In, “Against Constitutionalist Illusions and for the State of a New Democracy,” the Party said:
“ON THE ELECTIONS. Marx pointed out: ‘Every few years the oppressed are authorized to decide which members of the oppressor class will represent and crush them in parliament!’ And that is even more true when the elections are to approve constitutions. Thus, elections are merely the method to renew the government administration of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies, and this happens even in the most democratic government we could imagine, and they are the usual means to preserve and develop capitalism. In the landowning-bureaucratic States of Latin America, when elections have fulfilled their function of a changing of the guard, and at times during which the electoral norms of the bourgeois-democratic system are respected, election is just a tool of domination by the semi-feudal landowners and big capitalists, whether the renewal is done at standardized periods as lately in Colombia, or to end a period of military rule as also lately happened in Argentina, these are few examples of many in which our America is so prolific.
“The above can be demonstrated for this country [Peru]. Although with important interruptions to the periodic electoral processes by military rulers -interruptions linked on the one hand to the development of the People’s War and, on the other, to the contradictions between the landowners and the big bourgeoisie, and between the comprador bourgeoisie and the democratic bourgeoisie. Highlighting that the military governments themselves have been instrumental in implementing elections, be it to legalize its own situation, or to end its rule, or to guarantee them- elections in Peru have helped to preserve or develop the character of Peruvian State, the formal republic, the dictatorship of the semi-feudal landowners and the big bourgeoisie. Thus, elections have been, as couldn’t be otherwise within the established social order, a tool first in the hands of the comprador bourgeoisie and then in the hands of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie. This has been the main characteristic in the electoral processes of the Peruvian State during this century, which has determined the class character of elections in this country.
“These fundamental matters establish the following:
1. The Peruvian State is landowning-bureaucratic, a dictatorship of a feudal landowners and big bourgeoisie, under ultimate control by Yankee imperialism; against whom the people struggle for the construction of a State of new democracy, which requires the destruction of the existing old order.
2. The Peruvian State, like every State, sustains, defends and develops itself by the use of violence, in the face of which the people need revolutionary violence, following the road of surrounding the cities from the countryside.
3. The elections are means of domination by the landowners and big bourgeoisie. For the people they are neither instruments of transformation nor a means to overthrow the power of the current rulers. Therefore, the correct orientation is using them only as a means of agitation and propaganda.”
That was said in 1978 and it is still valid. Let’s point out that the elections of 1980 and 1985 proved it with facts. Thus, within this function of elections in Peru, similar to that of other countries, and being as they are crucial to reaction, the 1990 general elections showed and developed themselves in defense of the obsolete existing order and evolution of Peruvian society. It was in this context that parties like APRA, IS (Socialist Left), IU (United Left), FREDEMO and CAMBIO 90 sustained and defended very similar objectives and goals which only differ in form and means of utilization. The mobilization of troops for the elections amounted to 300,000 members of the police and armed forces, the largest ever for an election, as the State itself has recognized.
In addition, they added tension and put into motion all State institutions; they unleashed an all-out campaign aimed not just at capitalizing votes but to pressure the people into voting and fighting against the People’s War; all of that besides the most vile and low demagoguery. Let’s highlight clearly how the open intervention by the Catholic Church in Peruvian politics is increasing by the day, as shown in these elections; but at the same time we must see with concern the role of the evangelicals in these elections, and behind which is the invisible hand of Yankee imperialism. Thus, while the armed force is still the big elector and warrantor, the so-called “spiritual power” of the Church rises more and more as political power.
These elections show more clearly than others held previously in the country that “everything is valid in order to win elections,” and how reactionaries, in their own intestine fights, are capable of snatching from the rest of the pack the best parts in the interests of their own groups or factions. So, what would they not do in their struggle against the people and the revolution? The current general elections have set on their way two additional reactionary offspring: racism and religious struggle. The first is a nefarious fly-by-night ideology of purported superiority, which are totally opposed to the forging of a nationality in formation like ours, and the second, the religious struggle, is a sinister utilization of religion not just as an instrument in the class struggle, which it really is, but to pit masses against masses, derail the people’s struggle and fetter the advancing revolution, the People’s War. But not only have those foul elements been put into motion; the reaction and the classes, factions and groups that compose it, maneuver perversely with the threat of a coup d’etat, its useful instrument, while cynically declaiming themselves in favor of bourgeois democracy.
