NOT FULLY FREE, FAIR, ACCESSIBLE, PEACEFUL

By Percy Hartley

Sir, No Sir! With all due respect, Sir, let us partially disagree! The use and enjoyment of freedom of opinion is inherent to democracy. And in the attribution that we absolutely respect the tenor of your statements, Mr. Ned Price, as Spokesman of the Department of State of the United States of America, in genuinely propositional terms, for all that the American leadership means for Latin America and thanking the high respect that show for our country and its commercial relations, the long history of binational friendship, the welcome to our Peruvian community and the  sympathy and the well-considered of our diplomatic relations, as well as vigilance of our democratic processes, we also express our feelings in exercise of opinion by not agreeing in part with your statements, in absolute respect of your charge and in response arguments from the review of the news and evidence demonstrated before and after the election day. We presume that the quick information from the international press could confuse,  bona fide, apparently a victory in the final count of 44,000 votes with an official proclamation, and generate an international impression different from the actions for annulment and observation of  that in the exercise of constitutional protection grants legitimately entitled to Candidate Fujimori or whose rejection favors the proclamation of Candidate Castillo. We recognize that your statement expresses a neutral position and  good wishes to continue the important alliance with the candidate duly chosen by the Peruvian people, but we wish to express our position and analysis of the process.

First of all, we do not consider the elections fully free. In our assessment, for an election to be fully free, it can´t be the object of an irregular association of representatives who seek with fraudulent elements to win for a candidate the final result of the act of a voting table. Something free, it is par excellence, free from harm or danger, without distortions or subjugations. If the popular will expressed in the vote is changed, substituted, disrespected, questioned, falsified by a signature, exercised by underage voters or countless deaths deemed valid (both illegal procedures), resistance to identity verification for deliberation by the competent authorities (RENIEC), sums of votes questioned by errors that are evidently made on purpose, made at least improper, all proven and observed with direct channeling before the electoral authority and video testimonies of heads of the Peru Libre party inciting the representatives to “take the tables” due to the delay and absence in order to “secure” the votes of Candidate Castillo and in our personal case, having witnessed how, without any control, the representatives tried to take over different tables without being questioned by the electoral authorities. present (ONPE or RENIEC) what was made known to themselves and Military and Police authorities present in the place where I was appointed, apart from the innumerable questions of inappropriate or illegal procedures, don´t make our elections free, with all due respect, Sir. If there is coercion and dispersal of the popular will, an election can´t be free, because there has not been a real or complete democratic and constitutional exercise of the will to choose. We don’t think it’s a good example.

As an accessory consequence and principle of contradiction, a not fully free choice cannot be fully fair. The most approximate model of justice, we would take valuable time to debate it, with all due respect, Sir. But not for this reason, we must stop presenting an opinion validated over time, such as that of Agustin de Hipona, Doctor of the Catholic Church. Suum uniquique, is a good approximation for universal concept of justice, with ethics, honesty and in accordance with the law. And if there is no freedom because it was suppressed, there is no ethics, there is no honesty and it was not in accordance with the law. Therefore, it´s not given to each one according to fairness and transparency. So it can´t be said that there is justice if the election was not free, at least as regards the affected party, and must be proposed at least conditionally, except for evidence to the contrary.

To what has been said, we also disagree, with all due respect, Sir, that a choice that is not fully free, nor fully fair, is fully accessible. If your expression of accessibility refers to the press media and traditional international observers, whose testimonial reference is not covering all the country, we regret that we don´t coincide. Democratically and freely we exercise our right not to share your opinion. We can´t assert, on the other hand, that it was fully accessible from a logistical point of view, when the majority of voting places didn´t have facilities for the elderly, disabled or similar, which legally deserve special attention. If your accessibility criterion is in reference to logistics, it was definitely only partial. If accessibility is in the geographical context, for which our nation is completely dissimilar, we could not consider that the choice was fully accessible either.

And finally, with all due respect, Sir, we do not consider the elections fully peaceful. In our opinion, the election is not only the exercise of choosing a candidate on the day of the vote. The concept of choice is holistic and plenty. An election is such from its conception and legal obligation the day after its promulgation in the official newspaper El Peruano, until the proclamation with the corresponding Resolution of the National Elections Jury (JNE). Only in the sense of fully concluded without incident is it fully peaceful, therefore we partly disagree, Sir. It´s not peaceful to have partisans intimidating the JNE, taking the edge of bush knife ( machete )   in the streets, showing “Spartan warriors” with helmets and sharp spears ready, or marching militarily, unlike the democratic marches for freedom and democracy regarding the vote, which those who feel not represented by the partial results proclaim, still lacking the result of the nullities of the minutes. We do not feel free to elections if they are presided over by a Judge questioned by his past legal adviser to terrorists, who due to ethics should have resigned in a timely manner, or inhibited himself, nor are they peaceful if they are subjected to questioning by a member of the same Court who openly accuses his own members  in full public hearing and presents his resignation, immediately afterwards, accusing them that everything was fixed from the beginning. That election doesn´t seem to represent the popular will and therefore was not peaceful.

In use of our right of reply and on behalf of many fellow citizens who will certainly adhere to this position, we let the international community know our concern for a statement that we understand, speaking on behalf of all of them, does not make us feel fully represented by these premises in particular, not from the declared text in general, coming especially from a representative of the United States of America, land of the brave, heroes, democrats and cradle of freedom in our nations of the new world. God bless America!