The 2011 Peruvian Presidential Elections: The Deception of Democracy

As any high school civics student can recite, democracy is "rule by the people", the literal translation of the much-used and misused word.

Yet many teachers fail to teach that:

1) Democracy as majority rule has been a widely despised form of government for most of Human History.

3) Aristotle, the first political scientist, emphasized in his "Politics" the crucial defining role of human nature in any procedural system of government.. Not content to classify types of government based solely on who makes the decisions, he also delineated between those who rule for their own benefit versus those states which rule for the benefit of every citizen in a community. By his estimates, a democracy was the rule by the many for the many; a republic the rule by the many for all.

2) The Framers of the United States Constitution did not intend for America to be a democracy, which they deemed to be a crass, hyperpartisan system of government that would undermine national unity by the expanse of heated factions contrary to natural rights.

With questionable credentials and political views hostile to the needs of the Peruvian nation, two intolerable candidates are vying for the Presidency:

1) Ollanta Humala, a blood-stained soldier-strongman with philosophical ties to the Venezuelan Marxist President-cum-dictator Hugo Chavez.

2) Keiko Fujimoro, seasoned politician with blood ties to Alberto Fujimori, ex-President of Peru jailed for corruption and crimes against humanity.

Both claim to support the poor without offering any meaningful proposals and without expressly denouncing the hateful policies of their contemporaries or predecessors. Beyond being a characteristic clothespin vote, Humala and Fujimori's candidacy reflects the stymied influence of the Peruvian electorate and the incompetence of Peru's democratic institutions. The candidates troubling backgrounds suggest that they will rule in their own interests or champion one constituency above the others, no matter how widely Peru's impoverished may comprise the nation's electorate.

For a nation that has struggled to assert the rightful independence of its people against the onslaught of rampant corruption and military demagoguery, this Pyrrhic contest underscores the ultimate fecklessness of democracy desperate for republican values, i.e. codification and enforcement of natural rights with mutual trust between all electors and the elected.

Systemically, the most damning fixture of this open yet fundamentally rigged election is that the Peruvian people cannot dismiss both candidates. Every election will have a winning candidate, regardless of how many abstain.

Therefore, the Peruvian people must invest in a civic culture beyond the upcoming election, civil participation which will shape the role of their leaders as opposed to merely sending them into office with the faint hope that they will behave themselves. Peruvians must demand leadership dedicated to republican rule: majority vote transformed into policy in the best interests of all Peruvians.