President Alberto Fujimori won the Presidential election for the third time in a row on May 28. This was no mean feat considering that the Peruvian constitution allows a president no more than two consecutive five year terms.

Fujimori began his reelection bid in 1997, when he fired three supreme court justices who ruled that the constitution prohibited a third Fujimori term. The president, charitably described as "autocratic," has never let the law stand in the way of his more important mandate. Stability. At all costs.

This mandate for stability, honored by entrenched governments everywhere, allows the U.S. government, for example, to condemn Fujimori's regime as a "serious threat to the inter-American system and its commitment to democracy," while not taking any real action against it. It doesn't take a political scientist to realize that, after ten years of Fujimori, stability is enhanced by more Fujimori.

Fujimori brought stability to Peru by defeating the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), commonly described as a Maoist guerrilla terrorist army. The Sendero did harbor some terrorists. It also included honorable guerrillas, students, workers and housewives. In the context of the anti-insurgency campaign it became an umbrella term, covering a wide range of social and political activists. Fujimori's anti-guerrilla campaign certainly didn't discriminate. When stability is at stake, extreme measures are called for.

Actually addressing the social causes that inspire popular uprisings only threatens to unleash further instability. Fujimori chose the well-tested methods of death squads and general human rights crackdowns. There's little need to outline actual instances here. They're factory specs--straight from the School of the Americas curriculum. They include, inter alia, government sponsored atrocities blamed on the insurgents.

A few years ago, the war against the Sendero Luminoso was declared won and Peru could devote its efforts to growing the economy. The optimism even brought promises to introduce a little democracy to the country.

Alejandro Toledo took up the idea and challenged Fujimori in the presidential race. Toledo, a former World Bank economist and heretofore anonymous citizen, captured popular sentiment with his calls for dumping the corrupt regime. His followers insisted on a real democracy, not one that exists only in official pronouncements and press releases. An idealistic notion in this neoliberal world, but Peruvians, it seems, thankfully take their idealism seriously.

Toledo and Fujimori ran so close in the first vote, on April 29, that a runoff election was scheduled. The Peruvian government took steps to ensure a proper outcome the second time.

Tests were conducted on Peru's electoral computer system and were reviewed by international observers from the Organization of American States. The tests exhibited curious errors: the computer software persistently undercounted votes from districts where Toledo's support is strongest.

The OAS called for postponement of the election to correct this and numerous other "irregularities." In the end, the international observers gave up and withdrew from the country. President Clinton warned Peru to postpone the election. Toledo, refusing to participate in a fraudulent vote he was sure to lose, called on his supporters to boycott the election unless it was postponed.

Fujimori insisted everything was fine and the vote went ahead as planned. Fujimori garnered 51.1 of the official count. Toledo, whose name remained on the ballot, got 17.4 percent. Another 30.3 percent of ballots were "defaced" with the words, "no to fraud," as Toledo had requested.

Fujimori declared himself winner. An outraged Toledo disagreed and called a mass protest to prevent Fujimori's inauguration on July 29.

People took to the streets in anger--not only Toledo supporters, but people simply outraged at the derailing of the promised democracy. The police took out their stability utensils: water cannons, tear gas, etc., to back up Peru's questionable commitment to democracy.

The U.S. State Department, on May 29, condemned the election. "In view of the refusal to accommodate international observers' complaints ... we do not see the election as being valid."

This unusually clear statement of condemnation was promptly obfuscated on May 30, again by the State Department. During a press briefing, the spokesperson led the questioning press on a long and tortuous merry-go-round of ambiguity. Rather than declaring the election non-valid, the spokesperson expressed "deep regret," and repeatedly referred to Clinton's statement, made before the election, in support of free elections.

An excerpt:

"QUESTION: I'm a little bit confused because yesterday some agencies quoted a spokeswoman from the State Department saying that United States consider non-valid this election. What you said today seems to show concern, not to qualify what has happened. Are you saying that what yesterday was said is not ... the U.S. position?

"MR. REEKER: Let me reiterate once more that the President outlined his concerns on Friday.

"QUESTION: Yes. That we know.

"MR. REEKER: I think everyone has a copy of that.

"QUESTION: Afterwards, there was the election.

"MR. REEKER: That's right. Expressing deep regret."

And round it goes. Peru has come up at subsequent press briefings. Predictably, with each one, the U.S. position becomes even more convoluted.

As it stands, the U.S., regretting the non-valid election, is consulting with its "hemispheric partners" before deciding the definition of "not valid." These hemispheric partners, composed of governments with their own electoral irregularities, are disinclined to raise a fuss. Mexico's PRI government, among others, says that if Peru wants to hold fraudulent elections, that is solely Peru's business.

Fujimori declared his victory "the result of an election which is just, fair, transparent, and unfortunately we couldn't have international observers, as we wanted. We invited them. But this is not a dictatorship." Were it a dictatorship, perhaps Fujimori could have compelled the observers to stay.

Nevertheless, he assured the world that "I will begin a totally authentic democratization of the country."

He admits to not being very worried about U.S. displeasure. He points out that vote fraud is secondary to U.S. concerns over the War on Drugs.

The U.S. Government backs him up on that. Whatever sanctions the U.S. would consider will not include cutbacks on military assistance important to combating drugs, and the occasional political opponent of the "regime." The U.S. is fond of pointing out that Peru, the world's second largest coca producer, is a valuable ally in the drug war. This might appear to be somewhat contradictory, if you think about it.

But that's what State Department press briefings are for. To help you stop thinking about it.

State Dept. press briefings and other terrors can be found at www.state.gov/www/outreach.html