What happened in Peru? A systematic attack on truth

It is time for an infrastructure for truth 
        

When the battle ended on the plains of Ayacucho on December 9th 1824 a hard rain fell on the battlefield. Victors and losers ran to cover under makeshift huts. Huddling together were childhood friends, cousins and brothers who had fought on opposite sides of the war. In a cabin nearby, the defeated royalist general drank tea with the patriots. William Miller recalls a friendly conversation with the enemy he had trailed for three years. They exchanged battle stories and Miller thanked José de Canterac for cigars he had sent his way in the midst of a stand-off a few months back.

Most royalist troops would go back to their homes in Peru. Only a handful sailed back to Spain. Almost 200 years later we are once again faced with a divided country. Only, I wonder if, this time around, the rain will wash away our divisions. *

[*This is not accurate. The country was still divided between a small elite and a large populace. Nothing out of the ordinary for 1824. What is, or should be, out of the ordinary is that those divisions still stand today.]

Peru has been engulfed by an electoral process with cliché-levels of polarisation. You would not think that we have been and still are in the middle of a record-breaking pandemic which has cost the lives of more than 180,000 people. We’ve all but forgotten about it. Everyone seems focused on an election that has already cost us dearly; in more ways that we care to think of.

A single silver lining: politics still matter, after all.

Making sense of what is happening is hard. We have been affected, personally, by this experience. Politics have become personal.

I hope that after the last battle we will be able to go back to being civil – friends even.

I have consumed as much information as I’ve been able to over the last few months -this is how I handle anxiety- but the best articles, essays, interviews, controversial Facebook posts and enlightening Tweets have opened the door to more questions about the country and about our future.

In this short article I try to connect what is happening to Peru to the focus of my own work: promoting better informed decisions on matters of public interest.

Let me first offer a series of images, scenes if you may, to describe what has happened. They are probably not in order and they only offer a partial view. I recognise this. But they are also not a partisan declaration and I do not with to weigh in on the merits or drawbacks of any of the parties policies in the process.

I am also mindful that I must recognise that I have not been neutral in the process and that I have inevitably shifted and adapted my opinions and actions as the story unfolded.

----

The centre was crushed
        

Peruvian voters had to choose between 18 candidates in the first round of polls in early April. Pedro Castillo came on top with 18% of the valid votes, after all the absentees, void votes and “none of the above” had been removed. Keiko Fujimori came in second with 13%. Keiko Fujimori had not been a contender until a few days before the election. The vote of the right and conservatives had been divided in a motley crew of Trump-like options.

Pedro Castillo had not even featured in the polls a week before a the election. He came from behind to take over the votes from a handful of leftist movements and candidates.

The centre was crushed. Parties that had been leading only a few weeks before, failed to gain seats in Congress – also elected in April.

----

Faced with their worst nightmare
        

Almost immediately the vast majority of voters, who had opted for neither of the two remaining candidates, were faced with their worst nightmare.

Keiko Fujimori is the daughter of former dictator Alberto Fujimori. He is in jail for human rights violations and record level corruption. Keiko Fujimori has promised to pardon her father. She led a successful campaign to undermine the government led by Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who beat her to the presidency in 2016. As a result Peru has had 4 presidents in 5 years! She has been charged with money laundering and conspiracy to prevent the course of justice and, along with hundreds of party members faces up to 30 years in jail if found guilty.

Electing Keiko Fujimori would legitimise the dictatorship of the 1990s and her constant attack on democratic institutions in a personal quest for power. It would also open the doors wide open to a mafia-like political movement that is sure to make up for time lost.

Electing her, however, would guarantee that the economic model will remain untouched. She is the candidate for the economic status quo.

Pedro Castillo is a primary school teacher from rural Peru. He is also a union leader. He is best known for leading national teachers striker in 2017. He was invited to lead the presidential campaign of Perú Libre, a party “owned” (Peruvians own parties – like Keiko Fujimori “owns” Fuerza Popular) by Vladimir Cerrón a former governor of Junín who has been found guilty of corruption and whose ideological platform is a copy-paste of a Cuban text-book. Several party members are close to or have been associated with the political arm of Peru’s terrorist group Shinning Path.

In my view, electing Pero Castillo is unlikely to turn Peru into a communist state as many fear but is likely to lead to a chaos in government. In the close to 2 months between the first and second rounds he has failed to present a coherent manifesto – or team!

But a vote for Castillo is also a vote for change. Castillo is adamant that the economic model that Fujimori’s supporters want to protect has to go.

---

“We will not receive your dog!”
        

The mainstream news media picked a side: Fujimori. The main TV stations (that use public airways) fired independent editors and journalists who wanted a balanced cover of the ballotage. They replaced them with loyal and pro-Fujimori alternatives. The narrative followed. Front pages of the main national newspapers, many owned by El Comercio (that also owns the leading public and cable news media stations), presented an obscenely biased account of the campaign.

