Moisés Naím: “Peru must be freed from demagogues, the corrupt and the incompetent” | INTERVIEW

We Peruvians are used to political crises. One after another, more and more furiously, they hit us and shake us. In the midst of this, the country still does not find the direction of a project that focuses on what is important.

About it, and to know the look that from outside they have of Peru and the management of the president peter castle, “El Comercio” spoke with the Venezuelan essayist and writer Moisés Naím, who pointed out that our country needs a true national agreement to get out of the quagmire.

-In recent years, Peru has been known abroad, unfortunately, for the presidential vacancies, leaders who are imprisoned or investigated for corruption. What is the current perception of our political situation?

Ungovernable. Peru has become an ungovernable political system, which increasingly attracts characters who are not qualified. President Castillo can give all the speeches he wants, but what matters are his decisions, and the most important decisions are the appointments of ministers and senior government officials. In this field, he has left a mark, since the turnover of ministers is enormous. And when you look at the biographies, it seems that many of these high officials instead of having a resume have a police record.

—The international media present Castillo as the rural teacher who defeated the ‘establishment’ and became president. How do you see the figure of the president now? The interview he gave to CNN did not leave him well standing…

That he is not qualified to be president, that his decisions and appointments are very surprising, because someone like him should surround himself with people who are foolproof in terms of professional competence and track record. The public sector in Peru is not easy to manage for those who do not know about it, but slogans, slogans or set phrases do not solve problems. You have to sit down to work and know how to do it. I want to emphasize that this is not just a problem of leadership. Peru has not only had bad leaders but also bad followers.

“What do you mean?”

They are the ones who are most actively committed to anti-politics, with the idea that everyone leaves and nothing works, that nothing from the past deserves to be maintained. These bad followers are the ones who are willing to vote for anyone without really asking themselves if it is serious, who do not assume the responsibility that democracy does not only consist of voting once every so often, but requires being informed, understanding, knowing which are the dilemmas, that there are no easy solutions and that you have to choose the least bad. And this is what makes the country ungovernable. Peru has this political culture where ideological differences are criminalized, where rivalries are not resolved democratically but through the Judiciary.

—In Peru, we voters are continually in the dilemma of opting for the lesser evil. Is that due to the anti-politics you refer to?

In Latin America, we also have the best example with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. With him the idea was that there can be nothing worse. He came from a poor family, his father was a rural teacher and he was a lieutenant colonel in the Army who promised that everything would be different and better, and it is enough to see what is happening in Venezuela today to understand the magnitude of the catastrophe. So Venezuelans were also bad followers and fell for a charismatic leader who sold them promises and basically destroyed the country. Throughout Latin America you will find these voters who are not interested in thinking about solutions but rather how to punish all those who have been there…sometimes for good reason, by the way.

—The subject of charismatic leaders is very interesting, but it is no longer a Latin American phenomenon. Trump is an example…

It is a worldwide phenomenon, and I have just published a book called “The revenge of the powerful”, where I explain how the relationship of the political leader with his followers is always mixed with the charisma of that leader. Think of Italy and Berlusconi, who was prime minister for a long time and he essentially came from television and was a businessman. Anti-politics is infecting and influencing politics in all parts of the world, and these charismatic leaders come to provide solutions, but they really misgovern.

—Castillo is a charismatic leader? Can he even be called a leader?

He came to the presidency simply because a majority of Peruvians decided that he could be better than what was before. Anti-politics appears again, and then the Peruvians were willing to take that risk. He, in his own way, with his hat and pencil, represents demagoguery, populism, politics made farce. It is the politics of clichés and empty slogans.

—At this point, what do you think could be a solution for the country? Should I step aside? It’s too early for that?

That assumes that there is someone in charge, someone who is capable of making decisions, who is willing to go ahead and who is going to take the risk, and that does not exist, it is not evident. Peru at this time does not show that it has a class of leaders or statesmen, and those that exist are not willing to go to government, because we have already seen that the natural destiny of the presidents of Peru is to go to jail. So it is very difficult for a competent, decent, honest professional to say that he is going to abandon everything to go into politics, where he will probably end up in the mire that political debate has become.

—If we assume that Castillo finishes his mandate before time, what comes after would not be so promising either?

Here the important thing is to understand that this cannot be solved by one person alone. Righting Peru right now -which was already bad and now with Castillo it is much worse- has to be a national project where there is an effort to unite parties that are even rivals and do not get along, but have to make agreements to be able to govern the country and carry it forward. Peru has the conditions to make a huge country, but for that it must be freed from the clutches of demagogues, from the attempts of the corrupt and the incompetent. So, to relaunch Peru, rethink and redefine it, the participation of civil society, organizations, churches, businessmen, professionals, merchants, all working together is needed. But the idea that a messianic leader is going to come who with a magic wand will solve problems is a very dangerous idea, because they are going to fall back into choosing the least bad, who will say the things that people want to hear and not the right thing to do, which in some cases can be very unpopular.

—It is necessary, then, a structural and substantive change, but it cannot be in the short term…

Correct. Peru needs a national agreement, a broad-based government where sectors are represented that give it solidity and that is capable of attracting competent professionals and technicians, and political representation is also important because politicians alone cannot govern, and technocrats alone neither; and they cannot do it without the middle class and the poorest. There has to be an agreement of national unity around a group of committed people, decent, respected and prepared people.