Peruvian Presidential Elections

While it is true that the presidential elections in Peru are a long way off, candidates have begun to declare their candidacy. While many things frustrate me about the Peruvian electoral system at the local level, the national system is actually pretty good--a simple first-past-the-post system (that is, winner-takes-all, like we have in the states), but with a runoff (a second round election) between the two highest vote-getters a couple of months after the first round of voting. This allows voters to coordinate in the second round, and though it has some flaws (I would actually prefer an STV system, I think), my complaints with the system are pretty minor.

The biggest weaknesses in Peruvian elections actually seem to be internal to political parties (basically, Peruvian political parties are weak and have little grass-roots, community-level organization, though that may be changing). But that's an issue for another time.

The Peruvian Times notes the following public opinion data regarding the race:

According to the Lima-based polling firm Ipsos & Apoyo, 20 percent of respondents are expected to vote for Keiko Fujimori in the next ballot, down two points since January. Luis Castañeda Lossio – currently the mayor of Lima – came in a close second, with 18 percent, followed by Ollanta Humala, with 14 percent. The poll was based on a July 15-17 survey of 1,000 Peruvians, and has a margin of error of 3 percent.

This is worrying, really. Keiko Fujimori doesn't have much of a platform--a vote for her is essentially a vote for her father, as she promises to pardon him if she wins. It also is a vote for traditional clientelist politics, as most supporters of Fujimori, based on personal conversations, are individuals who remember the spending blitzes of Alberto Fujimori's various campaigns, both as president and as dictator, which resulted in high levels of spending in rural areas.

It doesn't help that Alan Garcia, the current president, pretty much ignores rural Peru.

Of this list, I would personally be happiest to see a race between Fujimori and/or Ollanta Humala and Castañeda Lossio, the mayor of Lima. Castañeda's political star is tied to Lima, where he has developed a reputation for relatively effective and clean management. His connection to Lima, however, is a real shame, because an election between either of these two pairings would probably become a race based around traditional Peruvian urban/rural split (or Lima/rest of Peru). He is, however, an evangelical Christian. This means that he might be successful in garnering some rural support based on his religion, and it is probably more likely to help him with evangelicals than hurt him with Catholics.

Ollanta Humala is another case who deserves a full blog posting. Perhaps I'll leave that for next time, lest this blog posting get too long.

Particularism vs. Pragmatism

...which gets me to another thing. How can you differentiate between "populism," which presumably has implications of irresponsibility, "pragmatism," which is presumably desirable, and "particularism," which is assumed to be undesirable.

Pragmatism has something to do with being practical and non-ideological.

Populism is a poorly defined term as well, but presumably has something to do with giving the people what they want. Maureen once pointed out to me that this is also a big part of democracy, but there are clearly times when governments do irresponsible things to satisfy public demand.

Particularism has something to do with corruption--politicians supporting policies that promote narrow interests (rather than the interests of the majority) in order to receive some advantage, either politically or economically.

Populism and particularism both are seen as undesirable, but they are also, in some ways, opposites.

So, when does a policy go from being particularistic to being pragmatic? Is the support of some local industry (a milk industry, for example) particularistic if it directly advantages only one small group of the population, not nearly a majority, even if it is promoting economic development that will have positive spillover effects and secondary effects for others in the area? The milk producers will, for example, buy products from local merchants and will use local transportation firms (taxis and buses, for example), to get around.

And when do you know when a government has gone from pragmatic to being populist? Is constructing homes for the impoverished populism if it will result in healthier children and more productive adults, even if it is, at its core, basically a handout?

These are normative questions--not to downplay normative questions, because they're important--but they also have practical implications. Effectively, where do you draw the line between desirable and undesirable policies at the local level? If I want to know when a government is doing a good job (which is clearly something that interests me), I need to know what a "good job" consists of.