Private individuals and corporations paid for a billboard campaign denouncing the threat of communism and likening Fujimori (who was never mentioned) with freedom. “Communism or freedom.” There was a campaign to give way shirts to Venezuelan migrants with phrases like “let me tell you about Venezuela”. Companies have sent out letters, convened Zoom calls and outright threatened their staff to vote for Fujimori or else risk losing their jobs. Even private universities, NGOs or charitable initiatives have been used as platforms to advocate against Castillo.

The owner of a dog-shelter published a warning to “communist owners”. “We will not receive your dog!”

Even members of Peru’s football team joined forces with the Fujimori campaign and came out in her support. A move that divided the country even further. To the point that Peru’s pre-voting day loss against Colombia for the World Cup qualifiers was sadly celebrated by many who felt betrayed by the players.

----

Supporting her in the first round was out of the question
        

In the meantime Fujimori was hailed as the defender of our democracy. Mario Vargas Llosa, hitherto Keiko Fujimori’s sworn enemy, was quick to offer his family’s support. Too quick. He called her, invited her to an event on democracy hosted by his foundation in Ecuador, and dispatched his son to join her campaign and orchestrate a ceremony for Fujimori to sign a “proclama” in which she swore to uphold a list of democratic values – only, a pardon for her father, the human rights violator, was left out. Vargas Llosa junior even joined Keiko at the closing rally and embraced her for posterity.

But others joined in, too. Seen as the lesser of two evils, Fujimori’s candidacy attracted the support of many who until recently had never contemplated voting for her. Her constant attacks on democracy over the last 5 years had convinced them that she was the cause of many of our current problems. Supporting her in the first round was out of the question. However, Castillo, they felt, was worse. The choice called for pragmatism.

I am not going to discuss personal choices - I will respect them. The ballot does not require an explanation.

But what ensued was a campaign that did exactly that: challenge personal choices. And it did so in some of the most vicious ways possible. And the manner in which the Fujimori camp led the attack on those who did not support her or were uncertain about their vote is directly relevant to the focus of our work at On Think Tanks.

----

What we have witnessed is an attack on truth
        

At the core of the campaign was the need to transform the undemocratic and corrupt Keiko Fujimori into a paladin of democracy and honesty. Had she had been a true campaigner for democratic values and an honest politician who had been unfairly accused of the opposite in the past, we would have seen a battle for truth. Instead what we have witnessed is an attack on truth.

And when you do this you cannot avoid breaking a few things. Things that are important.

----

Who knows if we will trust the results?
        

By appropriating the national football team, Fujimorismo broke one of the few things that brought us together. And lost many potential voters.

The role the mainstream news media played has damaged their already poor reputation. When the first cries of “foul play” were uttered from the Fujimori camp the news media was unable to mediate and help the public tell truth from fiction. We did not trust anything they had to say – about anything. This certainly lost Fujimori a few more late converts.

And the mainstream media should worry. A plethora of independent digital news media have emerged to fight back and are capturing a growing audience.

Both sides challenged the electoral bodies in preparation for a “call for fraud” strategy. Who knows if we will trust the results?

----

“I forget the corruption”
        

At first, people joined reluctantly. “She is a liar and a thief but she is the only choice we have”. Then, with Castillo still in the lead early on in the second round, they embraced some of the efforts to “clean her image”. Then, more desperately, they began to challenge anyone who’d dare share any facts about the truth of Keiko Fujimori. The arguments ranged from: “we do not want people to be reminded of this” to “Castillo is also surrounded by corrupt people”.

A first round competitor turned ally famously said: “I forget the corruption” before embracing her at a public event to seal his endorsement.

Two days after the vote a troop of the top legal firms coordinated an attack on the results. They organised themselves to target poor rural areas in search of mistakes that could be presented as “evidence of fraud”. The strategy was openly shared: “they are less prepared, can barely read and write, they are bound to make mistakes”.

Frivolous accusations followed in an effort to nullify hundreds of thousands of jobs. And, expectedly, Castillo's camp followed suit. Adding fuel to the fire.

[We are in for a long wait until we can have the final results.]

This moral relativism quickly transformed into an outright support for the quest to rewrite history. Not a quest they were initially party to but one they inevitably joined. I cannot believe this was easy – it must have been morally gut-wrenching. Fear makes you do unimaginable things.

The lies about Fujimori and Castillo are now shared widely. They have been enabled by the mainstream news media that has chosen not to challenge them. They have been shared widely by well-known politicians, technocrats, opinion-leaders, journalists, business leaders and celebrities. They have been consumed and defended by a public that, for the most part, knows the truth but is actively choosing to pretend otherwise. (And, I dare say, is it beginning to forget the truth - or is now unable to tell the difference?)

This is fake news at national scale: fake narratives, fake facts, fake sources. Each half of the country has chosen to feed their own beast with falsehoods, hoping for a battle of titans that will settle things for good. The winner takes all.

Only, we are the bounty.

