Retrogression or revolution? What was the military government of Velasco Alvarado? It was the most important process of change in the Republic. From 1821 to 1865 we had only military presidents and throughout the 20th century a few civilians. We lived in an oligarchic society. Power was held by an oligarchy based on the land. The finances were associated with landowners and gamonales of the interior. In Latin America, it was accepted that any profound change in a country in the region went through an anti-oligarchic revolution.
Did that revolution come late to Peru? Definitely. Populist revolutionary groups carried it out in Argentina, Getulio Vargas in Brazil, Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico, the MNR in Bolivia, Aguirre Cerda in Chile. In Peru, those forces were soon defeated. The Socialist Party with the death of Mariátegui and the ultra-left current of the Communist Party that isolated and marginalized it. The Apra was beaten in the civil war of 32-33 and in hiding from 30 to 56. Militarism prevailed closed to criticism, dissidence, free thought and transformation.
How did a military dictatorship try to cover this void? Velasco's government was an atypical military dictatorship. It was prepared in the 40s and 50s. In 1940 we were an eminently mountain and indigenous country. 67 percent of the 7 million Peruvians lived in the mountains. At that moment there was a rupture in the man-earth relationship. I mean that the existing agricultural land was no longer sufficient, it was not enough.
You talk about breaking up, why? Because the lack of land had two major impacts. Millions of people abandoned the countryside, the land, and migrated to the cities, to the coast, they invaded land and formed neighborhoods. Meanwhile, those who stayed in the countryside unleashed the largest movement of land seizures between 56 and 64, something that had not been seen since the times of Túpac Amaru. Velasco's agrarian reform culminated this process, but the previous mobilizations had already mortally wounded the latifundia. The military called for changes.
I remember there was consensus about the need for changes. Yes, it was extraordinary, with the exception of the oligarchy, everyone asked for them. In 1958, the Lebret Mission (of the French Dominican Joseph Lebret) came and raised the need for a reform of agriculture and the State, and profound structural changes. The Christian Democracy founded in 1956 under the patronage of Bustamante and Rivero demanded the same. Haya de la Torre allied himself with Manuel Prado and a little later with Manuel Odría. The space in the center left by Apra moving to the right and allying itself with the oligarchy was filled by the new middle-class parties, all of which demanded changes:Popular Action, Christian Democracy, Progressive Social Movement. Even the military, with the CAEM (Center for Higher Military Studies) as a government management laboratory, concluded that national and international security had integration as a prerequisite and this was impossible without development.
In 1962, the Joint Command of the Armed Forces questioned the permanence of the IPC (International Petroleum Company) in La Brea and Pariñas. Not only that. They carried out the agrarian reform in the valley of La Convencion and Lares and created the National Planning Institute. It went unnoticed, but it is clear that they were aiming not at a classic coup, but at an institutional government of the Armed Forces that would carry out structural reforms.
Responsibility of the Apra Why were the parties unable to carry out these democratic reforms? In this, Apra has a great responsibility. Julio Cotler mentions the question he asked Haya de la Torre:Why did you ally yourself with the oligarchy instead of making the revolution? Haya replied:Because I had an error of appreciation, I thought that the oligarchy was stronger. Assuming that she was very strong he believed that he had to be acceptable with her. Incredible, in 1963, Apra included in its lists the candidates of the Peruvian Democratic Movement, the party of the banker Manuel Prado, and in Parliament allied itself with the Odriísta National Union. Haya de la Torre's encounter with Juan Gonzalo Rose at a cocktail party is also well known. Rose had been an Aprista and was persecuted. Haya recognized him and told him:"You were an Aprista." Rose replied, "You too."
Neither did the left-wing parties fulfill their role… They were very small parties. The Communist Party was discredited for its alliance with the financial oligarchy (Manuel Prado's regime) and its contemplative attitude towards the dictator Manuel Odría. The Progressive Social Movement had excellent intellectuals like the Salazar Bondy brothers and professional promoters from the Institute of Peruvian Studies, but it had no roots. The organizations in favor of the armed revolution, the MIR and the National Liberation Army (ELN), mounted guerrillas but were quickly crushed in 1965.
It is said that these experiences left their mark on the officialdom. Certain. Shortly afterward, Velasco Alvarado acknowledged in a speech that when they came out to repress the guerrillas, they crushed the guerrillas, but they realized that they were right in terms of the fact that the country's situation was unsustainable and that changes were necessary. Also in an interview granted to César Hildebrandt, Velasco responded that in Peru it was necessary to make a revolution from above so that the revolution would not break out from below.
Sendero and agrarian reform
But Shining Path exploded in 1980. What would have happened if Velasco had not undertaken the agrarian reform? With all its imperfections and defects, the fact that in 1969 Velasco undertook a radical agrarian reform took away the social base of Sendero Luminoso. I believe that Sendero would have been practically uncontrollable if that agrarian reform had not been carried out. That agrarian reform was a fundamental element so that Sendero Luminoso did not advance beyond where it arrived. What does Sendero do? Does it intend to continue the incomplete agrarian reform blocked by the state bureaucracy? No. Sendero does not want to carry out a democratic peasant agrarian reform. Rather, Sendero wants to turn it into a people's war.
In light of time, how do you analyze the nationalization and statization of strategic resources? You have to put those measures in the context of their time. Seen through today's eyes, the nationalization of everything was a tremendous mistake, but it is worth remembering that this was the recipe promoted in Latin America not only by the leftist parties, but also by ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America, a regional organization of the UN). Industrialization, nationalization, nationalization of strategic resources, accumulation from the State, that was the classic recipe. It was a mistake, but it was a mistake that corresponds to its time.
The current ghost of racism
The reform of the company through the creation of labor communities was a unique reform of Velasquismo. True, the industrial, mining, and fishing communities were a novelty, an attempt to conciliate classes, the illusion of giving workers participation in management and profits. Carlos Delgado used to say:when the workers reach 50 percent of the capital, capitalism will have disappeared because the company no longer belongs to the capitalists but to the workers. It is not like that and the failure of this has to do not only with economic reasons but also with ethnic ones.
How ethnic? Carmen Rosa Balbi, in an excellent investigation, interviewed many businessmen and found that they refused to sit down to discuss with the workers, not so much because of economic demands but because it meant dealing with the cholos. They could not treat them equally. For them it was intolerable that these people were on the boards of companies. I think that for this reason Velasco became the black beast of the bourgeoisie.
Weren't these reforms that affected capital? Velasco tried to create a national capitalism, the Romero, Raffo, Brescia, prospered and developed. Drasinower, Moraveco were cocky members of the ruling military junta. Velasco was not anti-bourgeois, but, as our grandmothers would say, with Velasco people forgot what his place was. The cholos rose.
Source:https://agencias.lamula.pe/2014/10/03/hace-41-anos-se-alzaron-los-cholos/agencias/?platform=hootsuite