All that, in addition to well- known machinations, tricks, chicanery and fraud at the vote counting, take place along with repression and genocide in the countryside. In that manner the electoral process smells of the dense foul odors of fascism. Based on the review of data from the “Total compilation of the April 14  general elections,” by the National Board of Elections and of the “National Consolidated Presidential Results” published by the same body (JNE) on May 11, 1985, the results are shown below as well as others in which we will refer to later on:
Registered Voters 9,983,400
Not Voting 2,116,600
The table shows that those not voting are 21.2 % of the registered and 27% of those voting.
CAMBIO 90 (Fujimori) 24.6
IU (United Left) 6.9
IS (Socialist Left) 4.0
Null and Blank 15.3
The very low vote obtained by the first two candidates stands out. Neither one of them, Vargas Llosa or Fujimori, reached even 30% of the votes cast; very far, then, from the 50% plus one votes their constitution demands to assume the presidency. It was also very clear, and we will return to it later on, that absenteeism, simply staying away from the polls, has increased noticeably, reaching 21.2% of the registered and 27% of the voters; that is, the highest vote getter only obtained 0.6% more than absenteeism. There you see the self-proclaimed triumph of the so-called “democracy” and their purported defeat of the so-called “terrorism!”
The 19% APRA vote implied the bankruptcy of their “traditional third,” which they bragged about for decades; however, their parliamentary contingent allowed them to continue fulfilling their nefarious role in Peruvian history. On another side, the self-proclaimed “United Left” and “Socialist Left” were crushed by the same electoral process they worship so much; together, the two of them didn’t even match the number of null and blank votes. This, their unrestrained parliamentary cretinism has suffered its most humiliating and catastrophic defeat: the just punishment to revisionists, opportunists and traitors to the class and the people.
In synthesis, last April’s general elections were earmarked by vote dispersal and indefiniteness; the runoff election showed itself up as a still more murky, ambiguous and demagogic contest of gambling political hacks. But, besides that, with the distribution of seats, in parliament will develop a worsening collusion and contention between the various groups and factions of exploiters, causing the decrepit parliamentary system to rot even more. All of this shows how the Peruvian State has further weakened at its base, and will have to be sustained once more by the armed and repressive forces, showing more clearly to the people how the armed forces are the backbone of the State, and how this State is merely based on an organized violence for perpetuating the slavery of the people of Peru.
The electoral process highlights fundamental problems in Peruvian society, despite the pretensions of covering them up: First, the subsistence of semi-feudalism, basis of the agricultural [and livestock] production crisis, bringing back to the forefront the land problem which supposedly had been overcome. Second, the existence of bureaucratic capitalism, which is sustained in economic underdevelopment tied to imperialist domination; imperialism, mainly Yankee, as always sucking us dry of our blood and getting ready to suck us drier yet. In synthesis, it shows the generalized crisis of an obsolete society having only one solution: revolution, the victory of the ongoing People’s War.
On the other hand, the disastrous result obtained by the APRA government headed by the genocidal demagogue Garcia Perez, is evident. In 1985, we said that the new government [APRA] would provoke more hunger and would be still more genocidal; today hunger eats away and devours the class and the people; and while according to data from the so-called “Pacification Commission” of the Senate, the Belaunde government bloodied the country with 5,880 dead, the current one surpassed it with 8,504 dead from 1985 to 88, and with another 3,198 dead in 1989. Both of our 1985 predictions were correct, and in fact the APRA government of Garcia Perez created more hunger and more genocide than any previous one in Peruvian history The people will never forget him!
