, losing a runoff by 5 percent to current president Alan Garcia. In 2011, however, Humala has tried to make the case that he is the epitome of prudence and moderation, portraying himself less as a Peruvian Chávez as the second coming of Brazil's wildly popular former president Luiz Iniacio Lula da Silva. The question is: Will Peruvians buy the conversion?

The answer will come on June 5, when Humala, 48, faces Keiko Fujimori in a runoff election. Fujimori, a 35 year-old congresswoman, carries her own baggage: She is the daughter of Alberto Fujimori, Peru's president during the 1990s, who is now serving a 25-year prison sentence for human rights violations and corruption. But with Fujimori doing her best to cast doubt on her rival's claims and instill fear about him taking the reins in Peru, Humala's true beliefs are under greater scrutiny than ever before.

The strategy appears to be working: the latest poll by DATUM shows that she has reversed the narrow lead once held by Humala and now enjoys a slight edge of just under 4 percent (with 13.8 percent still undecided or planning to leave their ballots blank). According to the survey, over 55 percent of Peruvians believe that, if elected, Humala would rule Peru as Chávez has in Venezuela by nationalizing private companies and scaring off new investors. Peruvians are notoriously wary (with good reason) of political promises after numerous corruption scandals that have stained politicians of all stripes, and are similarly skeptical of one of Fujimori's principal pledges -- that, if elected, she would not pardon her father. Less than 25 percent believe her.

Neither Fujimori nor Humala was the preferred candidate for most international investors. Both have taken pains to show their support for market-friendly policies. But given the choice, Fujimori is widely seen as less risky and more reassuring to the markets.  The polling results and markets have tracked closely. Humala's initial advantage led to a sharp drop in the markets and the Peruvian currency which have recovered with Fujimori now taking the lead.   

There is no mystery why Humala wants Peruvians to associate him with Lula, who left office in January with an 80 percent approval rating. The former labor leader turned globalization champion was unique in his ability to straddle the ideological spectrum, a gift that endeared him to the working class, but didn't alienate the elite business community. Lula also delivered concrete results for Brazilians, lifting some 30 million people out of poverty in his eight years in office and catapulting the country to its undisputed global status.

Humala's ostensible change of heart may be sincere and not merely an electoral ploy, but there is surely a strong smell of opportunism in his abrupt metamorphosis. And the comparison with Lula is notably specious. After all, Lula's political thinking evolved over decades: a product of his experience as a union leader, opponent of Brazil's military dictatorship, and head of the Workers Party. His democratic credentials -- the practiced art of give and take -- were earned and shaped through a series of political battles. Indeed, Lula only reached the presidency on his fourth try.

EVARISTO SA/AFP/Getty Images

 

Michael Shifter is president of the Inter-American Dialogue and adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit
 SUBJECTS:

JAN Z. VOLENS

12:13 AM ET

May 24, 2011

Whatever: "Continental drift" will continue...

A former director in Brazil's military-and national intelligence community writes in his private blog: "It would be dangerous for us, if the U.S. and NATO would desist from the Near East, and instead concentrate on South America!". The point - the U.S." influence" is seeping away from and is increasingly rejected in some regions because of the the economic and social decline within the U.S., brought about by the both the "Greenspan" syndrom of faked economic growth and the "Wolfowitz" syndrom of selling U.S. society on "global policing". Some of Peru's recent growth - as that of other nations in Latin America, is powered by economic growth in regions of the worlds which were previously not traditional economic partners - such as China and the Arabic World, and the reliance on the policies of national economists instead of tutelage from Chicago or dictates from New York. The Lula formula's magic contained that secret ingredient "nationalism" and a rejection of subservience to the U.S.'s whose "advisors" had bled Brazil's financial and economic stability in the final decades of the last century, and the deliberate obstacles imposed by Washington to retard technological development. Thus in the end, in Peru, after the apprehensions of the elections have passed, the national economic community will pursue what is in their own best national interest - even if it contains some stabilizing social innovations adopted from Brazil's model.

  REPLY
 

KEV3334

2:31 PM ET

May 24, 2011

*

Hugo Chavez is that you? I didn't know you posted at FP. Why don't you do some research and compare China's trade with Latin America to the US trade with latin america. Boy those little things called facts sure are pesky things. As for that "fake" economic growth the US economy is still larger than the BRIC economies combined so take your dumb anti-American arse somewhere else because you're flatout wrong and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

  REPLY
 

KEV3367

6:51 AM ET

June 7, 2011

to reply to kev

Hugo Chavez is that you? I didn't know you posted at FP. Why don't you do some research and compare China's trade with Latin America to the US trade with latin america. Boy those little things called facts sure are pesky things. As for that "fake" economic growth the US economy is still larger than the BRIC economies combined so take your dumb anti-American arse somewhere else because you're flatout wrong and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

China's 'trade' with the US is 'tainted' with large numbers of American companies building factories there, replacing their American workers, and shipping the result to Walmart etc. Chinese manufacturing capacity increases, American jobs go down with attendant buying power going down, and millions being forced out of the middle class. That has to be compared with Brazil's adding tens of millions to the middle class during the same period.