----

The truth has lost
        

The consequences go beyond the institutions of national sport and the media, of course.

Countless electoral laws have been broken over the last 2 months. But authorities have failed to respond. They fear reprisals. Authorities that do not enforce the rules are inevitably weakened. 

Friendships have been lost; some families are barely speaking. Work colleagues are attacking each other. The pandemic had already placed our mental health in intensive care. This election has proven too much for some.

And the truth has lost.

----

The very institutions called to defend truth have been complicit. It is no wonder nobody believes anyone anymore.
        

Ruth Levine argued that all of us who work in the field of evidence informed policy are united by the pursuit of truth. We can have disagreements of course but this is down to different worldviews, analytical frameworks, etc.

Think tanks on both ends of the political spectrum can agree on the facts and still disagree on the best way forward – even their visions for a future society.

But Peru’s second round campaign has seen a frontal attack on truth. Some individuals, experts and non-experts, have used their different worldviews and analytical frameworks to produce and disseminate lies instead of truths.

And anyone attempting to resist this massacre of the truth has been attacked – publicly and privately. Castillo's camp is not entirely innocent.

Researchers who have tried to talk about the strengths and flaws of both candidates’ plans have been attacked – by both sides. Historians who have tried to offer a nuanced perspective on the events that seem to be taking the country by storm have been labelled “terrorists” by Fujimori’s supporters. Or “revisionists” by the left.

Female researchers, expectedly, have been hit harder. Trolling (online abuse) is now happening at an unprecedented scale and many of the worst attacks are coming from friends. 

The very institutions called to defend truth have been complicit. The mainstream media in particular, other political parties and some universities have been either active supporters of this attack or complicit in their silence. It is no wonder nobody believes anyone anymore.

----

Silence
        

Too many think tanks and academia have been sadly absent throughout. Some have taken the view that they must not get involved. Their publications and events have focused on an agenda that has little or no relevance to what has been going on; food security, educational reform. Important but disengaged. Almost a slap on the face of a public desperate for a lifesaver to keep them from drowning.

A colleague asked me why think tanks were not coming out hard to fact-check the ludicrous policy promises made by Fujimori in a last ditch effort to grab a few votes?

But in such a context, could we really blame them? Corporations, which are increasingly important sources of funding, have openly threatened their own staff; would they support think tanks that stood against them? They still depend on public funding for much of their work; could they risk being blacklisted?

And there is also a legitimate concern for staff safety.

Others have opted for a veiled support for either option by supporting or opposing the economic model and offering technical definitions and recommendations.

This was useful at first, when there was space for policy ideas in the public debate and an appetite for sensemaking. But it failed to matter when the debate turned vicious. And then it was too late to change track.

Only a handful have taken a more involved and engaged approach which just about endorses either candidate. There is little research behind these positions.

But absent from all, however, has been an explicit defence of truth. I am not the only one to feel disappointed by their silence.

I would have hoped to see a statement from independent universities about this. An early defence of the importance of plurality of information in the mainstream media. Support for the handful of researchers who spoke out. Nothing. 

----

Without institutional support, their impact has been limited
        

Individual economists, historians, political scientists, etc. have expressed their concerns. But, without institutional support, their impact has been limited.

----

If ever there was money well spent in the field of development: independent journalism
        

Only one institution has taken a stance and found a way to emerge stronger. Independent and digital news media. A new wave of weeklies, podcasts, videocasts and digital publications have established themselves as reliable sources of information. They, and only they, have taken a public stance in defence of truth. 

If ever there was money well spent in the field of development: independent journalism.

Only they offered a home to independent researchers in this election.

----

We need to think about our infrastructure for truth
        

A single political campaign has all but wiped out years of efforts to place evidence at the centre of public affairs in Peru. Only last year, the hashtag #sinciencianohayfuturo (without science there is no future) trended on Twitter. The first round and early second round debates introduced the (ill-conceived, in my view) proposal of creating a ministry of science.

This did not happen by chance – it was not an accident. What we have seen is evidence of Peru’s political and economic institutions’ power to destroy truth at will.

And to me this suggests the need to think about our basic infrastructure for truth.

I thought about this term before reading this article by Zizi Papacharissi; which is encouraging. I may be on the right track.

She refers to journalists and scientists coming together. Having just witnessed the role that politics and money have played I would argue that the community needs to extend beyond the typical producers and communicators of truth.

Some ideas. We need:

• People capable and willing to stand up for truth and who represent different fields (politics, science, markets, media, civil society) and socio-economic and political backgrounds;
• Equality representative, organisations willing and capable to stand up for truth;
• Independent sources of funding to ring fence this role -especially when the present and future are most uncertain;
• An international support network to address legitimate concerns for the members of this infrastructure for truth;
• Principles to defend

Without this, efforts to generate and use data, sustainably enforce access to information rights or promote evidence informed policymaking – in any field or sector – can be wiped out overnight.

And worse.