The crisis come and goes. In Peru, it is not a novelty that there is a crisis, since, after all, we always live from the adventure that these mean. For the entire world, this country has become a circus where everything happens and everything would happen, but here it no longer attracts attention. In this newspaper, we are precisely very picky about the messages that are transmitted from the stands, hallways, and speakers of the Government Palace, because each message can mean something different, a new stage in the political life of this teenager called Peru. For this reason, the speech given yesterday by President Martín Vizcarra again calls into question the recent closure of Congress.
To remember it, in case you, dear reader, have forgotten it, on September 30, the president, Martín Vizcarra ordered the closure of the state institution through Supreme Decree No. 165-2019-PCM when interpreting that the second Power of State, the Legislative, factually denied a question of confidence raised to the Council of Ministers. In the personal opinion of the current head of state, he was not given powers and changed the course of the country.
It should be remembered that Peruvian legislation stipulates that, in order to close the Congress of the Republic, a clear refusal is required through a vote in plenary. For this to take place, the Premier and his ministers must present their work plans to be carried out in the corresponding period and «win» through the votes, the confidence of the parliamentarians (you can review the following section with the constitutional article that describes it).
But what happened previously explains the facts even more clearly. Months before, the current president took power because Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, a president elected by the will of the Peruvian people, resigned from the Presidency of the Republic, but this did not mean the end of his government. Therefore, this is maintained and will continue until July 28, 2021. And why is this dimension relevant? Plain and simple, because his vice president, the current president of the Republic took his place to end the 5-year term for which he was elected. It is not a new president, a new party, or a new general or presidential election. It is the continuation of the first years of the mandate of the leader of a party that no longer exists today. Therefore, his presence in the presidential chair should only mean more than following the stipulated route since the election of his party in the amphoras in 2016. Unless the route had been, as Guido Lombardi was incriminated during the campaign 2016, dissolve it. To do this, you can watch the presidential debate between Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Keiko Fujimori.
This trust issue was the third to be presented by a Premier under the Vizcarra administration and the fourth in the 2016-2021 term of office. But, according to the Government’s interpretation, the second to be denied. However, if we consider that it is not two different governments, but one that has continued with an interim president, its dissolution of the Congress of the Republic was unconstitutional. And although, obviously, an attempt will be made to prove the contrary, what was mentioned yesterday during Vizcarra’s message, can confirm it.
But how is it that Martín Vizcarra would have recognized this? In his recent statements after Trust was denied to Pedro Cateriano‘s cabinet, he stated that this had not happened in 20 years. He was quoted by a local newspaper after the message: «I am deeply sorry that Congress has denied trust to a cabinet for the first time in 20 years and in the midst of a pandemic», he said.
Thus, the questions that this newspaper invokes the president to answer are: why did the «factual» denial count on that occasion and not now? Didn’t it really happen almost a year ago? So, do you accept that this «factual denial» was an excuse to dissolve the Congress of the Republic? Have you committed a self-coup in displeasure with the majority opposition? What did you do during the time that the Executive disposed of state money without regulation by Congress and the Comptroller? The questions could continue to shed more others that would add to a web that now begins to pop-up some names like Richard Swing, overpriced purchases during quarantine, friends of the president’s tennis club signing contracts with the State, and why he continues to recycle his ministers as advisers, among others.
If the basic logic of what this statement means is applied, dissolving a Congress unconstitutionally carries a responsibility and would give rise to the classification of a coup d’etat, which we are not very pleased to weigh as others try to describe with the intention of lighting the prairies. Alberto Fujimori could apparently remind Vizcarra what happens to those who carry out a dissolution of this State institution. But, even on the occasion in which the historical leader of Fujimorism did the same, the OAS was also a participant, almost as endorsing the fact.
It is worth remembering, dear reader, that the events that occurred on September 30 occurred with minute differences, and what happened was an unprecedented spectacle. But far from discussing the opinions and that we previously warned, this digital newspaper wants to focus on the message that the test for a political trial could mean, for which the questions presented here, we leave them outdoors, and we hope that one day he dares to answer.
Finally, we do not tire of pointing out how critical we are with the country’s politics, because this is how journalism in Peru should work and not the other way around. That is why we insist on being uncomfortable for those who are feeling very comfortable with power. As auditors and lovers of transparency and truth, we publicly call for all state institutions, in general, to be respected equally in safeguarding the well-being of the country that has suffered enough by now. Peru should come first.