That Brazil, Russia, India and China have economies rivaling America's -at least to the point that you must cite it as not yet passing the US is indicative of its strength, not its weakness. And as those countries have had near double digit growth during the continuing slow growth of the 'west' one must ask how long your 'defence' of America as "still larger" will be true.

And one must also ask: when will the millions being forced out of the middle class in the US, will notice the tens of millions joining the middle class outside American borders, and demand similar policies.

Volens isn't being anti-American, merely providing information that clarifies our position, so that real policy, affecting the real situation on the ground can be altered.

Dont attack messengers, check facts.

(this was supposed to be in reply to KEV3334, but the site attaches it to the parent comment)

  REPLY
 

TREVORSKI

4:00 PM ET

May 24, 2011

From radicalism to pragmatism

Humala's comments and sudden drift from the contestatory left to the center left may seem tainted with political motivation and empty of real substance, but in politics pragmatic policy making can only really occur through experience. It is possible to be an idealist as a candidate, but until one has actually been a politician can they be considered a political pragmatist. Lula proved himself to be pragmatic not as a candidate, but as president. The business community still feared him during his fourth candidacy, but were shown otherwise throughout his eight years as president. What was practical on the campaign trail was realistic in office. Brazil's fragmented multi-party system would have made it difficult for him to pursue an idealistic contestatory left agenda. His campaign manager had to buy votes just to get his moderate reforms through the legislature.
Similarly Humala will most likely face the same opposition in the Peruvian legislature. While the political landscape is less scattered than the Brazilian one, the emphasis in Peru is focused on continuity inspersed with moderate refrom. Maybe more CCT, aid to the struggling portion of the population, and increased infrastructure investment in the adean highlands, but certainly no Missiones. Humala has little choice, but to act in the shadow of Lula. We will see his pragmatism reveal itself as president, save the Kookie Keiko doesnt clinch the margin.

  REPLY
 

SMARZOTAIS

11:40 AM ET

June 6, 2011

Poor Peru...

It was like a race between a Sarah Palin who isnt entirely bereft of sense and a single policy goal (free her dad!) and a slightly less radically moronic Chavez... were I able to vote in that election I dont know if I could muster enough will to get up out of my funk and do it. Who would I vote for with two terrible choices?

I hope Humala ends up leaning a bit more towards the rational end of the political spectrum (the middle) as he kinda-sorta-maybe hinted at his ability to do so before... would suck if Peru, in such a good up-turn condition right now, began sinking back into the abyss like Venezuela is.

Lula or Chavez... hard choice. Lula is like Chavez in being irritating and seemingly smug on the world stage though he isnt as hopeless as Chavez is on the economic side of things.

  REPLY
 

JAN Z. VOLENS

12:16 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Humala is a --- "Peruanista", and he and Peru have won!

Peru's most important commercial partner is China. Brazil's most important partner is China. China is an important partner of Chile and Educador. The Arabs are important export customers of Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina (just sold $2 billion soy to Egypt!). Colombia is also increasingly linking with China. That is South America 2011! The "continental drift" out of U.S. hegemony - economic and geopolitical - and towards an independent South America. Notice what is happening - Colombia requested the extradition of a FARC suspect from Mexico which extradited him. Now a Colombian court set the man free. Colombia will "normalize" like the rest of South America - but it will take another half decade. Watch Lula's travel in Latin America - teaching the new kids on the block how to connect the national left and the national right at the national center and how to develop commercial and geopolitical ties with Asia and Africa, while still being "nice" towards the USA !

  REPLY
 

JAN Z. VOLENS

7:17 PM ET

June 7, 2011

Humala: Social programs and collaboration with mining investors.

Today in "El Comerio" Lima, Humalas economic advisor, a Harvard economist, explained that some possible extra tributation of the "important" mining industry, will not be designed to impact negatively on those corporations. The on-line of "El Comercio" also features a huge ad: "Visit Mexico" with the price quotation for Peru's vacation tourists. -- This is not your grand-daddy's Peru...

  REPLY