Peru; Worst Political Offering in Decades”; “Economy Withstands Political Chaos”; “U.S. and China Compete on Peru’s Coast.

Friday, April 10, 2026. Peru As we’ve reported recently, Peru is heading into elections on April 12, with a most certain runoff in June.  It’s a country worth paying attention to right now, not because of who’s likely to win, but because of the environment going into it. The field is highly fragmented, with no clear frontrunner and no indication that whoever emerges will have strong political backing. That matters, because in Peru the issue isn’t just the election, it’s governability. The country has already gone through multiple leadership changes in recent years, and a divided outcome increases the likelihood of continued tension between the presidency and congress. In that kind of setting, decisions slow down, policies shift, and execution becomes less predictable. For companies operating in or looking at Peru, the exposure is not tied to the result itself, but to the level of uncertainty surrounding it. Peru remains a key market in sectors like mining, energy, and infrastructure, but the gap between what exists on paper and how things function in practice tends to widen in periods like this. Here’s what’s worth paying attention to as we head into the weekend elections. Brett Mikkelson Founder, B.M. Investigations, Inc. – Private Investigations in Panama TOP NEWS and TIDBITS: Alberto Vergara: “In the Peruvian Elections, the Most Serious Problems Coincide with the Worst Political Offering in Decades” The first round of the Peruvian elections is just around the corner. Citizens will choose their next president—along with representatives to Congress and the Andean Parliament—amid a maze of 35 options and a ballot larger than a family-sized pizza box. Political scientist Alberto Vergara (Lima, 1974), a professor at the University of the Pacific who lives between Montevideo and Lima, shares his views on a contest that, in his opinion, will not represent “a turning point but rather another stop along the trajectory of the cycle of instability in which Peru has long been immersed.” Question. Every election promises a better country. With what mix of emotions will Peruvians vote this Sunday? Answer. What defines this election is the gap between the most serious problems in decades and the worst political offering, also in decades. Unfortunately, these elections offer very few opportunities to alter the trajectory of political instability and institutional decay that prevails in Peru. For that reason, there are no candidates who generate enthusiasm, nor programmatically solid platforms. The prevailing mood fluctuates between apathy and resignation. Q. Will the cycle of chronic instability that has led Peru to have eight presidents in a decade be broken? A. I find that unlikely. The flaws that produced that instability are present in the parties and candidates with the greatest chances. At the same time, most new organizations replicate the same short-term and predatory logic that brought us here. Peruvian politics is riding without a jockey; there are no longer heavyweight actors, institutions barely restrain politicians, and the system’s legitimacy is at rock bottom. These elections reproduce all of that. Expecting a different outcome is naïve. I’ll reuse an expression I used years ago in another context: this is a system of alternation without an alternative. Q. How do you explain that a citizen must choose among 35 presidential options? A. Political organizations in Congress deliberately worked to deepen the flaws of Peru’s political system, such as facilitating the creation of “parties” or eliminating any mechanisms that prevent fragmentation (like primaries). We knew that if the rules of representation were not changed, dispersion and mediocrity would worsen—and that is exactly what happened. In 2021 there were 17 candidacies, and over the past five years the decision was made to maintain rules that foster dispersion and the resulting instability. One only has to look at how embarrassing the presidential debates have been—a mix of amateurism, stupidity, and disorganization. Thirty-five weak candidates are the very logical continuation of eight weak presidents in ten years. Q. Although uncertainty surrounds the process, once again Keiko Fujimori appears as the frontrunner. Why do the last four elections seem to come down to who will face her in the runoff? A. That is another major incentive for fragmentation. Since it is known that Keiko Fujimori is strong enough to reach the runoff but also widely disliked enough to lose it, all candidates hope to face her in that stage, which fuels fragmentation. And that outcome will probably repeat for the fourth time. Q. Everything suggests that the candidate with the greatest momentum is comedian Carlos Álvarez, who in the 1990s hosted rallies for Alberto Fujimori. A. In reality, there is a pack of four or five candidates with a chance of reaching the runoff. I don’t see anyone as a clear favorite. Peruvian elections never fail to deliver last-minute surges. That said, it is true that comedian Carlos Álvarez gained traction at the right moment, amid very poor debate performances. Q. In the south, there appears to be a vote of retaliation from those who were labeled ignorant for supporting Pedro Castillo and who believe that, beyond the coup attempt, he was never allowed to govern. A. Yes, the south has a historically tense relationship with central power, particularly with Lima. To that historical condition we must add that the Peruvian right sought to derail the elections that Castillo had legitimately won with southern votes, and on top of that, the massacre of dozens of citizens in the south during the government of Dina Boluarte. It is natural that this sense of retaliation exists. Q. Have the conditions worsened for Congress to continue governing the country? A. Over the past five years, the constitutional design has tilted in favor of Congress. And it will not be easy to dissolve it. To begin with, a Senate has been reintroduced that cannot be dissolved. In any case, the problem lies more in the practices and incentives already adopted by those who enter politics than in the formal rules of the system. Q. As you recently said, it is necessary to deeply