Denial of Gustavo Petro, Fernando Carvallo [COLUMNA]

Listen to the Las cosas cos son podcast channel on RPP Player.

It is sad to see that two hundred years of globally constructive relations between Peru And Colombia face the stubbornness of President Gustavo Petro. Once again, Peter lamented the absence Pedro Castillo at the Latin American summit and did not hesitate to confirm that this was due to the coup that had deposed Castillo.

Peter’s repeated statement is irresponsibly flippant. If his version of events were to be accepted, the entire history of his and our country would have to be rethought, marked by a difficult consolidation of constitutional institutions, contested from the outset by caudillos and authoritarian leaders.

The first to warn him was Simón Bolivar, who warns again and again in his letters about the difficulties of creating institutions that will replace those of the colonial regime. Chancellor of Peru Ana Cecilia Gervasi, replied to Petru that Dina Boluarte became President in the legal application of the Constitution. And he clarified that if Castillo had been present, he would have been more of a dictator than a president.

Petro knows he has the support of the Mexican. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and with the most rude populism that Castillo managed to make his hallmark. But Petro also has a high percentage of Peruvians who stubbornly see Castillo as a victim of an elite and political class that has always rejected him.

It is true that the accusations of cheating were unfounded, but they crept into the public discourse, as did the accusations made in 1931 regarding Sánchez Cerro’s victory over Haya de la Torre. The scandal with Peter is that he accepts the constitutional interpretation in accordance with his political interests and ideological preferences.

What awaits him, instead of modernizing the left and rooting it in democracy, is to associate it with the oldest flaws in Latin American politics: caudilism, demagogy and arbitrariness.

Things as they are