basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,004
- 2,220
- Banned
- #1
Peru is now in its third week of protests, triggered by the impeachment of former president Pedro Castillo. The country’s rural poor are decrying his removal and calling for new elections and a constitutional assembly.
For most, Castillo’s downfall came as little surprise, especially given his December 7 impeachment was the third such attempt by the Peruvian right in little over a year. Perhaps the only shock was Castillo’s own desperation and lack of calculation, calling for the closure of Congress as a means to avoid impeachment but inadvertently triggering the needed constitutional pretext for his very impeachment (officially, to prevent what was interpreted as Castillo’s “auto-coup”).
Less expected, however, was the outpouring of indignation across Peru in the days and weeks following Castillo’s removal. On one level, nationwide street protests were understandable: the ongoing legitimacy crisis in Peru, responsible, among other things, for bringing an unknown rural schoolteacher to power, has only grown more severe under Castillo’s watch. Right-wing conspiracy and left-wing infighting under his term further stoked popular disenchantment with the Peruvian political class, which already ranked among the most unpopular in the Western Hemisphere. That Castillo’s replacement, the unelected, some would add illegitimate government of Dina Boluarte, intended to serve out the remainder of a five-year term, was a bridge too far.
But the protests in Peru, now in their third week, are also an expression of the aspirations of the nadies, or “nobodies,” who deposited their hopes in the figure of Castillo. Whatever else Castillo may have accomplished as head of state, however little he managed to advance the struggles of his downtrodden electors, he did embody the popular will of a sizable portion of the Peruvian people. For the protesters, the message of Castillo’s impeachment was clear: the demands of the poor, indigenous, peasant, and precarious are not legitimate.
For most, Castillo’s downfall came as little surprise, especially given his December 7 impeachment was the third such attempt by the Peruvian right in little over a year. Perhaps the only shock was Castillo’s own desperation and lack of calculation, calling for the closure of Congress as a means to avoid impeachment but inadvertently triggering the needed constitutional pretext for his very impeachment (officially, to prevent what was interpreted as Castillo’s “auto-coup”).
Less expected, however, was the outpouring of indignation across Peru in the days and weeks following Castillo’s removal. On one level, nationwide street protests were understandable: the ongoing legitimacy crisis in Peru, responsible, among other things, for bringing an unknown rural schoolteacher to power, has only grown more severe under Castillo’s watch. Right-wing conspiracy and left-wing infighting under his term further stoked popular disenchantment with the Peruvian political class, which already ranked among the most unpopular in the Western Hemisphere. That Castillo’s replacement, the unelected, some would add illegitimate government of Dina Boluarte, intended to serve out the remainder of a five-year term, was a bridge too far.
But the protests in Peru, now in their third week, are also an expression of the aspirations of the nadies, or “nobodies,” who deposited their hopes in the figure of Castillo. Whatever else Castillo may have accomplished as head of state, however little he managed to advance the struggles of his downtrodden electors, he did embody the popular will of a sizable portion of the Peruvian people. For the protesters, the message of Castillo’s impeachment was clear: the demands of the poor, indigenous, peasant, and precarious are not legitimate.
