Abstract

International and domestic observers alike were astonished by the results of Peru’s recent presidential election. In the 5 June 2011 runoff against Keiko Fujimori, Ollanta Humala, the 2006 runner-up, won office with 51.5 percent of the vote. The 2011 presidential contest—the third since the fall of fujimorismo—highlighted both the scope and limitations of the democratic gains made in the last ten years. Is it a contradiction to say that Humala’s victory stemmed from the volatility of the electorate even as the socioeconomic profile of the typical Humala voter remained remarkably similar from 2006 to 2011? Does the continuity of a humalista vote undermine an explanation based on the contingency of electoral volatility and sustain the thesis of a vote motivated by discontent with the system?

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1086-3214
Print ISSN
1045-5736
Pages
pp. 75-83
Launched on MUSE
2011-10-14
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.