Alberto Vergara: "The Peruvian Congress is made up of other versions of Pedro Castillo"

Peruvian political scientist Alberto Vergara. Courtesy

On Wednesday, December 7 at noon, 40 minutes after former Peruvian President Pedro Castillo announced the dissolution of Congress, political scientist Alberto Vergara agreed to an interview with EL PAÍS for that same afternoon.

He was traveling in Washington, covered by work and family obligations, but his disposition responded to a double commitment, as an analyst and as a citizen: to unambiguously denounce a coup d'état.

“I think it is very important that there is not the slightest doubt about the nature of the act,” he said then.

Three hours later, at the agreed time, the vertiginous Peruvian reality had passed over everyone.

Castillo was detained in a police station, Vice President Dina Boluarte had not yet been sworn in as president and Vergara asked to postpone the interview for at least one day to listen to her speech and evaluate the latest events.

The denunciation of the coup d'état then became an exploration of the elements that make up the Peruvian limbo today, a reflection on the current state of politics and the multiple questions that draw the horizon of the country.

A day later, what remained clear to Vergara was the nature of Castillo's act, but now illuminated by the evidence that there was no plan behind his coup attempt: "It's a genuinely imbecilic act."

says the analyst by video call from Washington on Thursday afternoon.

“The day before yesterday I would not have said it because it seemed to me that the President of the Republic did not deserve to be treated in that way under any circumstances.

But today it seems to me that I no longer have to keep the forms”.

Ask.

I understand that the answer to this question can only be speculative, but can you figure out why Pedro Castillo did what he did?

Why do you think he tried to dissolve Congress in this way?

Response.

I think it is due to several things.

One was from the beginning of his government and that is that the man does not have, he never had, an idea of ​​where he was standing.

The man had no experience, no political ideas and he was always very mediocre intellectually, politically.

But added to that was a moral mediocrity that became apparent very quickly.

A mediocrity of someone who was willing to commit all kinds of mischief and use any type of resource to avoid any responsibility.

And then, when he finds himself cornered because there are new accusations, he allows himself to be convinced of a plan that is worthy of a Woody Allen movie, by Mel Brooks, and commits the stupidity of his life, right?

Jump from the frying pan into the fire...

Q.

You just used the expression "allow yourself to be convinced"...

R.

Yes, because it conveys the feeling that there might be some resistance.

They simply convince him.

In other words: I believe that a guy without any greatness, without dignity, is offered a way to see if he can escape his criminal responsibility.

And in that sense I think it is a failed coup, but a coup of the most contemptible, abject nature, because there is not even an authoritarian project, a project with which you can disagree, one that may seem bad to you but in which there is an interest.

This is really staging a coup to see if it manages to overshadow their thieves.

I see it as a very critical moment of the country's corruption.

Not of corruption in the sense of bribery, bribery, bribery, but of corruption in the most traditional sense of the history of political thought.

It is when in the republics no one thinks about the public anymore, but rather everyone is thinking about how they continue to play at the disappearance of the public: the corruption of the Republic in the sense that I can pervert the norm that is there for the public, to use it in my favor in the most selfish way.

And that is what Castillo wanted to do, in one of the most radical measures of corruption in the Republic in this sense: launch a coup to cover up his criminal problems.

Q.

In our conversation yesterday, you said that although Pedro Castillo is the major symptom of an illness, his departure does not cure the underlying problem.

How do you see the possibility that this serves to clean up the political situation in Peru?

Or do you think there will continue to be one patch after another to maintain this kind of association between the Executive and the Legislative to maintain the

?

Pedro Castillo (in the center), is escorted by the police after being arrested this Wednesday. STRINGER (REUTERS)

R.

I feel that Peru, with these crises, is somehow like a body that is going through a health spasm.

When [Manuel] Merino ganged up with Congress and took power with an authoritarian spirit in 2020, the institutions, society, defended themselves and Merino only lasted six days in government.

