 Good afternoon everybody. This is Nicola Susman and we're back at Latin American Directions. Today we have the pleasure of having Salvador Erencia Carrasco. He's a Peruvian lawyer and the director of the Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights Research and Education Center, and part-time professor at the Faculty of Law in the University of Ottawa. And today we will be discussing about the current political, economical, and overall situation improved. So more or less six months ago President Pedro Castillo was elected and just this week he went through his fourth cabinet change and it's just not a couple of people, but a significant cabinet change. Salvador, how do we get here? First of all, hello everybody. Hello Nicolás and all the people here from Think Tech, how it's a pleasure to be here. We've gotten here because this is the result of four years of political institutional crisis. So this is not something new. Since the election of former President Pedro Pablo Kucinski in 2016, the country has gone through four presidents, a series of revolts, social protests that ended up in a very, in a conflictive election where it's left, a radical left and a radical right faced on a run-off. So in a way the election of President Castillo was in a way an anti-systemic vote. And given that the options that we had were not the best for someone to lead a country in the middle of a pandemic crisis, an economic crisis, and a political crisis. But now we're seeing Nicolás with the impact of this decision. Pedro Castillo defeated Keiko Fujimori and it was because he won, because he was running against Keiko Fujimori. Against any other candidate he would not have won or even made it to the run-off election. But now that he has been, was elected, we see that he and his party and the people around his party were not prepared to govern the country and that is what we're facing. The consequences of a decision that was made under certain circumstances. Right. Right. Something pretty common in Latin America, right? Usually you're looking at two candidates left, right, and then people end up voting against someone, right, instead of four. Yes, our curse of the lesser evil perhaps would be one of the, to sum up Latin American politics. And as you said, yes, this has happened in Peru. This will happen in Colombia this year. This will happen in Brazil later in the year. This is a way, unfortunately, our curse that that, that we have to choose between candidates that under other circumstances, they will not have stand a chance to run for the presidency of a country. Absolutely. Absolutely. And something very interesting to keep an eye on for the rest of the year, as you mentioned, an electoral year for many countries in Latin America. Now, this thing you say about Castillo not being prepared to govern, I understand, it's not just your perception that is something very frequent going on. So just to provide a bit of context, who's Pedro Castillo? Mr. Pedro Castillo is he is in his early fifties. He doesn't really have a, he wasn't even known until this presidential election at nationwide. He is a rural professor, school teacher in his home state of Cajamarca, which is in northern Peru. And he was a member or he ran for president because the head of the party, Peru Libre, free Peru, that would be the English translation, he was unable to run unknowable because he had, he was convicted for corruption charges while he was the governor of a state in this case, Honin, which is in the central Peruvian Andes. And that is the only reason why Mr. Pedro Castillo ran for the presidential election. And, and you can see that it was such a surprise to everybody that even when he made it to the runoff elections, TV stations didn't have his image to show that he was going to a runoff election. What this might be an anecdote or almost like an anecdote, it shows how this was a surprise vote and almost a rejection vote towards the other candidates that were running for president in Peru. Right. And wasn't there another option in this Peru Libre party that had a bit more experience or that were better known? From what we understand or from what we have seen in the media? No. Okay. And, and, but again, this is a party that, that identifies itself as Marxist-Leninist. Okay. So it's not center left. It's a left-wing party that identifies with this ideology and it is in its political platform. And parties like this, especially in the history of my country, in the history of Peru, where the memory of shining path or anything is slightly related to shining path, generates us direct with a clear rejection by all parties and all, and all elites across the political platform. This party usually gets one to two percent of the votes. But a different combination of factor, the pandemic for anybody, for anybody watching this program, Peru to this day, has the highest number of mortality due to COVID-19 per 100, 100,000, 100,000 people by a landslide. To this day, the economic crisis in the year, the first year of the pandemic, the economy shrank by almost 12 percent. Almost one million, one million people in nine months in 2020, slide back into poverty and extreme poverty. So in this context of rage, of frustration, to vote for the status quo was not necessarily an option and especially to vote for someone like Miss Keiko Fujimori, whose