The institutional crisis that has Peru in suspense has become a new front of political dispute in Colombia. The cause was the content of a long Twitter thread in which President Gustavo Petro described Pedro Castillo’s intention to screw himself in power as “undemocratic”, but at the same time defended him for an alleged persecution of the right in that country. since he came to power just over a year ago.
The opposition fell on him, whose spokesmen warned that a coup d’état was practically backed, while his political ranks defended him and even came out to accuse Petro’s critics of promoting a scenario similar to Peru’s in Colombia. Who is right?
This political struggle, in any case, occurs at a time of maximum tension in Peru, where Castillo –a left-wing professor– remains detained following trying to dissolve Congress and seek to rule by decree. While the former head of state is charged with charges of rebellion and conspiracy, in the streets of Peru hundreds of his followers demonstrate and demand his release.
In addition, spirits rose this Friday following the new president, Dina Boluarte, announced that she will form a new government and hinted that she might call early elections. Her statements sparked clashes between authorities and protesters in Lima, which led Boluarte to make a call to “ask them to calm down.”
In the streets the slogan is that the new president, whom they accuse of treason and who comes from the Vice Presidency, resigns from office. According to an AFP report, the demonstrations are not only concentrated in Lima, but in other parts of the interior such as Chota (Cajamarca, Castillo’s birthplace), Trujillo, Puno, Ayacucho, Huancavelica and Moquegua. Added to this are blockades on the Panamericana Sur highway, where tires have been burned and the passage has been obstructed with logs.
the local tail
What happened in Peru had an impact on Creole politics and unleashed bids between Petristas and opponents. The genesis was the position that the president established last Thursday, less than 24 hours following Castillo set up the coup attempt. According to Petro, the Peruvian president “was cornered from day one” and hinted that a “parliamentary coup once morest him” had been planned for some time.
Although the head of state acknowledged that Castillo “was wrong” in trying to dissolve a “Congress that had already decided to dismiss him without respecting the popular will,” he asked that the IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) grant him precautionary measures. However, the setback came with the Commission’s response, which condemned Castillo’s actions and warned that his decisions were “contrary to Peru’s constitutional order.”
The president’s statements –as expected– served as a workhorse for the opposition, which claimed that the president of Colombia defended “dictators and corrupt people”. Senator Paloma Valencia, from the Democratic Center, warned that Castillo “walked the path of corruption” and that Petro’s duty, “if he is a democrat,” was to reject the coup.
However, what ended up heating up the spirits was a controversial tweet by Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay, also from the Democratic Center, who argued that what was done by the Peruvian congress is an “example when democracy and freedom are in danger,” therefore who urged the Colombian to “do the same.”
The congressman’s message generated indignation and annoyance at the top of Petrism. According to Senator Gustavo Bolívar, from the Historical Pact, Uribe Turbay is “inciting a coup.” Senator María José Pizarro did the same, who responded that what happened in Peru is not an example: “We are democrats and respectful of the Constitution and the independence of powers.”
Faced with this, Uribe intensified and indicated that what happened in Peru “unmasked Petro and his allies,” and he launched an attack once morest the president, pointing out that he has also defended Daniel Ortega, whom he classified as the dictator of Nicaragua.
There were even those who recalled that it is not the first time that Petro has deliberately intervened in the affairs of other countries. For this reason, they confronted him in a tweet from last September, when he referred to the failure of the constitutional plebiscite in Chile promoted by his ally, President Gabriel Boric. “(Augusto) Pinochet revived,” declared the Colombian president at the time, generating criticism for not respecting the will of the Chilean people.
To this is added a letter that he signed in August in support of Argentine vice president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. In the letter, which was also supported by the President of Mexico Andrés Manuel López (now an ally of Castillo), they reject the judicial process that the vice president is facing for alleged corruption.
For Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir, a professor at the Faculty of International, Political and Urban Studies at the Universidad del Rosario, although it might be said that Castillo was cornered and proof of this were the three political trials he faced in a year and a half, it is not right to talk regarding a parliamentary coup, except in the name of Colombian diplomacy. “Petro’s style on Twitter should lead us to the conclusion that we must separate what he says as a progressive regional leader and what he says as president.”
On the other hand, the teacher argued that it is an exaggeration for the opposition to denounce an attempted coup d’état derived from the declarations of Miguel Uribe. However, he did qualify as reckless that he had made “a very bad reading of the Peruvian situation, since his Congress is not an example, since it has shown signs of fragmentation.”
In Peru, the situation continues to be one of tension and uncertainty, which is why the Colombian noise –although minor– does not contribute to calming the spirits and, on the contrary, favors new fronts of conflict. Instead of dividing them, the defense of democracy should unite both Petristas and opponents. Hence the importance of clearer messages and not only through the Colombian president’s Twitter.