When the right tried to carry out an electoral coup through a fraud that did not exist, the institutions resisted and gave the presidency to the person who had won the election, who was Pedro Castillo, at a very traumatic moment, very hard, with all the right and the entire

wanting to bring down an election.

However, the institutions endured.

And now Castillo has tried to dress up as a dictator and has been rejected in a matter of hours.

All of these are episodes that show you that there is something healthy, there is something that continues to resist, there is a national dignity and a kind of institutional virtue that is out there, that on a day-to-day basis does not seem to exist, but that when you are facing the abyss appear.

It is a kind of cry of resistance that arises in moments of crisis.

As Chico Buarque used to say:

[an inhuman cry that is a way of being heard].

I think it is a cry that is demanding the opportunity to continue this spasm of health.

And yet, at the same time, we Peruvians disappoint that each time: there is a reaction that opens up to us like a breaking point and, ultimately, nobody takes care of the situation really breaking.

I would say that there is a bit of that: these breaking points that do not break.

I wish this was a breaking point

.

Q.

What does bankruptcy mean in this case?

R.

Well, it means that we enter into a process in which the dominant voices in politics are not those of this vast majority that exists today, who, with purely stylistic and rhetorical differences, deep down are all leaders with an authoritarian vocation and a corrupt vocation.

Regardless of whether they are a little more to the right or a little more to the left, what there is is a vocation to plunder the State, to twist it to my advantage and we have to get out of that.

Not because I think you can eliminate it, but at least because it coexists with more civilized ways of viewing politics, in which there is common interest, the medium term, respect for the other.

The problem is not that there are authoritarians and thieves, the problem is that only those exist.

It is very difficult for a democracy to survive and prosper purely as an institution.

Q.

It is surprising that, on the one hand, they are talking about the strength of the institutions in Peru, but it seems very difficult for Congress to enable a way out such as early elections, which would imply that congressmen are preparing to do something that means their expulsion from power, and more without having the possibility of being re-elected.

R.

It is that it is.

The Peruvian Congress, in its vast majority, is made up of other versions of Pedro Castillo.

From the right, from the left, from the center, not ideological... But, fundamentally, the raw material is good-looking.

And we must not lose sight of the fact that in this almost year and a half of the Castillo Government, the Executive and the Legislative have worked hand in hand in a de facto alliance for a lot of things, for all the most harmful, regressive, cavernous things. .

We have never come up with the right concept to describe this relationship between Congress and the Executive in which they hate each other for the cameras, but are embraced to destroy education, state capacities, to destroy the attempt to build a civil service within of the State.

They are embraced for a lot of things that imply the weakening of the rule of law.

That is to say: the idea of ​​a law that regulates us all, that is repudiated by both powers and they have worked hand in hand for this year and a half.

If one only sees headlines, and especially from abroad, he believes that this is a project conflict or political polarization, when there is none here.

Police mobilizations in the streets of Lima. Fernando Vergara (AP)

Q.

What are the elements that concern you the most in this situation?

For example: any type of exit that allows some lasting stability, at this moment, is going to need a margin of patience from society.

There doesn't seem to be a way to immediately resolve the crisis.

Do you think there is a scope for that, are you concerned about social humor?

R.

There is one fact that is the most difficult of all, and it is that it seems to me that, even if Dina Boluarte wanted it —we don't know, but giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming her good will—, with this Congress there is very little chance to build a sensible cabinet for the country.

I believe that whatever is in the Executive branch that is honest, that has a project for the country, that is interested in the fundamental concerns of Peru, that tries to build a more just order, will necessarily be boycotted by Congress.

That is to say: the only stability that I see that can emerge is that of a pact with Congress, which will probably mean that the thieves will now have another shirt.

That is the theme.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's hard to think that someone very inexperienced like Boluarte, without a bench in Congress,

Without the popularity that [Martín] Vizcarra eventually had, for example, I can build it.

It is a question that remains to be seen, but from the ingredients that I see in that container it is difficult for me to believe that a democratic and positive result for the country can come out.

