The Terror

The period of Peruvian history remarked upon in this weeks readings is one which marks Peruvian politics to this day. Alberto Fujimori in Document 9.3 addresses the Peruvian people and gives them his rationalization for essentially creating an autocratic state. The language he uses in this address is very calculate and careful. He appeals to the anger and resentment that the Peruvian people hold towards a seemingly corrupt and useless government. He claims that this is the only way to create for Peru a truly democratic and fair society. He claims that to rebuild the country he must first tear down the old institutions and people who man them. Fujimori states that this is necessary and above all it is done to create a better Peru. I find the parallels between Fujimori's speech and that of Gonzalo to be quite interesting. On the surface they appear quite different, Fujimori speaks of building a truly democratic nation, Gonzalo of the necessity of violence and bloodshed. However both are justifying their actions. Both claim that their actions though regrettable are solely the end result of the actions of others. They both claim to be reacting to some force that was enacted by someone or something else. Both appeal to the people, to the general populace of the country. Fujimori's speech seems much more rational and "acceptable" compared to that of Gonzalo, which is filled with communist based rhetoric and justifications for bloodshed and violence. However I will repeat both claim to be solely reactionary.
          One aspect which Dawson fails to touch on is another violent group within Peru during this same period. That of the MRTA or Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. This was a militant socialist group which in 1996 took hostage members of the Japanese Embassy hostage at the ambassadorial residence. The result of the hostage crisis at the time led to Fujimori being acclaimed and widely supported, later events caused somewhat of a change in perception. The MRTA was not a large nor caused as many deaths as Sendero Luminoso. However I bring them up because of the impact this attack has had on in particular architecture in Lima. The residence now has been turned into a fortress. Large solid steel tube fencing and guard posts with buildings set back from the street. Many embassies and diplomatic residences in Lima are built quite durably now (including Canada's) Many were quite fortress like before but after became more so. Terrorism and government violence led to many buildings and homes to be somewhat fortified. Fujimori was convicted in 2007 and 2009 of various crimes committed during his presidency. However even then a large part of the Peruvian populace supported him. The reason Fujimori returned to south america at all was to make another bid for power in Peru. Maybe he would of succeeded. In the last presidential elections his daughter Keiko Fujimori gained 23% of the popular vote, second only to the Ollanta Humala at 31%. In the runoff she lost to Ollanta 51-48. These numbers show the sheer amount of support that the Fujimori name has still retained in Peru. Especially among the more rural and provincial population.

       Alberto Fujimori did however lead the regime that captured General Gonzalo (head of SL) and in large ended this era of terrorism and strife in Peru. The means he used were however quite autocratic and authoritarian, He in essence shut down the democratic processes of the nation and authorized government hit squads and military forces who the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found came only second to Sendero Luminoso in cause of death to many. (and not by a great margin). So my question to you today is "do the ends justify the means?" Alberto Fujimori seemed to bring about the end of an era of strife in Peru, but by very ambiguous means.