In keeping with the darker prognosis Peruvian election, went to the second round the two candidates considered most controversial and disputed: Ollanta Humala and Keiko Fujimori. Along the way were Alejandro Toledo, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Luis Castillo, all of school (though leaning to the right, at least economically). Toledo and to a lesser extent, Castañeda, started with everything on their side. Toledo came to assume that first-round win at the time seemed insurmountable advantage.
Gradually, the heat of the campaign, everything was changing. His arrogance to the advantage and a campaign devoid of courage and proposals that captivate the imagination society was losing ground every day, while the others going back. Keiko
campaigned the government boasted of his father, turning a blind eye to human rights violations and rampant corruption that characterized (in any case, blamed a Vladimiro Montesinos of all sins), and mounted on a neo-populist and conservative discourse.
Kuczynski, which started with meager means, is presented as a very dedicated and serious, worked hard while social networks and the Internet. Gradually his attitude was convincing those who are disillusioned with Toledo or without options to see Castañeda, considered could be the best candidate Ollanta Humala before a shot is in the polls.
Humala the challenge seemed to be the largest, began in the basement of the surveys, the only advantage of being well-known but poorly perceived by many sectors. He kept his entire campaign and populist nationalist discourse, but, advised by people of Lula-moderated his speech, he controlled his bluster and was as good father, a man nearby, serene.
The interesting thing is that while Humala and Keiko are considered antagonistic, are actually very similar: populist, paternalistic, authoritarian apologists and many directly dangerous, these two candidates seem more like two sides of a coin than rivals. In another life could be allies.
Together, they won more than 55 percent of voters, leaving the "moderates" with a pitiful 45 percent. Kuczinsky played for a few hours the second to Keiko, but ultimately fell short. Toledo was humiliated by the electorate, remaining with 15.5 percent of the vote in an embarrassing fourth place.
The Peruvian public, en masse, vote for the two most radical, less conciliatory and more "risky" at least from the perspective of international capital. That itself is a confirmation of the failure of the restraint and the stickiness of a discourse of take from the rich to give to the poor.
Ironically, the only chance they have now won both Fujimori and Humala is moderating its approach to the extreme in order to win the vote not supported center in the first instance. Keiko
swearing out now that is critical of corruption and authoritarianism of his father, and she'll govern, Ollanta, in turn, retracts to amend the Constitution and swear it will not affect economic interests.
The losers are opting in one direction or another, trying to impose their concepts, to build partnerships. Kuczinsky, in particular, has already lurched to Keiko, but his real influence on voters is questionable and at best limited. The same goes for Toledo, and Castaneda and lights.
This is the great paradox of moderation: in the first instance, blurs and is defeated, in a second instance, it is indispensable. No wonder less in Peru, after several years of growth and wealth generation, people still feel that progress firsthand. As always in contemporary capitalism, it favors the creation of wealth redistribution, which is always promised and never fulfilled. Outside seem to be the most successful countries in the world are the richest, but less unequal. Poverty, but inequality is the perfect place for the rage of radicalism to take root and build fantasies.
the end, the only thing that is clear is that we must be moderate in everything ... including moderation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment