In Peru, the election of a President is a sacred democratic right, yet it often feels like an exercise in futility. Between 1980 and 2022, we went to the polls ten times, resulting in eight presidents and five successions. Since 2016 alone, we have seen six different leaders take the oath   – only two of whom were actually elected by the people. The rest rose through constitutional succession.

Why?

We often justify our choices by saying we are voting for the “lesser of two evils.” When the results inevitably fail us, our instinct is to lash out and dismantle the very democracy we claim to protect. We treat destruction as a solution, justifying it in a thousand different ways.

In my humble opinion – and I say this with the deepest respect for my fellow citizens – the explanation is as painful as it is simple: Our social system is profoundly corrupt because we, as a society, have allowed ourselves to become so. We are witnessing a collective degeneration. When our fundamental pillars – Education, Health, Food, Work, and Legality – crumble, we are forced into a “survival mode.” In this state, we focus only on satisfying our immediate needs, leaving no room to think about the long-term health of our nation. We delegate the immense responsibility of leadership to representatives who are often mirrors of our own societal decay. Our “Peruvian Life System” is not just broken; it is corrupted at the root.

The Path Forward: A Two-Part Solution

Any short-term “fix” that ignores a long-term vision is destined to fail. I propose a fundamental two-part plan:

1. Radical Acceptance: We must personally recognize that we live in a state of deep degeneration. We must accept that we have allowed corruption to become our “way of life.”

2. Honest Dialogue: Only after we have internalized our personal and social roles in this decay can we sit down together. We need transparent, inclusive, and frequent conversations to identify a shared vision of the country we actually want.

We have a moral obligation to move Peru forward. This begins with a simple, daily task: creating spaces for polite, responsible, and constructive criticism within our inner circles. We must start with the small things – like respecting a pedestrian signal – before we can tackle the complex issues of state.

Step by step, we can learn to understand our essential needs. Our goal is to stop “acting out” as a response to our problems and start acting with intention.

Is it worth performing this exercise to keep our fragile democracy alive? I believe it is the only thing that will.

Regards,

Richiredk