In Peru, political parties are a kind of movement that people coalesce around a leader, call Pardo, Pierola Odría, etc. With the passing of the leader, the party's popularity wanes and soon fades. APRA has been the only exception. Alan knew how to take the post of Hague. Popular Action Christian People's Party survive, but its political involvement weakens with each electoral setback. All matches are born with an ideological position that will eventually mixing or adultery to become unrecognizable. Beech thought virtually nothing remains within the APRA. The ideal of free bread does not match the laws of free market. liberal in the world do not fit the extreme positions. Neither the ultra fascism or radical communism. All nations are forced to climb on the train of globalization economically or else be overwhelmed by the system. Den Xiaoping left China with a communist to become a voracious giant eager to engulf the entire capital of the world. If you use Maoism is to ensure cheap labor to multinational corporations. The same is true in Vietnam and Indonesia. Cuba's romance with communism is about to collapse and probably the dynasty of Kim Il Sung in North Korea. Positions as Chávez's nationalism can not be taken seriously, especially in Venezuela there are many factories of foreign companies and 47% of its oil production is acquired by the United States, supposedly their main enemy.
With the exception of the Peruvian Revolution de Velasco, the left in Peru, through Mariategui Rabines Hague and has been a belch of poor significance. An outbreak of violence in the most extreme cases or an association of opportunistic extortionists. Electorally never had anything important, except the mayor of Lima with Barrantes, who was far from being a national leader size.
Although sympathetic to the socialist utopia, I've never voted for a leftist candidate. Except Javier Diez Canseco, no intellectual aspect that has me convinced. Most of the time I paid or right-leaning candidates. My vote in the municipal and presidential elections is for the person, not by their promises, I doubt government plans to comply. The first condition requires a candidate is honesty and (median) transparency. Second, capacity and leadership. Third, respect and willingness to talk. I've always voted for the loser because the candidate never managed to win my sympathies. I could never get in tune with the popular clamor.
If I had the opportunity to vote in 1980 and 1985, would have done by Bedoya, a Peruvian politician has led me more empathy. Perhaps if economists had been president not call the eighties lost decade. In 1990 Vargas Llosa would have voted for if the APRA no stopping me. Many of my generation, with eighteen years of age, we are not allowed to vote (a vote that would have been largely speculated vargasllosiano) and we could just get their voter registration after the race.
in 1995 was my first presidential vote (not my first vote was to elect the Constituent Assembly of 1992). I should vote for Perez de Cuellar, Peru illustrate that Fujimori was the alternative, but voted for Belmont that I liked at the time (little to do with the old entrenched today softened his channel.) In 2000, voted for Toledo in the first and second round, ignoring his request to vote flawed. In 2001, I voted for Lourdes in the first and second foul. At the end Toledo narrowly beat Alan and made the best government since democracy returned in 1980.
In 2006, I went to vote for Alan Lourdes and stole to table their best chance of becoming president. The second round then became a choice of lesser evil, an apocalyptic struggle for some, including Vargas Llosa one was talking about AIDS and other terminal cancer. According to my principles I had no choice, had to vote for Ollanta despite its facade of gross cop. This decision cost me the boos course 90% of my family and friends. In the two months between the first and second rounds, I was branded as ignorant , irresponsible, putting at risk the future of my son (who was born a few weeks ago.) In my social environment, Ollanta represented a return to the caves, the puppet of Chavez, the bogeyman of foreign investment (the panacea for our country), the expropriating enterprises and housing, the demon that send less than a year to hell with the nation's economy. For them, thinking vote was for Alan, for me to vote for him was to endorse the corruption of his first government, was to reward excessive immorality and greater disability that records our republican history. Beatify was a bunch of robbers led by a rogue seven soles as Chavez called him, and I had not dock (or holdup yet).
As I argued above, the first requirement for voting for a candidate is to have clean hands and in my perception is Lifebuoy Ollanta beside Alan, therefore, vote for Ollanta in the background was not a vote for him but against Alan and company (which I give so much disgust as Chirinos Soto with his face poto). And, of course, I evaluated the effect vaunted apocalyptic supported by his detractors. First, I never heard from his own mouth or expropriate any threat to march against private investment, spoke of tax regulation and protection for employees, that sort to be intimidated with unemployment so that it becomes productive. Second, I believe in the strength of democracy, if Ollanta had tried running and ultra radical measures should be taken to close the Parliament because he had no majority, manipulate the judiciary, expropriate the press, have the support of the armed forces (where Humala are not seen with good eyes) and with the support of the United States has many geopolitical interests in our country, conjunction unlikely. If Fujimori's coup was successful was because the Armed Forces, United States, a large sector of judges and the press supported him. Five years ago, Alan wanted to nationalize the bank had a parliamentary majority and bipolarized world stage and yet still failed. Ollanta is a guy with enough intelligence to know that radicalism is the suicide of his regime so I presume that his government would run at most some social reforms (which are necessary) and maybe some vulgar extravagance. Nothing apocalyptic. Perhaps the government would have been better than Alan, whose coffers are filled with both selling out but is unable to lift such Ica area of \u200b\u200bthe rubble after an earthquake three years ago (the earthquake earlier this year in Rancagua and Concepcion was worse and the Chileans and are rising).
Giving an overview oteada the election of 2011 would not vote for Keiko would endorse the mafia because of his father. Nor by Castaneda because I see little transparency. For Ollanta either, my vote was circumstantial, as I see it as a cop. Neither the Father Arana as much as I will be sympathetic to the Liberation Theology. The Aráoz me APRA is nice but not, his candidacy is just to add seats in parliament of those good for nothing. Maybe vote for Toledo, but it is more likely to vote irresponsibly by Guerra García Social Force, to be a little sluggish consistent with the socialist in me. Chile had a Bachelet, Lula and Brazil now Dilma Rousseff, Argentina, the binomial Kirshnner and there was not alarmist apocalyptic are no such countries (not that I know of Evo in Bolivia, Ecuador's Correa went ahead after police strike and Chávez's Venezuela itself.) My question is why the XXI Century Socialism in Peru should be different from those of its neighbors.
0 comments:
Post a Comment