When Alberto Fujimori was elected president of Peru in 1990, a 10-year war against Maoist guerrillas and sky-high inflation had made a mess out of the country. Fear prevailed across the nation, foreign investment was low and there was concern that Peru might follow Colombia as a fortress for drug lords. But things have changed. Under Fujimori, austerity measures brought inflation under control, the army all but destroyed the guerrillas of the Shining Path and of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), investment from abroad increased three-fold and Peru’s commitment to the U.S.-backed war against drugs is total.
Yet Fujimori, the frontrunner in the April 9 presidential election in which he is running for a controversial third term, has been likened to an autocrat. Some critics contend his foremost goal is to stay in power. Others feel he runs his government like an emperor in a style lifted from imperial Japan in the 1930s. The Carter Center reported last month that conditions for free and fair elections had not been established, and the U.S. State Department called Peru’s human rights record poor in several areas.
Fujimori was interviewed this month in the Palacio de Gobierno, or presidential palace.
Q: It has been said that you are exerting strong pressure on the independent judiciary and the independent press in order to maintain your rule. Some people say outright you are a dictator. Are you a dictator?
A: I will leave this to your evaluation. Look at what happened here in Peru. When I took [office in 1990], Peru was supposed to have been a full democratic country, but what kind of democracy was there at the beginning of the ’90s? The government had no control over the country. People were dying everywhere. More than 25,000 people had died during this civil guerrilla movement. There were many material losses and no authority.
My aim was to establish order in the country . . . One goal was to defeat terrorism. A second was to control hyperinflation and [lower] the huge external debt. Now we have a manageable debt. The country was isolated from the financial community. All of Peru’s huge problems are [now] finished with, and this was done through strategy. When you use legal procedures and imaginative proposals, I think that this is not the style of a dictator . . . You have the freedom of the press. Everyone is free here. What type of dictatorship is this?
Q: We have heard complaints that the only people who have benefited from your government are the very rich and the very poor. And the poor, of course, compose the bulk of your grass-roots support. There is high unemployment and underemployment. For example, university professors complain of making less than $500 a month. Doctors and lawyers drive taxis to increase their income. What plans do you have to bring a better life to the middle class in Peru?
A: If the poor are poorer than before, why are the poor people supporting the government? Why is the government’s support from the poor and the native Andean people stronger than that of the rich people? There is a program that enables the poor to improve their conditions. For example, one of the problems is that the poor people have small houses but without any title to the property. We have probably one of the most successful titling programs. In just two years, we gave 750,000 [land] titles to the poor. They are now owners. They have the right to access credit. They have some capitalization. They have some security in their future.
The university professors were not [well] paid. I know that because I was president of the National Assembly of University Rectors. But we have to manage the budget of the country. We cannot just pay them more. Peruvian teachers all get $200 a month or $220. It is easy to say I will give you $280 or $300 a month. That would get some votes, but after that, the problem would be a high fiscal deficit, and then inflation, hyperinflation, instability, social instability, political instability and so on. We have to keep stability.
Q: The State Department told your prime minister it was deeply concerned about pre-election conditions in Peru. For instance, the United States called upon Peru to provide opposition candidates meaningful access to the media and encourage improved coverage so voters could make informed and free choices at the ballot box. How do you feel about the Washington call for change?
A: I want the election to be completely legal. The State Department statement followed the Carter Center [finding]. They had recommendations [for changing the election procedure]. I agree with those recommendations. Two of them I didn’t realize were needed. One is that we have to publish a [hot line] telephone number that citizens can call freely [with complaints] or to get information on the election campaign. This is a new step, but OK, I don’t disagree with it. The second is [the appointment of special prosecutors trained in the handling of election matters] in the 37 electoral districts. I didn’t realize that this was needed. I took these recommendations and publicly advised the national attorney general to make this change, which was accomplished in a few days.
More Top Picks Best Steel Toe Work Boots For Women
A third recommendation was that the TV must provide access to all local candidates. I was accused by the opposition candidates of having more time on TV [up to 70 percent of time given to candidates]. I didn’t realize this. That’s because I am president. As president I announce measures, laws, proposals, steps as a government–as a president. My style is to communicate to the press. Almost everything I do is communicated to the country by the press. I was talking as a president, always as a president. To compensate, I began to hold fewer press conferences. But the journalists also want the news, they want the access and they have that right.
A fourth recommendation was that the president should not inaugurate public projects. OK, I accept that. My goal was to highlight the importance of new projects, like highways. By law, it’s permitted.
Q: The State Department also insisted your government stop its attacks on opposition candidates, domestic election observers and Jorge Santistevan, Peru’s ombudsman. What steps, if any, are you taking to comply in that area?
A: There were some bad comments about the ombudsman on a government-owned TV channel. I was shocked by the way they treated him. The attacks against candidates involved harassment when a candidate was visiting a town. I noted there were two types [of harassment], and I ordered them stopped by police agents or government employees. Why harass? That is not my style. My orientation is that harassment of candidates is forbidden. For the past two months, there has been no more denunciation. These attacks have disappeared.
Q: Is Washington correct in demanding changes in the electoral procedures? Does the U.S. or any other government or group have the right to tell Peru what to do?
A: We are not perfect in the electoral process. But it is not upon the recommendation of the State Department that we are going to act. I am going to make the correction. I am a free thinker. There are some recommendations that are quite consistent with my position. I don’t mind making the changes because I am taking the steps [on my own initiative].
Q: You have been to Cuba. You have met Fidel Castro. Is the United States too preoccupied with Cuba?
A: Too much. I often wonder about the position of the United States. What type of danger is Cuba? Not anymore. The blockade by the United States is unjust and not useful for good relationships in the region. It is unjustified.
Q: So you feel that the resources used against Cuba could be better applied somewhere else?
A: I don’t know what resources the United States uses for the isolation of Castro. I have a close relationship [with Castro]. I even visited him in Havana. But I do not think the U.S. should pay so much attention to Cuba, as it has at least during the past five or 10 years.
What does the United States gets from this isolation, from this blockade? Did Fidel Castro fall from the government?
He is stronger.
———-
An edited transcript.