number of scandals exposed by the press in recent years.2 President Alejandro Toledo selected a new cabinet in February 2004 and the cabinet chief took responsibility for drawing up an ‘exit strategy’ for overcoming the political crisis amid plummeting approval ratings. The cabinet chief’s proposals included a series of disparate anti-corruption measures that are individually positive (for example, actions against contraband, new extradition mechanisms and a commitment to formulate a coherent anti-corruption plan), but once again fail to add up to a strategy that goes to the structural roots of corruption. President Toledo has always spoken of his will to fight corruption, but he has failed to translate this into effective initiatives, arguably because of the restraining factor of allegations of corruption against people and interest groups who are close to him. Media sources have reported a number of corruption allegations involving family members, legislators affiliated to the president’s party, close friends, ministers, ex-ministers and the first lady.3 The fact that there are legislators aligned with the ruling party who were closely tied to the Fujimori regime adds to suspicions that the president lacks the necessary distance from groups or individuals who might be compromised by an effective fight against corruption.4 The chances of a national anti-corruption policy being drawn up are inevitably linked to the evolution of the political crisis, which at present threatens to fell the president and produce an early election. The creation of a working group to revive proposals made by the aforementioned INA is positive, but comes at a difficult time. If the elections are brought forward and the new government also lacks the political will to address the roots of corruption, the recommendations could once again be shelved.
Decentralising corruption Various sectors of Peruvian society, especially the poorest and most marginalised, have long
been calling for the devolution of power to the regions. In the second half of the 1980s the Aprista government initiated a process of decentralisation that was dismantled by Fujimori after 1992. During the 2001 election campaign after Fujimori’s escape to Japan, the question of decentralisation was again raised as an election promise. When Alejandro Toledo won, expectations were high that he would fulfil his campaign pledge. Public demands for an immediate start to the process of decentralisation led to an announcement in 2002 that elections would be held for presidents of regions that had yet to be fully constituted. The organic law on regional governments was not promulgated until November 2002, four days after the elections took place. The speed with which the operation was implemented meant there was no time to put in place the necessary control mechanisms to supervise the new local government institutions, let alone work out a timetable for when programmes would be transferred. The only control mechanisms in place were those that already existed, namely the auditing bodies created under Fujimori, ostensibly to oversee the Transitory Regional Administration Councils but in practice to ensure that social programmes were allocated along political lines to benefit the former president’s election campaign in 2000. The fact that the same mechanisms had failed to prevent Fujimori from spinning a web of corruption begged the question whether they would exercise real control over the new regional governments. The question was answered in 2003 and the first half of 2004: corruption was decentralised along with political and administrative powers, as a number of experts had predicted. By the time of writing, eight of the 25 regional presidents had already been subjected to investigation on suspicion of corruption, and one had been deposed for bribery and embezzlement. The ‘decentralisation’ of corruption may be explained by the limited access to
Country reports PERU
GC2005 02 chap06 191
191
13/1/05 4:34:22 pm