father is convicted for crimes against humanity and corruption. So these were the options that Peruvians had in an election that was carried during a pandemic in addition to all the political instability and crisis that had happened in the years before. Right. Now let's talk a bit about this cabinet changes. So it has been four changes in six months, right? What underlies these changes? The changes are, if there's a common thread to all these changes in the cabinet, will be the selection for ministers of people that are not minimally qualified for the job. And in addition to that, many of the choices of the executive to run a ministry were people that had serious allegations of corruption charges, sexual violence charges, among other different criminal procedures and investigations that were still ongoing. So, although this is not nothing new in Latin American politics, all countries have ministers that should not even be allowed out on the street. This was something that really, really, I think affected public opinion and also has fueled a lot of political division in the country because the alternative even to this day to this very weak and very erratic government is an extreme right that to this day, despite investigations at the electoral level, at the criminal level have no, have not found any sign of fraud in the runoff election, is still to this day, continues to say that the elections were not legitimate and that a party like this stole the election, which is completely in denial of reality. So, so this is all of this element and all of these questions, what the consequence that we have, Nicolas, is that we have any executive by a left government, just to put this, no, I don't mean to do any characterization is this is how they identify themselves, but a Congress that has is governed by the opposition, which is right and extreme right in certain cases. So, you have a proper, you have the proper ingredients for political confrontations. And even before Mr. Castillo was sworn into office, it was already talks on how to impeach him and under under under the constitution. Right, right, this claims about voter voting fraud, I think should ring a bell for for many of our of our viewers in the US and in the rest of Latin America, right, it has become the the easy way of keeping yourself now keeping attention in yourself and getting some air time, even if you lose the elections, right, and it's it's a very strong position. And in this situation, I've seen that this that the claim of the population is guess if I am both right, everyone must leave. Could you tell us a bit about it and what would be the options if everyone actually left? Well, I mean, I think I think there is a growing polarization. And neither the government, nor the opposition, are playing the long game or playing as market. I mean, in this in these six months, that the country has been under under the current government, many of the crisis that we've had, including this fourth changing cabinet, are mostly self inflicted crisis, whether it is the unduly appointment of ministers or prime ministers, whether it is the resistance to pretty much even publish the list of people that are interviewed or have an interview with the president, which is basic transparency laws in the country and not only in Peru, but in Latin America, across Latin America. So all of these situations generate a sense of a sense of tension and a political confrontation. Probably some of our viewers have read or have seen in the news that in almost three weeks ago, there was a big oil spillover by a Spanish oil company, perhaps oil, in the in the northern coast of Lima, the capital city. This is perhaps the biggest environmental disaster that the country has faced in the past 15, 20 years. And a week later, after the oil spill, where you need to think about criminal responsibilities, administrative responsibilities, you know, who is going to be in charge of cleaning up the mess, the oil mass, the pollution, the environment. What about happens to the fisherman, fisher person and the fisheries industries that are being affected by this spill? The government appoints as minister of the environment, a person whose only known job was to be a junior high teacher in in a small in a small neighborhood in Lima. Right. No, quite complicated, right? Even even for a left oriented government, this type of situation could be even a key opportunity, right, about multinational corporations and the resources and the environment. So it's a it's a very critical situation, right? And where does the population stand here? Like the common citizen, the common Peruvian, what are they thinking? How are they feeling? I think I cannot speak for Mike, for all Peruvians, but I do feel a sense of disappointment and anger because the country, if we put the political elements aside and the political crisis aside, the country's economy is slowly recovering. It is almost economically, economically almost at pre-pandemic levels. Peruv's percentage of people vaccinated is even higher than the average of the within the U.S. Okay. And just two or three weeks ago, Peru was invited by the organization, the OECD, to start formal negotiations for Peru to be a member of this OECD, which is the club of 38 countries, which are the most developed economies in the world. So in a context of pandemic and