The Organization of American States (OAS) decided to initiate the application of the Democratic Charter to Peru, at the request of its government and through articles 17 and 18 of the Charter.
It is true that it was requested by the Peruvian government itself and is among the least intrusive applications, but nothing alters the fact that it is manifestly surprising that an organization that has not been able to initiate processes of questioning and intervention in the face of dictatorships such as Venezuela or Nicaragua does so in Peru. , a country that has lived in a political crisis for years, that despite this lives in a democracy and there is no evidence that it is in danger. For the rest, the current crisis is related to accusations of corruption of the Attorney General’s Office, investigated and presented before Parliament itself.
The accusations are serious and have been presented by competent authorities in a country where the separation of powers exists. In other words, everything indicates that what is happening is a wrong and unfair decision with Peru and those who have denounced the current government, and that it can lend itself to manipulation by forces that are not exactly democratic. In other words, it seems neither timely nor necessary. And the above, no matter how much it has been requested by the Peruvian government itself.
There seems to be a certain consensus in characterizing Peru as a society that lives either in crisis or crisis or in permanent political crisis, and despite the fact that the economy has resisted better than expected, for many it has increased poverty, instability, the very high turnover of ministers, with a growing influence of corruption and drug trafficking in institutions, in addition to high-conflict, low-quality political action, and with too many parties for minimal efficiency, and where politics has been transformed into family businesses , to serve the taxpayer more than to serve the country.
The facts show that the conditions that would justify the application of the American Democratic Charter are not perceived, since the crisis has to do with actions provoked by the government itself, and with accusations of corruption and the like, and where the interference of the OAS it cannot resolve the internal dispute, and in my opinion, it has more to do with an erroneous application of a valuable instrument such as the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
The Charter was formally born in Peru on the day of the attacks on the Twin Towers, accompanied by many hopes, although it has also gone through much frustration. It constitutes a contribution in a double sense, by defining the substance of a democracy, and by being an instrument of international law, innovating by stating that “the peoples of the Americas have the right to democracy”, adding the obligation of governments to “promote it and defend her.” The Charter says that “democracy is indispensable for stability, peace and development”. It collects the essential elements of democracy as well as establishes sanctions. That it is not applied is another problem,
For all of the above, it is an essential element for the defense of democracy, and its use is not appropriate for an issue of internal political leadership and accusations of corruption, being a negative element that can lend itself to manipulation.
In relation to the OAS, it is not appreciated what a “high-level group” sent by it can do and that there is not one of a similar level present in Peru. It is assumed that this is to preserve or defend democracy, but it is simply not understood why it would be necessary to take “steps to promote dialogue and strengthen the democratic system” in Peru.
If it is announced that prosecutors are investigating alleged acts of corruption, and if Peru has an independent justice that has prosecuted presidents and sentenced former presidents in rulings validated in courts of other countries and internationally, the presence of the OAS is not understood, even invoking Articles such as 17 and 18 of the Charter, since they have to do with Title IV of “strengthening and preserving democratic institutions.”
Whatever the origin, we must avoid sowing a blanket of doubts about what is done in Peru, since that has been the interested interpretation of those who are not exactly friends. For the same reason, updated versions of Pedrito and the Wolf should not be endorsed, as has been done by the country’s presidency. In short, it is not appropriate to send a high-level group to Peru with experts from the member states, “in order to analyze the situation,” a “situation” that, moreover, has its origin in a presentation to Congress of a constitutional complaint against the current president by the National Prosecutor. That is the origin and there is no other.
Even more incomprehensible is that this decision was made immediately after the OAS itself held its last session in Lima in early October, so it is inevitable to conclude that, being an action within the law, what we have just commenting on the OAS is not only a bad decision, but a setback in the application of the Democratic Charter.
How do you get out of this error and mistake?
In one way, acting with great respect and care. That the Commission be constituted promptly and that it not make any gestures or express words that could be misunderstood, and that if it continues along the approved path, travel to Lima with open ears and willing to listen to all those who want to speak , and without preconceived ideas.
Democracy is going backwards in the region, just as dictatorships are advancing instead of going backwards. When there is a struggle between these narratives, there is no way to avoid a very strong image, that of the line for the sum, that there is no way to justify that an institution that has not been able to act against some of the worst dictatorships in the world today, seems now act against a country in crisis, but a democracy such as Peru. By the way, it is not the same, but -and that is my argument- it is very difficult not to invade the confusion.
Giving the wrong signal is a mistake, unfair for a place so closely linked to the very history of the Democratic Charter and its tradition, such as Peru. Since it is not clear how the OAS can collaborate to address a crisis that has been going on for so long, what has happened also seems unnecessary and undeserved for Peruvians.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