Q.

Are you concerned in this scenario that figures such as Antauro Humala could rise to the top, who since he was released from prison has been devoted to political activity and has a growth or at least a strong presence?

Or does it still seem too marginal a phenomenon?

R.

Honestly, I am not that concerned about the possibility of the emergence of some kind of authoritarian dictatorial leadership.

So far I don't see that there is a Bukele-type project or anything like that.

I once wrote: Peruvian democracy has this strange condition that it is not dying due to the presence of some strong man, but rather it is dying of inconsequentiality.

And I think that's where we continue.

It is lightness, inconsequentiality, trifle, what defeats power.

That's hard to get out of.

That does not build a final collapse.

What it builds is a slow and gradual decomposition, from which I would like to believe that we can get out, but it doesn't seem like it.

It seems that the components that maintain it, that use it, are still intact.

That is the issue: probably, when democracy is finished succumbing,

it will do so because it enters a chaotic rather than authoritarian situation.

People tend to believe that the opposite of democracy is only tyranny or dictatorship.

The opposite of democracy is also chaos.

I am not saying that we are going to be anarchy or chaos tomorrow.

But if, as the years go by, no one governs and the one who governs tries to undermine the regulatory capacity of the State, you are inevitably moving towards a society in which the way to resolve problems is neither on the path of democracy nor the path of empire. of the law, if not in the way that everyone does what they want.

That is the way in which Peruvian democracy is eroding, much more than the construction of a dictatorship, of authoritarianism.

People tend to believe that the opposite of democracy is only tyranny or dictatorship.

The opposite of democracy is also chaos.

I am not saying that we are going to be anarchy or chaos tomorrow.

But if, as the years go by, no one governs and the one who governs tries to undermine the regulatory capacity of the State, you are inevitably moving towards a society in which the way to resolve problems is neither on the path of democracy nor the path of empire. of the law, if not in the way that everyone does what they want.

That is the way in which Peruvian democracy is eroding, much more than the construction of a dictatorship, of authoritarianism.

People tend to believe that the opposite of democracy is only tyranny or dictatorship.

The opposite of democracy is also chaos.

I am not saying that we are going to be anarchy or chaos tomorrow.

But if, as the years go by, no one governs and the one who governs tries to undermine the regulatory capacity of the State, you are inevitably moving towards a society in which the way to resolve problems is neither on the path of democracy nor the path of empire. of the law, if not in the way that everyone does what they want.

That is the way in which Peruvian democracy is eroding, much more than the construction of a dictatorship, of authoritarianism.

But if, as the years go by, no one governs and the one who governs tries to undermine the regulatory capacity of the State, you are inevitably moving towards a society in which the way to resolve problems is neither on the path of democracy nor the path of empire. of the law, if not in the way that everyone does what they want.

That is the way in which Peruvian democracy is eroding, much more than the construction of a dictatorship, of authoritarianism.

But if, as the years go by, no one governs and the one who governs tries to undermine the regulatory capacity of the State, you are inevitably moving towards a society in which the way to resolve problems is neither on the path of democracy nor the path of empire. of the law, if not in the way that everyone does what they want.

That is the way in which Peruvian democracy is eroding, much more than the construction of a dictatorship, of authoritarianism.

Antauro Humala at a rally with his followers on August 22, 2022. Martin Mejia (AP)

Q.

And then?

R.

I think that, inevitably, to try to get out of this, you need the involvement of the citizenry in some way.

Finally, the strengthening of democracy always goes hand in hand with the strengthening of citizenship.

It is a stronger, more demanding citizenry that generates a stronger democracy.

But here what there is is a dissociation between the political regime, democracy and citizenship.

Citizens are at home, fed up.

And I do believe that these very mediocre politicians are comfortable without feeling the pressure of the people.

So, trying to make this breaking point break something, as we said a while ago, happens because the people, the citizens, want it and demand it.

If that spark does not appear, it is difficult.