Peru, having barely recovered from former President Pedro Castillo’s attempted executive coup, is now embarking on a momentous increase in military expenditure. In the year 2023 alone, the military budget is set to swell by almost US$100 million, with projections pointing to a staggering US$2.6 billion by 2028. Advocates contend that this surge is indispensable to counter an expanding array of threats that the nation faces. While it’s undeniable that Peru has grappled with issues like narco-terrorism and Shining Path insurgents, the rapid escalation of defense spending necessitates careful scrutiny within its political context. Given recent flirtations with authoritarian tendencies, the augmentation of military might raises disconcerting implications for the future of democratic governance in Peru.
The genesis of Peru’s reshaped defense policy
The origins of Peru’s revised defense policy can be traced back to the tenure of President Castillo. This policy found its roots in his administration’s initial plan to increase government spending by 9 percent, a blueprint largely upheld by his successor. Notably, Peru’s military spending historically lagged behind that of its neighboring countries. In 2021, the nation allocated a mere 1.12 percent of its GDP to defense, falling far behind Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, and Colombia. Remarkably, despite its comparatively lower military expenditures, Peru’s economic prosperity surpasses both Ecuador’s and Colombia’s.
The infusion of funds extends beyond mere reinforcement of existing programs. Integral to this initiative is the establishment of fortified defense partnerships with nations such as Russia. Over the years, Moscow has actively cultivated its presence in Peru’s military landscape, offering weaponry and equipment that other nations were reluctant to provide. This collaboration, dating back to 2014, saw Russia supplying hundreds of T-90 Main Battle Tanks, replacing the outdated French AMX-13 light tanks and Soviet T-55 tanks. Moreover, the plan entails substantial investments in constructing frigates, submarines, aircraft, and personnel carriers.
Concerns for democracy’s fragility
President Castillo’s audacious executive maneuver last December resonated alarmingly across the democratic world. Swift condemnation of his actions came from regional heavyweights like Brazil and Chile, backed by the US State Department. Although the ousting of Castillo averted an immediate constitutional crisis, it failed to address the inherent vulnerabilities of Peru’s democratic fabric.
Peru’s encounter with autogolpe, a self-inflicted coup, is not a novelty. Castillo’s episode marked the third in a span of three decades. President Martín Vizcarra attempted to dissolve the congress in 2019, and in 1992, President Alberto Fujimori succeeded in orchestrating an executive coup, culminating in a nearly decade-long personalized dictatorship. The potential danger posed by a potent military to democratic principles persists irrespective of the political climate. Yet, Peru’s proximity to recurrent governmental upheaval amplifies the gravity of the situation.
Faced with her own political juncture, President Dina Boluarte’s choices reflect expedience and security, potentially at the cost of democracy’s already frayed fabric. This stance is unsurprising, given her alignment with the Peruvian far-right before assuming office. Allegations of Boluarte’s government perpetrating protester massacres soon after her ascension have raised questions about her commitment to democratic norms. There are concerns that Boluarte might harbor authoritarian ambitions of her own.
Peru indeed faces multifaceted threats, both internal and external. While incremental defense spending might be justified to a certain extent, the current ambitious surge in military capacity, particularly during this politically delicate juncture, is not only unwarranted but imprudent. Peru’s history has already witnessed the rise of an imperialistic, right-wing president capitalizing on a bolstered military. Even in the absence of Boluarte, this unchecked expansion creates a void that demands attention.
The entrenched rivalry between democratically elected officials and the armed forces seldom ends well, largely due to the latter’s armed might.
The Latin American region provides abundant evidence that an unchecked military can undermine democracy. Countless nations, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela, have endured coups involving the military.
Bolivia has weathered 11 successful coups since 1950. Taken together, from 1900 to 2006, Latin America witnessed 162 coups. Perhaps most disconcerting is the alarming sentiment toward a military coup within Peru itself. Amidst turmoil and instability, the prospect of a military dictator offering security and stability can be alluring. A January 2023 survey unveiled that nearly 40 percent of Peruvians would condone a military coup.
An independent, robust military stands inherently in opposition to democracy. History is replete with instances of uniformed strongmen violently ousting democratically elected leaders. From Julius Caesar to Muammar al-Qaddafi, the trend underscores the imperative for democracies to remain vigilant against both internal and external threats. Peru’s remarkable democratic resilience notwithstanding, the nation now stands at a precarious juncture. A recent history marked by two coup attempts within five years, potentially culminating in a third, signals a threshold of tolerance that the system can bear. Much like democracy, a branch can only bend so far before it snaps.