political instability, these are all overall good news for the country. But what we see is that instead of working, what can we do, okay, to keep this economic recovery going? What can we do so we can start strong, solid negotiations to be a part of this important international body that will contribute us economically, politically, et cetera? No, we cannot spend, we cannot work on these issues because we're worried of what is that the president, who the president will appoint, who, what other crisis the Congress run by the opposition will also govern. So there is no leading place. Okay, so there is no voice of reason in the midst of this political confrontation to, and I know that perhaps this will resonate with U.S. audiences, right, and other Latin American audiences that are hearing here. But a consequence that we have seen here or that I've seen in my country is that those that are center, whether you are center left or center right, are hated by the extreme. So those that try to see that not everything is black or white, these are the people that are in a way blame for all of these problems and all of this crisis. So this is what I'm seeing that instead of, and this happens also to the public opinion that we're not trying to figure out how to solve the problems. We're trying to see who to blame. Right. And that is not going to take anybody anywhere, anywhere positive. Absolutely, absolutely. And I don't know if that's the Peruvian experience, but what we've seen in many countries in Latin America would say even the U.S. is that there's no agreement in the center, right, to appoint or choose or unify around a strong figure that could offer people a reasonable option, right? As a Colombian seeing the elections upcoming, I have my convictions, I have my wishes, but I would say that at this moment what I would rather prefer is just a reasonable president, right? Someone reasonable, someone who would keep the boat steady and that's it. And then after everything stabilizes, maybe we can think of big transformations and so on, but just now steady the boat and address the most present situations that are reactivation, vaccination, the consequences for the most vulnerable of the pandemics. So I don't know if this is the same experience in Peru, but you don't have a true option, right? In the center, at least in Colombia, it's getting very complicated for the elections. Oh, we have corruption right square down the middle. Again, for the U.S. viewers, probably you heard of the car wash scandal, the Odebrecht scandal, that pretty much is responsible for the ousting of many presidents across Latin America because it shows the highest level of corruption by a Brazilian multinational. And we're still paying the impact of that, of the consequence to this day of these problems. So I think that there are different levels of corruption. And Nicolas and people from Colombia that are watching this program, they're the best to know what type of problems your country is facing. But in my case, in the case of my country, what we see is big corruption to petty corruption. And just to show you how petty it is, one of the senior advisors of the president was ousted because he was hiding 20,000 U.S. dollars in the bathroom of the presidential palace. This is the level of pettiness and corruption that we're facing in addition to the big corruption in other situations that have impact at the end of the day in those that need an efficient government the most. This is affecting social spending. This is affecting social programs. This is affecting, this is affecting AIDS that are necessary for Indigenous peoples, for people that are victims of violence. As you know, worldwide there is a huge increase because of the pandemic and restriction on domestic violence and sexual violence within the household. These people need help. But because of this economic crisis, help is not getting there. And this is what perhaps you want to think on whether if a president or not can be ousted, is that many of these people probably voted in favor of Pedro Castillo because of the language of social change, the rhetoric of change that we need to work, you need to decentralize the country because Peru is very centralized in Lima. And these are the people that are suffering the impact because you and I, we can discuss this and we can see theoretically what is the impact in the long run. But perhaps the Peruvians that are watching this show do not need financial aid, do not eat a social program to bring food to the table. And these are the people that are being affected. And that's what's the invisible impact of corruption and a weak government. Absolutely. