The world's most unpopular president? Peru's leader clings to power
Protests greeted Boluarte's rise to power 29 months ago, and have accompanied her throughout scandals over allegations of military repression, an alleged nose job and gifted jewels.
Yet analysts say voter lethargy and political expediency may well help Boluarte, 62, see out the remainder of her term to July next year -- bucking a trend of prematurely-ousted Peruvian leaders.
"In Peru there is a political paradox: Boluarte is the weakest president of the last decade," political analyst Augusto Alvarez of the University of the Pacific told AFP.
But her weakness is "also her strength," he explained -- particularly in Congress, which has the power to oust presidents.
"It is a great business to have a fragile president whom they (lawmakers) use" to entrench their own power and pass laws beneficial to allies and backers, said Alvarez.
Plagued by political instability, the South American country has had six presidents in eight years. If Boluarte lasts to the end, she would have been the longest-serving among them.
The conservative leader replaced leftist rural school teacher Pedro Castillo in December 2022 following his impeachment and imprisonment for trying to dissolve Congress.
Having served as Castillo's vice-president, Boluarte opted not to call fresh elections but take over herself.
Despite not having a party in Congress, she has managed to stay in power with the backing of Peru's majority right-wing parties.
- Rolexgate -
Boluarte is the target of a dozen investigations, including for the police crackdown that caused the death of 50 protesters after Castillo's ouster.
Others have looked at her alleged omission in declaring gifts of luxury jewels and watches in what has been dubbed "Rolexgate," and at her two-week, undeclared absence for nose surgery she insists was medical, not cosmetic.
This month, Boluarte's popularity hit rock bottom, according to the Ipsos polling agency -- down to two percent from 21 percent when she took office.
"We might be talking about a world record of sustained presidential disapproval," Ipsos Peru president Alfredo Torres told AFP.
Ipsos has not measured such a low score in any of the other 90 countries it surveys, he added.
But Boluarte does have factors counting in her favor.
Congress is seemingly keeping her around for lack of a better, consensus, candidate, and because her political feebleness means she cannot stop it passing tax and environmental laws that benefit lawmakers' political and business backers, critics say.
Transparency International's Peruvian chapter Proetica has cited Congress for "counter-reforms, setbacks in anti-corruption instruments... and shielding of members of Congress who are ethically questioned."
Another plus for Boluarte: Peru's economy has been performing well, with GDP growing 3.3 percent last year and 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2025 -- a steep improvement from the 2020 recession blamed on Covid pandemic lockdowns.
Peru's inflation rate is one of the lowest in the region.
"Another reason Boluarte remains in power is that the economy continues to function, there is enormous resilience, and the population's income is growing," said Alvarez.
But this may have little to do with policy, observers say, and more with external factors such as rising copper prices. Peru is one of the lead producers of the metal.
- 'Terrible image' -
On the street, there is little love lost for Boluarte as Peru battles a surge in gang violence characterized by a wave of killings linked to extortion rackets.
Boluarte "has no empathy, she is an incapable president, she does not solve the security problem," Saturnino Conde, a 63-year-old teacher, told AFP.
At frequent marches against the president, the catchphrase: "Dina, Asesina!" (Dina, Murderer) has become a popular refrain.
But a full-out rebellion appears unlikely, say analysts.
Peruvians "feel it's not worth it: if she resigns or is dismissed, she would be replaced by a member of Congress, but Congress also has a terrible image," said Ipsos manager Torres.
In addition, "there is no other candidate that captivates, which is why people are not in a hurry to remove her from power."
ljc/cm/vel/lbc/mlr/arb/bgs
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
The scramble to keep public media afloat
'The people who are paying the price are local communities, in an era where local community connection is being eroded and local news is in crisis,' Tim Isgitt, CEO of Public Media Company — a nonprofit public media consulting firm that launched the bridge fund — told POLITICO. 'These members of Congress voted to kill what, in many communities, is their only source of local news and information and they did it eyes wide open.' Conservatives in Congress have long sought to eliminate federal funding for public media, and scored a major victory with Trump's rescissions package. In May, Trump issued an executive order looking to restrict all funding for NPR and PBS. CPB, PBS and NPR challenged the order. But Congress, which appropriated more than $500 million to CPB annually, codified the president's move in this year's Rescissions Act. 'I don't want to sugarcoat this, but the loss of CPB funding to local rural communities is devastating,' said Isgitt. 'We're doing what we can to do what Congress failed to do: protecting stations.' Isgitt expects things to worsen in November, when CPB normally doled out funding to affiliates. Newsrooms that depended on at least 30 percent of funding from CPB are now at risk of going dark, he said. 'From Mississippi to Idaho, local public media organizations are run by people who live in their communities, governed by people who live in their communities and reporting on community issues,' said Isgitt. The loss of CPB funding, he added, will 'have ripple effects across the system.'
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Americans fear AI permanently displacing workers, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Americans are deeply concerned over the prospect that advances in artificial intelligence could put swaths of the country out of work permanently, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The six-day poll, which concluded on Monday, showed 71% of respondents said they were concerned that AI will be "putting too many people out of work permanently." The new technology burst into the national conversation in late 2022 when OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot launched and became the fastest-growing application of all time, with tech heavyweights like Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Google owner Alphabet and Microsoft offering their own AI products. While at present there are few signs of mass unemployment - the U.S. jobless rate was just 4.2% in July - artificial intelligence is stirring concerns as it reshapes jobs, industries and day-to-day life. Some 77% of respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried the technology could be used to stir up political chaos, a sign of unease over the now-common use of AI technology to create realistic videos of imaginary events. President Donald Trump last month posted on social media an AI-generated video of former Democratic president Barack Obama being arrested, an event that never happened. Americans are also leery about military applications for AI, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. Some 48% of respondents said the government should never use AI to determine the target of a military strike, compared with 24% who said the government should allow that sort of use of the technology. Another 28% said they were not sure. The general enthusiasm for AI shown by many people and companies has fueled further investments, such as Foxconn and SoftBank's planned data center equipment factory in Ohio. It has also upended national security policies as the United States and China vie for AI dominance. More than half of Americans - some 61% - said they were concerned about the amount of electricity needed to power the fast-growing technology. Google said earlier this month it had signed agreements with two U.S. electric utilities to reduce its AI data center power consumption during times of surging demand on the grid, as energy-intensive AI use outpaces power supplies. The new technology has also come under criticism for applications that have let AI bots hold romantic conversations with children, generate false medical information and help people make racist arguments. Two-thirds of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried that people would ditch relationships with other people in favor of AI companions. People were split on whether AI technology will improve education. Some 36% of respondents thought it would help, while 40% disagreed and the rest were not sure. The Reuters/Ipsos survey gathered responses online from 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.
