Undoing the Work of a Tyrant

In the end, Peru’s notorious strongman was scared. During his decade-long presidency, Alberto Fujimori projected supreme confidence, bordering on invincibility. But mounting accusations of corruption and the rapid meltdown of his regime forced him to retreat to Japan, where he resigned with a whimper.

Although the full story of Fujimori’s rule remains something of a mystery, it is increasingly clear that Vladimiro Montesinos, Fujimori’s former head of the National Intelligence Service was an even stronger pillar of the regime. After Montesinos was accused of involvement in an arms-trafficking scandal--and especially after he was caught on videotape bribing an opposition member of Congress--the machinery of control and authority that he and Fujimori built began to crumble. Fujimori tried to distance himself from Montesinos, but he couldn’t stop the hemorrhaging. For Fujimori, Japan must have seemed a safe distance from Peru’s high-risk intrigues.

Long-time critics of Fujimori’s authoritarian rule have been vindicated in light of the relentless outpouring of reports of wide-scale corruption and abuse. Overseas bank accounts in Montesinos’ name. totaling some $58 million may only be the tip of the iceberg. The Peruvian press have also reported that Fujimori may have transferred up to $18 million to Japanese bank accounts during a brief stop in Singapore. Even the most imaginative spy novels seem tame in comparison.

Fujimori and Montesinos have left many Peruvians with a profound sense of disillusionment and even betrayal. It is undeniable that Fujimori, having inherited a country in sheer chaos in 1990, succeeded in bringing both hyperinflation and political violence under control. Few believed he would be able to deliver on his promise of crippling Peru’s two insurgencies by 1995. Although Fujimori supporters often acknowledged, and lamented, the increased authoritarianism that accompanied his achievements, they mistakenly believed that Fujimori would eventually pursue a more democratic course.

Valentin Paniagua, who took over after Congress deemed Fujimori “morally unfit” to lead and two of his vice presidents resigned, offers a refreshing contrast to the country’s decidedly confrontational politics. A moderate of the Popular Action party who served in the administrations of former President Fernando Belaunde in the 1960s and 1980s, Paniagua was elected president of Peru’s Congress on Nov. 16. So far, he has exhibited equanimity and, to add a measure of credibility and legitimacy to his interim government, brought in former U.N. Secretary-General and presidential candidate Javier Perez de Cuellar as prime minister. At his swearing in, Paniagua emphasized consensus and dialogue, two qualities that hardly distinguished the Fujimori era.

Since the unraveling of the Fujimori regime began, it is striking how rapidly Peru’s political institutions have regained some respectability and independence. In one of its first moves last week, the new Congress reinstated the three judges on the Constitutional Tribunal who were dismissed in 1997 after refusing to accept the legality of Fujimori running for a third consecutive term. Peru’s former chief public prosecutor, a close collaborator of Montesinos, has been replaced by a judge highly respected for her independence and professionalism. There has also been a discernible opening up of the country’s media.

To be sure, the country’s armed forces and intelligence community, Montesinos’ strongholds, haven’t changed much. That Montesinos remains at large complicates matters. But the Fujimori regime is history, and there is no support for or possibility of a military takeover. It is only a matter of time before Montesinos’ allies are purged.

Paniagua’s interim government faces two principal tasks until Peru has a new, elected president next July 28. The first is to carry out the essential business of governance, including economic management and instilling confidence among international investors and financial institutions. The second task is to define the rules of the presidential elections scheduled for April 8 and to ensure that the elections will be free and fair. The new Congress will, for example, need to work up measures regulating political parties and television coverage for the candidates. Revitalized Peruvian institutions will allow outside actors, including the Organization of American States, to gradually step aside and play a declining role in setting a reform agenda for a democratic transition.

The major question is whether Peru’s political forces, including what has been a relatively weak and divided opposition, will be able to develop an agenda for moving the country forward. This will be a good test of Peru’s political resourcefulness and shared commitment to reconstruct the country. Though the favorite candidate to win the presidency is Alejandro Toledo, who was set to finish second in last April’s elections but withdrew in protest of continued irregularities, the election is more than four months away, and Peru’s politics remain highly fluid and unpredictable. The final field may well be quite crowded.

Peru will also pose a test for the United States. U.S. support for democratic progress in Peru has been mixed. True, Washington took a strong and public stand in response to violations of press freedom (1996), judicial independence (1997) and election standards (2000). In addition, some programs under the Agency for International Development have sought to enhance human rights and democratic safeguards.

At the same time, however, according to a variety of accounts, Washington apparently valued its relationship with Montesinos, who was credited with directing Peru’s successful antidrug operations, a top U.S. priority. If evidence eventually bears out serious allegations of human rights abuses and widespread corruption, it may be difficult to reconcile Washington’s long association with Montesinos with a strong and sustained commitment to democratic progress in Peru. Many Peruvians who praised the U.S. for speaking out at critical moments and for its positive contributions to their country’s democratization are perplexed and disturbed by the alleged Montesinos connection.