It is well known that the Chilean left attributes Eduardo Frei Montalva to having made a mistake when he initially supported Pinochet’s coup against Salvador Allende (who considered Pinochet his most “loyal” general), who thought that the coup d’état (which he supported by low) was going to last very little and that the political crisis would soon be resolved in their favor. It was not like that (there were loyalists like General Schneider). Chile was immersed in a bloody dictatorship, which lasted for decades and whose consequences (among them its constitution full of padlocks designed to transcend democracy by Jaime Guzmán, often confused with Juan Guzmán Tapia, the only judge – Catholic – who prosecuted Pinochet and was not even mentioned by Boric) are still standing.
Not very different seems to have been the mistake made by the so-called Peruvian “caviar left”, headed by Verónica Mendoza, a friend of Boric (main support of Dina Boluarte in the region, despite the fact that Boric comes from the Chilean student movement and the Boluarte dictatorship represses and gasses those same San Marcos students). Initially, Mendoza supported the coup against Castillo (a mountain man without “experience”), who had defeated her in the 2021 elections, but also with votes (she had to wait more than a month for her victory to be recognized, the Fujimorism challenged to his voters in Puno, Juliaca, Ayacucho and Cusco saying that “Indians do not know how to vote”, perhaps thinking that the political crisis would be resolved (as Frei thought in Chile a few decades before) in their favor. But it was not like that. And today Peru is immersed in a political and social crisis rarely seen since the recovery of democracy. This crisis was deepened by the lack of clarity (regarding the legal nullity of the vacancy against Castillo) of Latin American progressivism, divided into two (Evo, Petro, Amlo, Xiomara, Arce, but also Lacalle Pou, Alberto and even Piñeria; one side, Lula and Boric, on the other). Part of the progressivism has taken over the not-so-innocent confusions brought about by Mendoza, who was not clear from the beginning regarding the illegality of the vacancy against Castillo, regardless of whether or not he was authorized to dissolve parliament. There are mechanisms provided by the constitution for these cases and they were not respected.
The rule of law is being dismantled, the criminal law of the enemy is being restored, dissent is persecuted and silenced, to combat “urban terrorism” any detainee is dressed up in red, the National Board of Justice is invaded, as denounced by the former prosecutor of the Nation Zoira Avalos, the critical press is censored, students are censored, congress approves regulations that favor illegal mining. OAS and UN reports are challenged.
By putting his own personal interests first in a critical moment, such as an illegal removal of a president, Mendoza influenced the misunderstanding of several figures in Latin American politics and law. This misstep had consequences. His initial ambiguity generated confusion in much of the Latin American left (Ecuador, Brazil, Chile) about (and underestimating) the seriousness of the mechanisms used in Castillo’s removal. The vacancy against Castillo is null, (whether we like Castillo or not, they are independent issues, it is not about justifying one thing with another, discussing whether or not he was prepared to govern does not entitle him to be removed in any way, violating constitutional procedures) because his vacancy was implemented, violating the constitution and regulations of the Peruvian Congress. It is an illegal vacancy. And this was not initially said by the left. The caviar left (a term that originated in France, where Mendoza studied) preferred to look the other way, because they thought that by dropping Castillo (because he is an Indian, a mountain man, he was not “prepared”, because “he is not capable”, etc. , is a teacher from Cajamarca), being complicit in his fall, the crisis would be resolved in their favor in a short time. But it was not like that. Today Peru has 75 murdered, a government without legitimacy and an atomized opposition, precisely because the left did not know how to position itself clearly from the first moment, against the usurpation of Boluarte and his ministers allied to Fujimorism, who took office after an unconstitutional vacancy and a murderous repression. On the day of Castillo’s illegal dismissal, the Argentine left (del Caño) went out to put up posters in the UBA faculties that said “solidarity with French workers.” Not a word about the illegality of the dismissal against Castillo. Nothing. The white left cannot be complicit in such an outrage. (Evo, who is neither white nor caviar, who understands racism, supports Castillo) Milei (like Boric) supports Boluarte.
Verónica Mendoza has already met Boric three times. Boric met Dina Boluarte three times, whom he hugs in each photo. We are starring in a historical role of Latin American progressivism. They are not seeing that there was a coup d’état. Even the Democratic Party in the United States has expressed concern, in a letter signed by 16 legislators, at the request of Alexandra Cortes, about the violation of human rights in Peru.
Jorge Cholvis (who has dedicated himself to thinking about debt and sovereignty) was a young coach when he traveled to Chile on behalf of Arturo Sampay, who was already grown up; Eric Calcagno was waiting for him in Santiago. Cholvis traveled to collaborate with Allende’s constitutional reform. An article similar to art. 40 of the 1949 constitution (repealed in our country by a military faction, an institutional detail that is barely a footnote in the Bidart Campos manuals, which is why Duhalde “the good one” was bothered that the old building of the Secretary of Human Rights, on 25 de Mayo Street, will be called Bidart Campos and not Arturo Sampay), on natural resources. They seem like distant stories, but they are decisive in recovering the integration of our jurisprudence in a common cause. Latin American. Castillo’s vacancy is null and void, because he acted in violation of the Peruvian constitution. Progressivism cannot look the other way. He must say it.
It is curious that Boric supports Boluarte. Milei (and Vox) also do it.
In Peru, as in Chile at the time of the Vicariate of Solidarity, the only consistent and serious institutional resistance is that supported by the Catholic Church.
Milei says that the Pope supports bloody dictatorships. But in Peru the blood that flows is what Milei justifies. There are 75 murdered in Peru. And there is no one imprisoned. Boric’s embrace of Boluarte is an infamy for progressivism.
#caviar #lefts #faux #pas