In 1990 Alberto Fujimori won a close election in Peru's presidential race. There was a lot of hope for the first president of Peru not to come from European descent. And in many ways, he delivered.
When Fujimori entered office, the economy was in shambles. Inflation was in five digits. Poverty had increased to over 50% of the population under President Garcia. While Fujimori ran on a populist, leftist platform, the policies he implemented more conservative IMF-backed "shock" policies which cut inflation down to normal levels and created steady economic growth throughout his term. The official poverty measurements stabilized, malnutrition decreased dramatically and most poor, rural Peruvians felt their lives improve. The government could legitimately say they helped the lives of some of the poor.
When Fujimori came to power, the Shining Path was on the increase and truly terrorizing the rural areas. In a report released in 2003, the Shining Path was estimated to have killed over 30,000 Peruvians during their existence. The MRTA also posed a threat to Peruvian citizens. Fujimori cracked down, gave citizens the power to defend themselves and captured the top leadership. By the time he left office, the Shining Path and other guerrilla groups were reduced down to only a few dozen people.
Fujimori was wildly popular. The Peruvian people backed his measures against the Congress in 1992 (one poll showed over 70% support), they narrowly supported his changes to the constitution in 1993 and they reelected him in a landslide in 1995.
I traveled to Peru in July 2000, less than two months after Fujimori had won his third term under very questionable terms. It didn't look like a dictatorship. I saw protests without massive police repression. I didn't see media censorship. In fact, I was able to read about the president's scandals in the newspapers.
Fujimori was forced to leave power after protests (possibly backed by US "pro-democracy" funds) created political conditions so he couldn't govern.
Why defend Fujimori?
Over recent days the criticisms of Fujimori have rolled through the media. He was authoritarian. He was corrupt. He stole millions from the Peruvian people. He overthrew a democratic government in 1992. He stole at least one election in 2000. He manipulated and censored the media. His intelligence chief could easily be a cartoon villain he was so evil. Fujimori's administration was responsible for the deaths of thousands during the counter-insurgency campaign against the Shining Path.
I agree with all of those criticisms. Fujimori was a terrible president and he absolutely hurt Peruvian society.
However, at the height of his autocracy, most Peruvians supported him. Even today, nearly a quarter of Peruvians look back upon the Fujimori administration positively. To many here in the US, it's almost impossible to believe.
If you want to understand Peruvian politics and society, you have to understand the positive narrative for Fujimori. Indeed, to understand why some people in Chile still support Pinochet or why some other Latin American countries currently support populist leaders who violate human rights, it can be necessary to sit down and think out the view from the other side.
I think Fujimori should rot in prison. Tens of thousands of Peruvians disagree with me. The question is, am I wrong, are they wrong or do we simply have legitimate alternate views of history? And whether those views of history are legitimate or not, they are different; how do we find agreement?
4 comments:
What you are is a complete hypocrite. On the one hand, you suggest that Chavez is muzzling the press (despite all evidence to the contrary, including the Venezuelan media's routine trashing of the president). And then you turn around and say, gee, when I was in Peru in 2000, Peru under Fujimori didn't seem like any dictatorship to me; I could even read criticisms of Fujimori in the press (as if you couldn't read a lot more criticisms of Venezuela's president in the Venezuelan press).
Look, we have oodles of evidence that Fujimori was a far more agriegous violator of press freedom than Chavez, so your latest apologetics just goes to show how ridiculously hypocritical you are. Again, you highlight the ALLEGED violations of the Chavez government but then voice apologetics for Fujimori. Your hypocrisy is so patently ridiculous that it amazes me that anyone takes you seriously.
If you read the post carefully, you'll note that I think Fujimori was an awful leader and my "defense" of Fujimori is a hypothetical to understand how the pro-Fujimori side views it.
That line about the media is a specific reference to the criticism I hear from the Chavez supporters. They always use the line "...but I visited Venezuela and you could see the criticisms of him in the media." In fact, you've used that line yourself.
Fujimori censored his opposition. Chavez censors his opposition. My "defense" of Fujimori looks an awful lot like your defense of Chavez. It's something to ponder.
There isn't shit to ponder, Boz. The opposition in Venezuela not only has the right to free speech but actually controls the vast majority of newspapers and news channels. That wasn't the case in Peru under Fujimori.
Go back and read Cathryn Conaghan's 2002 piece in the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, entitled "Cashing in on Authoritarianism: Media Collusion in Fujimori's Peru." If you'd read it, you would know that there's a world of difference between the media in Peru under Fujimori and the media in Venezuela under Chávez. The political opposition did not control most private media in Peru.
You are one ignorant hack.
I think that Fujimori is more a symptom than anthing else (as I outline here). But more importantly, for all thinks election and Fujimori related, let me direct you to the Peru Election 2006 blog.
Post a Comment