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more. The human costs of corruption, right? Any reasonable person perhaps could think of this situation is just kick the guy out, right? And I think that's also the opinion of many people throughout America, not just Latin America, but America when they face presidents that could be considered like blatantly unfits for the church, right? And I think this immediately should ring a bell for our friends in the U.S., right? I know Peru has a story of ousting presidents and that the mechanism is not as complicated as it is in other regions, right? Could you tell us a bit about it? And could you tell us your opinion about it? Because my understanding is that even with this blatant situation and present situation, many Peruvians and many analysts don't think that would be the best option at the moment. But there's no better view than someone who's actually related to the situation, of course. Well, I think that under the Constitution, and we have 180 members of Congress, and under the Constitution, you can oust a president with only 87 votes. And there are different elements or categories under which a president may be ousted. One of them is moral incapacity. That to this day, we are not really sure what that means or better yet, the concept has evolved over time. This was used more in capacity to oust Fuhimori when he fled to Japan. So it was a way of his behavior that was involved in his government, his regime that was involved in corruption and human rights violations, including crimes against humanity and the forced disappearance of civilians. But then as the country in 2001 went back into a democratic streak, and to this day, for our audience, Peru is going through its longest democratic streak in its history. So this is almost like our democratic spring. And our country has, in a way, endure democratic regimes despite serious political and institutional crisis that we've seen in the past 20 or so years. So we have Congress that is run by the opposition can pretty much interpret, can have some wiggle room to determine when a president is or not morally capable to run or to continue in office. But as you said in your question, let's say that we oust the Congress oust the president, because there are corruption allegations and there are serious corruption allegations that must be investigated. But what is the alternative? We're less than six months or six months and a half into his presidency. So the vice president will have to take office. Then if we also oust the vice president, it will go down the chain of command. And we went through that in the past government, in the past administration, where the president of Congress was pretty much the one that a congressperson, Francisco Sagasti, was elected president of the Congress with a year or a year and two months before the term ended. And he was elected Congress just because he was the only figure that could get the necessary votes to be elected president within the Congress. Do we want that again? And if we oust the current regime, who's going to take over? What is the alternative? And again, so it goes back to something that we're talking at the beginning of our conversation, that we're focusing on who to blame and how to get rid of the problem or who to blame and how to oust the president. But are we really going to solve the problem? What is the alternative so that we don't go back into this almost Oroboros situation in six months from now, nine months from now? But Nicolas, just to conclude on this point, if there are merits to oust the president, so be it. Please, there is no doubt, at least from my end. But this cannot be just the criticism and the political confrontation between Congress and the executive must must be based on solid basis, not just because he's a left wing, etc., that doesn't deserve to be in the office. That is an opinion that you and I or many other people watching the show may agree on. But is that a reason enough to oust a democratically elected president? And just focusing on that. Absolutely, absolutely. And I think that's a very good note and a good thought to end our show on, right? First, the respect for institutions. I think that's the first thing and how swinging from administration to administration between extremes can bring enormous costs for the rule of law and how the rule of law can weaken between those extremes. And also how harmful it is for America, I would say because it's a closer region, perhaps the world, just to see the political spectrum and society in dichotomic terms, right? Left, right? We're just between two parties and letting the extreme swing the discussion, right? And the cost it has for the region, for democracy. And as rightly said, for the population, right? Who have expectations and hopes for any administration to do something. People need concrete solutions. People need social programs. People need some stability. People need the vaccination policies to continue. They have added, and I know we're almost running out of time, but one of the good decisions that the government made up until last week was to continue with the minister of health from the previous government and his office team. That's why we have such huge numbers in vaccination. The new minister of health in charge of the vaccinations programs does not believe in the vaccine. So who suffers this? Not you, not me, not the people watching at home. The people that really the vaccine could be the difference between life and death in their specific situation. Oh, that that's a lot of food for thought Salvador and a very, very important point. It's always about the less privileged citizens and the consequences of all this politics between privileged people and the index it has on them. Well, this was Latin American directions for tonight. Salvador Erencia Carrasco, thank you so much. And we will keep monitoring Latin America in two weeks. Thank you so much. Thank you, Nicolás. And thank you to everybody. I thank TechAway for having me. It was a pleasure. Thank you.