Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T06:52:56.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Presidential Usurpation or Congressional Preference? The Evolution of Executive Decree Authority in Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2009

John M. Carey
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Matthew Soberg Shugart
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

The only element of democracy in Peru today is the electoral process, which gives Peruvians the privilege of choosing a dictator every five years. Rule making is subsequently carried out in a vacuum, with the executive branch enacting new rules and regulations at a clip of 134,000 every five years (an average of 106 each working day) without any feedback from the population.

HERNANDO DE SOTO, THE INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED ADVOCATE FOR PERU'S VAST INFORMAL SECTOR, AND DEBORAH ORSINI (DE SOTO AND ORSINI 1991:106)

Peru appears to be very inhospitable terrain for exploring the ideas ventured in the introductory chapter of this volume. Guillermo O'Donnell categorizes the country as one of the purest cases of “delegative democracy,” in which elected presidents govern with few, if any, institutional constraints (1994). Lending credence to such a characterization is a variety of recent works by prominent experts on Peru. During the 1980s the administrations of Fernando Belaunde and Alan García faced few obstacles in using various kinds of decree to routinely promulgate major policies and supersede legislation passed by Congress. In the 1990s Peru's current president, Alberto Fujimori, has epitomized the sort of messianic, anti-institutional leader typically found in O'Donnell's delegative democracy. If periodic elections to choose a “dictator” for the next presidential term are indeed the only important characteristic of Peruvian democracy, then it makes little sense to distinguish among different types of decree authority, to analyze legislative or other institutional checks on decree, or to consider congressional preferences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×