All of which is sharpened and accented even more by the uncertainty of the first round of the election and the postponement of the resolution until the runoff. The political parties were strongly shaken by the results of last April’s elections and were forced out of necessity to enter all sorts of realignments and regrouping, not just for the sake of the runoff but, mainly, for their later development. While in the electoral campaign they upheld “non partisanship,” to lure the vote of the independents, candidates trafficked with the lack of prestige of their own political parties and the repudiation of the revisionist parties of Eastern Europe, aiming in essence and perspective, against the party of the proletariat, against the Party, preaching the putrid thesis of “no need for political parties.” On this, let’s remember what Lenin said: “Non partisanship is a bourgeois idea. Partisanship is a socialist idea.” (Read communist.)
All that merely shows is the crisis of the parties which sustain the old order; not a new crisis, but now sharpened by the electoral process and its disastrous results; a crisis of the parties which obviously reflects the deterioration of the old Peruvian State. The first go around left two candidates. One, tired and in bad shape, Vargas Llosa, of FREDEMO, the arrogant preacher of the upstart personal success, individual freedom and the market economy, triumphant after having obtained first place with a meager 27% of the vote. The other, catapulted and infatuated, Fujimori of CAMBIO 90, the treacherous and sneaky carrier of the vaunted “Honesty, Work and Technology,” the dark horse of imperialism and reaction who obtained a second place with 24% of the vote.
Both represent the big bourgeoisie and imperialism. In the case of Fredemo the matter is clear. However in the case of Cambio 90 confusion arises because of the class origins of their candidates, from the petty-bourgeoisie and medium bourgeoisie, and by hiding their pragmatic points, especially before the first run. But what have Fujimori himself, and his advisors now preparing his government program, promised: a market economy, not even a “social market economy”; to recognize the foreign debt and find ways to pay it; to strengthen the banking system; to promote exports and even big mining interests; to promote foreign investments and so-called international “assistance.”
Those are all positions of the great bourgeoisie, and especially of one of its factions, the comprador bourgeoisie, which will benefit the most. In addition, most of his advisors were formed by imperialism and are linked to big bourgeois institutions, opportunists who had participated in the APRA government, in IU, or coming from the Velasco regime. Of notice are the links with Hernando de Soto, a character with strong links to Yankee imperialism, directly endorsed by Reagan and Bush and a researcher of the so-called “informal production” with which all now pretend to traffic, even Vargas Llosa and Fujimori themselves. So both Fredemo and Cambio 90 represent politically the big bourgeoisie.
Already the recent Central Committee session pointed out: “Cambio 90, that movement led by the former rector of the Agrarian University (Fujimori) has the same positions but not the weight of Fredemo . . . “ The assessment of its class character is correct, however its definitive weight depends on the runoff election, given the importance [for the reactionaries] of the Presidential elections. The heart of the matter is, while both are focused on the interests of the comprador bourgeoisie, Vargas Llosa presents himself as a defender of the exclusive interests of that faction, while Fujimori presents himself as a defender of the interests of the entire big bourgeoisie, but in addition, demagogically, he also claims to defend the interests of the medium bourgeoisie and the people.
Although they try to deny it, that is the class character of the positions of both candidates, who lead Fredemo and Cambio 90 like “caciques”. Vargas Llosa desperately tries to overcome that limitation by appealing to all the people and promoting projects such us his so-called “social support program,” while Fujimori assembles and reassembles his plans and keeps knocking on doors in search of connections and equipment for his possible future government.
In these circumstances the runoff election is prepared, in which APRA, IU and IS and their groups and factions play up to the highest bidder, leaning more and more toward Fujimori, and APRA looking for important posts in the new government. It already presented its detailed “conditions” to support Cambio 90, with phrasemongering to justify their “principles,” while the poor orphan “Socialist Left” (IS) begs for crumbs off the big boys’ table. With all that, the basis on how the next government will look like, are being set. Whoever wins, they will govern in the midst of contradictions, with collusion and contention in the heart of reaction and its lackeys.
Ediciones Bandera Roja, May 1990