“Elections: Hell or purgatory for Peru (2021-2026)?." That is the title that political scientist and sociologist Patricio Navia gave to the webinar organized by FYNSA to analyze the controversial Peruvian elections on June 6, which are being held in the context of a severe economic and health crisis.

Until recently, Peru was the rising star of the region, with solid growth and reduced inequality. But the country has not been as successful in reducing poverty, with high levels of informal employment and a very vulnerable middle class that has been hit hard by the pandemic. Its recent history of stability and growth is an important factor to consider at the polls, as these are facts that are taken for granted. The crises of two decades ago are not in the memory of a population that is relatively young. 

Since the return to democracy in 2001, Peru has experienced a permanent political crisis, with a democratic system without parties and numerous corruption scandals. Although until recently democracy was seen as the way to achieve well-being, under the new scenario facing the country, the vision of democracy has changed.

On April 11, the first round of elections was held among 19 candidates, with two out of three Peruvians voting for alternatives other than Castillo and Fujimori. For many, this second round is a choice between "the lesser of two evils." 

Castillo is a rural teacher and union leader who has not presented a clear government program but who represents both the old revolutionary left and the current anger, discontent, and disaffection of the population. He does not lead a movement, and his government team has little preparation. 

Fujimori, with a long political career, has an almost extreme pro-market and pro-business stance. She is prepared to govern, knows Peru well, and has a plan for the country, as well as the skills to manage the current situation and build technical teams to form a government, but she represents risks of corruption and authoritarianism. In fact, she was held in preventive detention in connection with corruption cases. 

Fujimori generates a lot of rejection, but Castillo is little known, and the more he becomes known, the more rejection he generates. If Castillo wins and fulfills his promises, the country could move far to the left, or it could run on a left-wing platform but govern from the right, in which case it could generate social unrest, but in any case, his government could be very transformative. If Fujimori wins, although expectations are poor, she would have more room for maneuver.

For Navia, Castillo could be hell, bringing more crisis and polarization. Fujimori could be purgatory, with many risks but more upside. For the country, in the short term, purgatory seems the better option, but it is not the long-term solution. Polls give Castillo the lead, although the gap has been closing. Navia believes that Fujimori could spring a surprise this weekend by winning, with greater participation from older Peruvians who did not vote in the first round and thanks to the overseas vote (1 million eligible voters). The results, in any case, will depend on voter turnout and the rural vote, which has been underestimated in the polls.