By César Gamboa Balbín
Law, Environment and Natural Resources
It is undeniable that the social conflict in Peru in recent months has had economic, political and social consequences. In fact, the government of Dina Boluarte is presented as a continuity in the weakening of the rule of law and its accountability mechanisms; a democratic fatigue and constraint to political and civil liberties; and a citizen distrust towards the public, since corruption cases have not stopped, nor have they been solved. All this, expressed in the majority rejection of the citizenship, and in what Vergara has defined as «barbarism», or Méndez as «a XXI century fascism» in Peru.
In the recent report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on the social protests against the government of Boluarte, it pointed out that there are structural problems in Peru such as discrimination and inequality towards indigenous peoples and local communities. This situation is expressed in an extractivist model that does not generate extensive economic benefits for these citizens, but, on the contrary, does not recognize their rights to participate in the management of natural resources or ensure their environmental rights, generating socio-environmental conflicts and unresolved cases of contamination.
This IACHR report should have allowed for further reflection on how these social protests can be addressed with improvements to the extractive model in Peru. However, the Government and the business sector were only deeply repulsed, accusing the IACHR of being «biased», «ideologically obtuse», «audacious ignorance», and even obstinacy, which clearly expresses the problems of inequality and discrimination that we are experiencing. This phase of denial, which does not propose any kind of political dialogue, but rather demonstrates a stubbornness to continue with an economic model that deserves changes and improvements, which seems to be focused on preserving privileges, rather than understanding that for many of our compatriots something has not been working for a long time.
On the contrary, under a media cover in some cases, and an uncritical silence in others, using the narrative of economic recovery and responding to unsatisfied social demands during the pandemic, the Legislative-Executive alliance has been promoting several legal reforms to control various autonomous constitutional bodies, and even restrict rights, the most serious of all, the outmoded conservative dream of denounce the Pact of San José.
In this same process of reforms, under the objective of facilitating investment, it is even intended to threaten our natural heritage. The Mongabay platform had already warned of these legal changes and the Vigilante Amazónico portal prepared a table of proposed legal reforms that would threaten the rights of indigenous peoples and the conservation of Amazonian forests, if approved.
It is not that we are dealing with a comprehensive vision on investment promotion and the treatment of natural resources. Rather, we are facing a race of legal changes, where different economic and political elites are managing private interests that do not ensure the benefit of the entire community. At least, their discourse pretends to move in that direction, but the technical evidence does not, so it is possible that environmental risks will continue to grow, as in recent years.
These reforms end up being the evidence demanded by the IACHR in its report regarding the so-called «extractivist model» and its negative effects. Each of these legal proposals aims to make changes under the common thread of facilitating investment, ergo it will bring more wealth. But this relationship is not that mechanical, because although Peru has grown, it has not been able to ensure that such growth is more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable for all.
Finally, in an article by Barrenechea y Vergara point out that democracy is not only threatened by the concentration of power, but also by its dilution, and an example is Peru. But are we not facing a recovery of the concentration of democratic power in Peru, was there not a correct constitutional succession, do the Legislative and Executive Branches cooperate amiably and even complacently? Well, no, since this concentration of power does not mean returning the diluted power to the citizens, but to a kleptocracy interested in benefiting itself, under the discourse of a democratic recovery, meritocracy, the fight against corruption and the provision of better public services. However, the political model and economic regime have not changed in substance, only so that today there are fewer freedoms, less participation and fewer guarantees for sustainability and that the political community continues to benefit from the way of doing business to which they are accustomed in recent decades.