​

The campaign to recall Lima mayor Susana Villarán has reached a new low, as its promoters accuse her of being too “pituca” or upper class to understand the needs of the majority of who inhabit this sprawling city.  The main actors supporting her ouster, including the APRA and Solidaridad Nacional parties as well as more obscure operators, are positioning themselves as defenders of a popular stereotype — the unruly, informal but enterprising “cholos”, migrants of mixed race and custom — against the efforts of a white elite to impose its own social order.1

Although Villarán does come from an elite family whose members are featured in the society pages, she has participated in leftist parties and grassroots social movements for over 30 years, and by all accounts her priorities lie with the oppressed.    Hence her defenders have rightly called this foul play.

But while it´s foul, it is also ironic.  Thirty years ago, in the Lima municipal elections of 1983, the tables were turned.  In an effort to moderate its sectarian image, the traditionally populist APRA fielded a candidate identified with the intellectual and social elite, Alfredo Barnechea.  Yet he was criticized as too “pituco” for Lima, by supporters of the victor, Alfonso Barrantes, a lawyer of humble migrant origins and popular appeal.  The fact that Villarán collaborated with the Barrantes administration – indeed, she claims to be a creator of the Glass of Milk program launched under his watch — has not prevented opponents from turning the class argument against her.

In the elections of 1990 both class and race issues came more strongly into play, as Alberto Fujimori and his ticket – “un chinito y dos cholitos” – won a resounding second-round victory over acclaimed novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, whose elite supporters raised explicitly racist arguments against the Asian outsider.  Leftists initially supported Fujimori, though most took distance after his drastic economic reforms and the self-coup of 1992.   The fact that many Peruvians still remember Fujimori fondly, has been a source of considerable frustration to the democratic left.

Today, analysts sympathetic to Villarán are also frustrated by her low popularity, and are trying out explanations reminscent of the 1990s.  Yet as articles by political scientist Carlos Melendez and civil rights lawyer Wilfredo Ardito point out, this often involves portraying lower income voters in negative stereotyped ways; as either seeped in resentment, or susceptible to paternalistic authoritarianism, or especially prone to be captured by corrupt, clientelistic networks.  Analysts also group citizens into income-based categories, from A to E, for purposes of differentiating their political attitudes, with “D – E” being the lowest in every sense.  For someone used to seeing this as a public school grade scale, it´s hard to digest.

The recall election is not until March and Villarán still has a decent chance at winning.  Her opponents have plenty of weak spots.  Yet some folks in her camp apparently find it hard to accept that Lima residents may have legitimate beefs with a mayor who was elected by a narrow margin, and who has found it difficult to govern effectively and communicate with voters.  It is entirely fair to argue that she needs more time, that she has made progress on difficult issues, and that changing mayors midstream won´t improve things for Lima.  It is entirely fair to point out that Villarán is an honest politician with no hint of corruption in her own history, unlike many of her opponents.   But it is neither fair nor constructive to suggest that the voters who are leaning against her are not rational actors, and political equals worthy of respect.

The Public Defender´s office has called on all candidates to cease using “intolerant or discriminatory language”, and analysts such as Eduardo Dargent have stressed that provoking racialized conflict, as the Left has also done in the past, is unhealthy for democracy.   Yet as recent studies by CIUP confirm, racism and discrimination are daily realities in this “modern” city; in the street, on the job, and in many public services.These issues are very much on the public agenda, and it is unrealistic to sweep them aside in politics.  What is realistic, is to stop reproducing stereotypes and take a closer look at (and listen to) citizens as such; especially if the goal really is turning this election around.​

————–

1.  “The NO campaign appears so well dressed”, says one of the ideologues of the SI (pro-recall) campaign.  «In contrast, the SI is cholazo, disorganized, and this connects with the people»… «The SI belongs to the people who see the country grow and grow, but it´s not working for them.  They want equal treatment, but what do they get?  The La Parada (public market relocation), for example, is the imposition of a Western, middle class, Miraflores, Villa Maria order.  Not the order of our popular sectors».  Quotes from pro-recall strategists, as reported by Marco Sifuentes in La Republica.