On July 28, 2011, Ollanta Humala gave his first official message to the nation,
after being sworn in as President by the new Congress. According to pundits, it
did not go so well. An initial salute to the Constitution of 1979 (replaced in
1993 under autocrat Alberto Fujimori), provoked such cheering and jeering in
the chamber that those present, including most Latin American heads of state,
could barely hear the speech. The most vociferous was Dr. Martha Chavez,
leader of the fujimorista opposition, and her 47 minutes of heckling suggested
an ugly portent of things to come.
During the following 15 days, President Humala took a cure of silence, avoiding
the media while trying to get the new government house in order. This
generated nonstop complaints from the local chattering classes. Though
Chavez was suspended by Congress for 120 days, she didn’t stop talking, and
Fujimori siblings Keiko and Kenji also gave press conferences to question Humala´s
silence and leadership skills.
On the government side, Prime Minister Salomon Lerner spoke to media on
several occasions, regarding important issues of state. The Economics Minister
spoke, assuring investors that the ship of state is in good macroeconomic shape.
Other cabinet members also spoke, until the Prime Minister allegedly ordered
them to shut up. Congressional President Daniel Abugattas, who passed out
from stress during the inauguration events, continued to give reporters and
opponents juicy quotable insults (in Spanish you say “pisar el palito”, but in this
case it means more like “put foot in mouth”). Humala´s father and brother have
spoken, the latter giving press conferences from jail, and even the President’s much
questioned legal advisor spoke, as well as the Vice President who spoke in his
defense. Only the Left was relatively quiet, as Humala last week named an
unprecedented number of socialists to posts of responsibility in the
social and environmental policy spheres. Yet even some left-leaning
commentators commented nervously about Humala´s silence, especially
regarding more controversial military and civilian appointments.
On Friday Humala finally resurfaced, in shirtsleeves and in Pisco, giving an
impromptu press conference while announcing a civil-military reconstruction
effort for communities damaged by a major earthquake four years ago. Their
sorry state had become a symbol of the outgoing government’s corruption and
incapacity to get things done for the poor. The message was “fewer words, more action«;
unlike Garcia, Humala was not going to waste time in flowery speeches
or respond to every criticism from his political opponents.
Two polls released this weekend suggest that the public got the message, and
likes what it (doesn’t) hear. A national Datum survey commissioned by the
Peru21 newspaper showed Humala´s approval rating rising to 62%, up from 55%
in July, and just 19% disapproval. The (silent?) majority approved of his
inaugural message, and 52% expressed high hopes that Peru will improve under
this government. Today the even more conservative El Comercio (parent to
Peru21), released an Ipsos-Apoyo survey showing 55% approval and an equally
positive assessment of his initial message (76% liked it) and future prospects.
Oddly, this survey covered only urban areas, so presumably under represents
total support for a president popular in the countryside.
According to today´s Apoyo poll, a majority of Peruvians approve of Humala´s
new Cabinet, and first economic and foreign policy decisions, and 44% approve
of the Prime Minister; not bad for the guy who had to confront most of the howling
these first two weeks. Notably, 71% believe the country will be better off under
Humala in the area of citizen security, 69% in the fight against corruption, over
50% believe the economy and quality of life will improve, and 55% believe Peru
will be better off at the end of his term (23% say it will stay the same). This, in
the current international context, is a very firm start.
Of course, Peru has a long history of dictators who stressed “action” over words,
and democratic processes, including General Manuel Odria (whose slogan was
“hechos y no palabras”) and more recently Fujimori. Today, a worrisome 48%
believe Humala will be authoritarian, and presumably many consider that
necessary to deliver the goods. In a provocative essay, El retorno de Odria,
sociologist Sinesio Lopez claims that the “philosophy of public works” can
be a legitimate response to citizen needs and politicians´ reelection desires, but
it is more often conducive to corrupt and arbitrary rule. Politicians who stress
“getting things done” by hook or by crook, tend to reinforce a political culture
highly permissive to bribes, kickbacks and avoidance of state regulation. The
popular slogan is “roba pero hace obra” (he steals but builds things).
Such a philosophy, Lopez stresses, is also deeply undemocratic. “Can do”
politicians who avoid public debate, tend to replace necessary consensus-
building measures with fait accompli. This was the logic behind Fujimori´s
popular self-coup in 1992. The art of democratic politics, on the other hand,
is to govern with efficiency and transparency, decency and public debate,
using words and actions that are mutually reinforcing. Fortunately, Lopez
has emerged as a close collaborator to Humala, so we can hope
the President is not only being quiet, but listening carefully.
