There are some truths in Peruvian electoral history. One of them is that Peruvians do not vote majority in favor, but against. There are multiple factors that explain it. Mainly, mistrust and the inability to identify with the other. And the very Peruvian desire to oppose.
This adds up to a bipolar partisan logic taken to extremes of hate. The Peruvian 19th century was divided around figures such as Prado, Cáceres and Piérola (“the Chileans before Piérola”). And if we go back further, we can get lost in a labyrinth of Almagrists, Pizarrists, followers of Huáscar and Atahualpa’s hosts.
ANTIAPRISM, ANTIFUJIMORISM
Already in the 20th century, Leguía and Sánchez Cerro embodied the political watershed. And both Odriismo and Velasquismo provoked low passions on both sides. But perhaps anti-aprismo and anti-Fujimorism have been the longest-lasting negative identities in contemporary Peruvian politics. One was born in boots and the other walked in the streets. One was a dictatorial veto and the other was a democratic opposition. Two very different phenomena that, however, share resentments that transcend historical space and time.
Over time, the antis were transformed. As APRA was always located in the historic third, its anti-vote came from both extremes. The right wing of anti-APRA became radicalized after the disastrous first government, but ended up reconciling with APRA after its successful second term. The left wing of anti-APRism that approached Alan of ’85, on the other hand, never admitted its responsibility in his first administration (only Pedro Huilca’s CGTP and other organizations remained faithful to AGP). That left ended up moving away from the star’s game forever after the second period.
In the case of Fujimorism, something similar happened. The anti-Fujimorista right—the true origin of anti-Fujimorism—ended up turning the page on the anti-vote with the arrival of Pedro Castillo. It was the case of Vargasllosismo, the liberal press (the ex-Oiga, ex Sí magazine and ex-Caretas) and the remnants of Pérez de Cuéllar and part of the Democratic Forum. Part of that right-wing anti-Fujimorism finally realized that always voting against Keiko Fujimori is political suicide. The third time was the charm.
The left wing, on the other hand—the one that supported Alberto Fujimori in his first cabinet and ended up playing into his hands in the CCD—has turned to the most rabid anti-Fujimorism even after the Castilian disaster and the death of the Fujimori patriarch.
ANTI-FUJIMORISM WITHOUT FUJIMORI
If there is Fujimorism without Fujimori, it is pure logic that there is now anti-Fujimorism without Fujimori. It is a particularly absurd variant of the anti-Fujimorista vote that sees Fujimorism in Rafael López Aliaga, José Williams, Carlos Espá and any character who is not on the left. For them, any right-wing, liberal or centrist expression is suspicious of Fujimorism. Even opponents of Alberto Fujimori’s dictatorship like Rafael Belaunde, the acciopopulistas or the APRAs. Ironically, in this brand new anti-Fujimorista left there are several recycled ex-Fujimoristas, such as some Montesinista journalists who today take refuge in Exitosa and La República. In the eyes of new podcasters and YouTubers, ex-Montesinistas are painted as brave anti-Fujis.
FOR THESE NO (I)
This confused group of activists has coined the “For these no” campaign, to ask the electorate not to vote for candidates suspected of Fujimoriism and/or corruption in 2026. But in that mixed bag they include right-wingers, centrists, liberals, moderates and basically any candidate who is not from the group they sponsor. With their skillful handling of political discourse, this small group has managed to coin terms such as “the mafia pact”, the “congressional mafia” or the oxymoron “congressional dictatorship”, taking away all agency from the Executive. The message is simple: if you vote for any of these, I’m going to tar you with the nickname “Fujimorista”, whatever that means at this point. The tactic is predictable: instead of saying up front who to vote for, I morally warn people not to vote for these corrupt candidates. And by the way, I avoid exposing my candidate in disguise so that he doesn’t get burned. The left is an expert at this reverse reasoning. He did it in the last elections: instead of defending Castillo, he criticized Keiko. And then, instead of defending the Castilian government, he criticized Congress. He just did it again with the intervention in Venezuela: instead of defending Maduro, he criticized Trump.
FOR THESE NO (II)
If the liberal or conservative right wants to fight the “Not for these” narrative, it must impose its own criteria with its own non-negotiable conditions. Following the logic of inverse reasoning, you should put a cross on candidates who criticize Trump’s intervention in Venezuela, who want to change the Constitution and who say that Petroperú is strategic.
Peru needs us informed to make decisions. Subscribe for free to the Perú21 newsletter: THE TOP 5 NEWS YOU SHOULD KNOW TODAY. Click on the following link.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
