The current political difficulty in Peru is a story COTTonLINE has been following. A U.S. News & World Report analysis, echoed at msn.com, goes a fair way to explaining how things arrived at their current state.
It describes Peruvian politics as “fragmented” and their two-step run-off system of presidential elections as a way of electing the candidate who is “least hated” rather than a person with significant support or ability. The country has had six presidents in the last six years, in part a reflection of the collapse of the “commodities boom” in 2013 and ensuing economic difficulties.
The latest news from Peru has its Congress moving the next presidential election two years closer to a 2024 date, and AMLO’s Mexico offering asylum to the currently imprisoned former President Castillo and to his family who took refuge in their embassy.
My view: Countries so highly fragmented politically seem to do marginally better with a parliamentary/prime minister system. Fragmented countries which try to directly elect an executive president suffer the problems with which Peru now struggles.
The often-prolonged negotiations leading to coalition parliamentary governments, while tedious, yield some policy direction in an already-fragmented country such as Israel, Italy or Peru. At minimum they require factions to understand and grudgingly accept the compromises joining the in-power coalition will necessitate. Unlike presidents of fragmented countries, PMs mostly have enough votes in Congress to govern.
