A former Peruvian minister on Castillo’s conviction: “The political system is de facto parliamentary”

Anahi DurandMinister of Women of Peru during the presidency Peter fort, content Which “The political system is de facto parliamentary” after the judicial system sentenced the former president to 11 years in prison. In conversation with Fontificia modeby Net TV and Radio profile (AM 1190) The sociologist denounced that the trial was “too political” and said, “Increasingly, the powerful groups that control Congress are manipulating the law to be the ones with the most power.”

Anahi Durand is a sociologist, PhD in political science from the Autonomous University of Mexico, professor at the National University Mayor de San Marcos, and former Minister of Women in the government of Pedro Castillo.

Day 718: Peru serves as Argentina’s ukronia

I would like to know your opinion about the sentence that President Castillo was subjected to yesterday.

Peru must address this previously announced ruling, because it was a political trial par excellence. This was denounced from the beginning. The first form of rebellion was coercive, when the penal code stipulated very clearly that to rebel you had to bear arms, you had to have regiments in the streets, and even more so if he was the president of the republic, as in this case. This accusation, absurd in itself, was not proven, and the court, far from starting a new trial for another character, in the middle of the process changed and graded the character of conspiracy for rebellion, the charge which was finally brought against President Castillo and for which he was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, of which he had already served three years in preventive detention. so yes, Justice was not distributed, but rather a politically directed sentence was implemented. I believe that this is the general feeling here in the country, especially in the popular sectors to which Pedro Castillo belongs.

But President Castillo decided to shut down Congress, and a president can’t do that, can he? I keep my distance, and forgive outside ignorance, but shutting down Congress is something the president cannot do because of the division of powers.

Well, that’s another discussion. It is a constitutional debate, not a criminal one. This is different. He could have been isolated and evacuated, which in fact was done after his arrest. Pedro Castillo was arrested in the line of duty. In fact, we can get into the constitutional debate. You cannot carry out a coup, but in the Penal Code there is no crime of coup or the crime of shutting down Congress. For this reason, from a judicial standpoint, this has no basis. The sentence is available, and its reading will be completed on Thursday, and I believe it will not stand up to the second instance or any international court. We can debate whether that was a constitutional violation, and a political trial is appropriate, and that was not done, and it was not done later, and it was done poorly. Pedro Castillo’s membership was reduced by fewer votes than the Congress regulations themselves required. Therefore, it is clearly a case of political rule and political persecution rather than a desire to establish justice and set a precedent.

What you suggest is interesting. It seems to me, from afar, that the president cannot shut down Congress, and therefore, if he shuts down Congress it is a self-coup, and that should ultimately be punished. Firstly, it may be through a political trial, but sooner or later the only punishment cannot be dismissal, because that constitutes an attack on democracy if one power interferes with the power of the other. Or do you understand it differently?

I believe that this issue cannot be analyzed without the context of the political war that Peru is experiencing. Remember that Peru has had 10 presidents in 8 years, and only two were elected by popular vote. We already have a deterioration in democracy and institutions, with Congress increasingly appointing and removing presidents. So, this balance of power in this country no longer exists, and I think this is also an element that must be taken into account.

So, the letter that Castillo read says he’s going to close Congress and call a meeting Constituent Assembly It is a discursive fact, in the end, because as was shown in yesterday’s ruling, there is no prior support armed forcesthere is no police support, but rather a speech read in the context of a vacancy that was actually coming up hours later.

Whether it was a successful political gesture, constitutional or not, well, I guess that’s another topic for another debate, but it doesn’t hold up judicially and criminally. And I think that, when you delve deeper into the debate about the political system in Peru, what this whole process shows us is that it is a system that is completely broken down and is increasingly becoming a de facto parliamentary, where the power groups that control Congress are increasingly manipulating the law to have more and less power, and less and less a president, especially if he is elected by the votes of the popular sectors.

Former President Pedro Castillo was sentenced to 11 years and 5 months in prison in Peru for trying to dissolve Congress

I understand what you are saying, but it seems that the solution is not to break the law. The way is to change legitimacy democratically. But in the end, the Constitution stipulates that there are three powers and one power cannot ignore the other, even if there is in fact an impact on the distribution of powers. Now, how to solve it? They will have to amend the Constitution, and to amend it there must be a majority. What I mentioned, instead of the president deciding on his own to close Congress if he doesn’t have a majority.

This is the serious institutional and political crisis that the country is experiencing, which has led it to a massive stage, where more than 70 people were killed in the regime’s custody. Dina Bolwartiwhich remains completely unpunished. I believe that Peruvian democracy should be viewed as a failed democracy, as this does not mean that the constitution cannot be changed: This Congress has changed 50% of the Constitution. One of the articles that changed during the Castillo government is the president’s power to dissolve Parliament legally, because this power existed. to Martin Vizcarra They also put him in prison two days ago because of this political vendetta carried out by the current Congress, because it is not only against Pedro Castillo. He also constitutionally dissolved Congress, the last time he was able to do so. Then, during the Castillo government, Congress changed the law.

In the ideal plan, it is clear that the balance of constitutional powers and authorities is given in a certain way, but in Peruvian democracy these figures no longer exist. We have a de facto parliamentarism decided by Congress that manipulated the law in a way that Castillo had no other choice. Now, this can come up for discussion. It is not that presidents approach Congress when the balance of power appears to be adverse, but according to a poll after Castillo’s speech on December 7, 56% of Peruvians believe the coup was carried out in Castillo’s favour. because? Because they did not allow him to rule, and because he was dismissed in a completely arbitrary manner. Being president, bypassing all judicial powers, he was arrested by his bodyguard, and held in pre-trial detention for three years, although the elected authorities, according to American agreementThey may not be detained until a final ruling is issued. Therefore, there is a sample related to a structural issue in Peru.

Raul Noblesilla: “Democracy does not exist in Peru, and the right breaks democratic processes”

There may be some prejudice from a distance when seeing a president wearing that giant hat, scarf, and presidential suit. Maybe from a cultural point of view, within Peru, it is completely understandable and normal. From a distance it looks a bit eccentric to us. Did I misunderstand or did President Castillo say that he did not remember what he said and that he was suffering from amnesia?

No no. In fact, it has been distorted. The hat that Castillo wears is the typical hat of farmers in the north of the country. And that’s why I was talking to you about the classism and racism that was present all along. In fact, Congress wanted to ban that hat, just as a Westerner would want to ban a necktie. So, those origins, the way they spoke, and expressed themselves, were also in question all the time. The issue of racism and classism was very present throughout this coup to remove Pedro Castillo..

In your case, the cultural distance is understandable, but in the case of Peru, a 200-year-old republic, this was completely unacceptable. In the impeachment trial that ended yesterday, Castillo was very clear in his statement. He said that he expressed what the majority of the population asked of him, which was to close Congress. In fact, this Congress received a 98% rejection. Dina Bolwarti left with 19%. So, in the midst of a widespread crisis, what Castillo does ends up being approved by a large portion of the population. Whether that is politically correct or not is a matter for another discussion, but I insist that this brings us back to the dangerous situation of democracy in Peru, which generally does not receive attention at the international level. It is a country that is supposedly doing well economically, but politically we are increasingly deteriorating.

TV/DCQ