If the 2026 candidates still do not convince the majorities, it is because the campaign does not sincerely address the underlying issues. For example, citizen insecurity. How can you pontificate against contract killings and at the same time defend illegal mining? All presidential candidates have condemned criminal violence during the campaign, but none of them have openly distanced themselves from illegal mining. The majority hides behind euphemisms such as “ancestral mining” or “informal”, when at this point they are practically the same. Others deflect the problem by arguing that legality is not attractive enough (as if the legal ones liked to pay taxes for useless services), suggesting renewing the concessions and proposing a new General Mining Law. The simplest truth: Nobody wants to crash into such a profitable business, with gold at more than $4,000 an ounce. And that includes many voters for whom economic growth comes with a social cost.
The debate on citizen insecurity should not only be honest about the causes, but also about the proposals. Rafael Belaunde himself, who has just defended himself from a gunshot attack with one of his two pistols, has never addressed the issue of gun ownership, Self-Defense Committees or citizen self-defense. His government plan talks about police reforms, prison measures and intelligence units. Interesting proposals that, however, are not based on his own experience as a regular at the shooting range, perhaps because it is a politically incorrect measure in his liberal and progressive political environment. The common citizen wants the same right that our elites have, who move with private security and legal weapons. Regardless of whether one is against or in favor of these proposals, this is a debate that must be put on the table, along with the gun.
Subscribe for free to the most prestigious Gastronomic Guide in the country. SUMMUM, the weekly newsletter. http://bit.ly/4imAPEI
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
