The New Year's Military-Civilian Uprising in Peru

They propose an openly military-style government couched in nationalism, ethnic affirmation (or racism) and anti-imperialism. Antauro Humala and his "reservists," as etnocaceristas identify themselves, and their newspaper Ollanta say some pretty fucked up shit. See this page (in Spanish) for a glimpse.  

Quoting Ollanta Latinnews.com (sorry, subscription only) writes of the movement:

one of its basic tenets is that Peru's social ills can only be remedied under the direction of a strong leader, a soldier who will 'attain power by a more direct path than any civilian'.

Even taken with a grain of salt, that's a little scary, no?

They glorify the military regime of Gen. Velasco and a weird sort of Incaic nationalism along with the military establishment in general, who they believe is the only power that has routinely defended Peru from enemies foreign (Chile, Ecuador etc.) and domestic (whites, elites and "the colonizing Left"). The latter is no doubt partly a jab at leftist guerrilla movements of recent decades.

They praise the same military making up the security forces that butchered innocent campesinos in response to the brutal Maoist Sendero Luminoso insurgency. Some of the Reservists even claim to have cut their teeth in the counterinsurgency in which campesinos and activists were illegally targeted as guerrilla sympathizers. Few times in Latin American history has the military been a friend of "el pueblo," if ever. This time, I fear, is no exception.

The same Latinnews.com story says:

The one academic who has studied them, the sociologist Ana María Quiroz, says in her book Invocando a los hijos de Manco Cápac that the movement seeks to reestablish the kind of military reformism last seen during the rule of General Juan Velasco Alvarado (1968-75), the constitution of 1979, and the three main Inca precepts (do not lie, do not be idle, do not steal).

Ironically, the Velasco regime was the government that Constitutionally denied highland indigenous groups the "indigenous" label in the first place, affording this only to Amazonian groups. To this day, highland activism in Peru is based much more around class (campesino) rather than ethnic identities, which is weird considering the country is sandwiched by Ecuador and Bolivia—both sites of radical indigenous activism.

Still, the Etnocaceristas wave the flag of Tawantinsuyu as they carry Humala on their soldier, but do you know who was carried on shoulders waving that flag? Alejandro Toledo. Decked out in his favorite Inca garb and holding coca leaves, Toledo rode the wave of anti-Fujimori (and -neoliberal) sentiment and his Neo-Incaic overtures all the way to Lima.

I'm still quite skeptical of what this all means in Peru. However, this does not mean that what happened is not the spark that can lead to a much greater fire. What I am asking is: what fire is it exactly that is being lit?

Alejandro Toledo was elected president of Peru in a contest that was more or less "democratic" as in other countries in our América. He began with a great opportunity after a decade or so of authoritarian, repressive, and largely undemocratic rule by Alberto Fujimori and his enforcer Vladimiro Montesinos.

Like Vicente Fox in Mexico or Ricardo Lagos in Chile or Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador, he quickly spilled his mandate by surrendering the self-determination of his country to impositions from outside and from above: the economic model imposed by foreign powers.

And in doing so, Toledo has lost - according to public opinion surveys - the support of 91 percent of Peruvians.

Your question hits at a very tough call: When does a "democratically elected" government, if ever, cease to be legitimate?

And the soon-to-follow question: Who, if anyone, has a right to challenge the legitimacy of such a government?

We have seen, for example, in recent years in Venezuela efforts by the elites to topple an elected government. The questions presented by upper-class attempted coups are easier: of course they are unacceptable.

But what of revolts "from below" such as the Mexican Zapatistas or the indigenous movements of a majority-indigenous country such as Ecuador or Bolivia, or the challenge made on New Year's to Peru's government by a small military-citizen armed insurgency? Or, for that matter, the 50-years-war of the guerrillas in Colombia against many "democratically elected" governments of different political parties?

Against upper-class coup attempts, I think it's pretty fair to say they are never legitimate.

But when it comes to insurgent movements from below to topple a government that so many of the people at the bottom of the economic pile consider to be illegitimate, I think those deserve a look-see and the kind of attention we can offer them. (That attention includes the kind of scrutiny that Teo Ballve offers above, in this thread, as to whether the insurgents themselves walk their talk or are a desireable alternative.)

To me, it's not an open-and-shut case, as in, "if he was democratically elected he is therefore legitimate no matter what he does." A leader is always legitimate against the impositions from above or from outside. But against the bases of his own people? I think we have to look at those struggles on a case by case basis. To me, it's an open question. And part of what Authentic Journalism does is to provide a fairer look at what rebels-from-below are saying about the illegtimacy of even elected governments in a time in which "elections" themselves are increasingly media-propped farces.