Viva la ignorancia de El Economista

El señor Michael Reid, que escribe para El Economista, ha titulado su último artículo “A small act of national suicide in Peru”. He leído el artículo y debo comentar que no existe relación entre el título y su contenido. Quizá presa del “click-bait” ha creído puede captar “compartir”, “RH”, etc. en las redes sociales. Esto nos debe llevar a una profunda reflexión sobre la capacidad de comprensión de lectura de toda esta gente que ha compartido el artículo creyendo que dice cosas que solo están en su imaginación, por sus odios interiores. Vamos a repasar párrafo por párrafo para hacer ver este tema crítico.

Párrafo 1, nada que no sea cierto. La economía del Perú va bien y en la prueba PISA del 2012 el Perú ha quedado último.

FOR most of this century, Peru’s economy has shone: income per person has doubled in the past dozen years. But education failed to keep up. In 2012 Peru ranked last among the 65 countries that took part in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which tests the reading, maths and science proficiency of 15-year-olds.

Párrafo 2, que Saavedra es un gran ministro de educación, hizo tal y cual por lo que ha seguido en el nuevo gobierno. Que ha tenido logros y que ha sido clave en lograr que se apruebe la ley universitaria.

Fortunately, Peru then found an outstanding education minister. Jaime Saavedra, an economist whose mother was a teacher, spent ten years at the World Bank, rising to be vice-president for poverty reduction. Appointed three years ago to the education portfolio, he was the only minister to keep his job when Pedro Pablo Kuczynski replaced Ollanta Humala as Peru’s president in July. He has generalised a previous pilot plan to link teachers’ pay to performance, overhauled teacher training and school management and begun a crash programme of repairing dilapidated school buildings. He has also championed a law passed in 2014, which for the first time subjected universities to minimum standards for probity and educational outcomes.

Párrafo 3, que el trabajo de Saavedra ha sido clave en los últimos resultados de PISA. Que Perú ha sido el que más rápido ha mejorado en América latina y el cuarto en el mundo. Sin embargo, que en lugar de celebrar, la oposición lo ha interrogado bajo modales similares al acoso callejero.

Mr Saavedra’s stewardship has brought results. Performance in national tests has risen sharply. The latest PISA figures, which were released on December 6th, confirmed this trend: Peru was the fastest improver in Latin America and the fourth-fastest in the world. Far from celebrating this achievement, the following day the opposition majority in Peru’s Congress subjected Mr Saavedra to an 11-hour interrogation, conducted with the manners of a playground bully. On December 15th it was due to vote to sack him.

Párrafo 4, que las razones de esta interpelación han sido el tema de los panamericanos y la corrupción en la compra de computadoras. Que el ministro ha negado tener conocimiento y responsabilidad de esto. Aquí, o evidencia desconocimiento en el manejo político o pretende que sus lectores sean incautos, que por menos se ha destituido a ministros y presidentes en otros países. También comenta que las razones por las que se cree que la oposición ha sido tan hostil, es por vínculos con universidades privadas, de las que ya conocemos la historia.

The ostensible reasons were a delay in preparations for the Pan-American games to be held in Lima in 2019 (the education ministry handles sport) and alleged corruption in the purchase of computers by the ministry. Mr Saavedra convincingly denied knowledge of these problems and responsibility for them. So why is Popular Force, the main opposition party, so hostile to him? Many commentators ascribe this to the links several of its legislators have to universities that are lucrative businesses but offer poor value to students and face new scrutiny under the law regulating them (though that also applies to some pro-government lawmakers).

Párrafo 5, anécdotas sobre la sesión de censura.

Párrafo 6, llama a Saavedra el mejor ministro (cuando solo han transcurrido 4 meses del nuevo gobierno ¿cómo se puede calificar tan temprano?). Luego comenta anécdotas de la campaña y elección pasadas y como ha quedado la constitución del congreso. Nada que no sea cierto.

The censure of his best minister on such spurious grounds is a frontal challenge to Mr Kuczynski, less than five months after he took office. It lays bare the weakness of his mandate. He beat Keiko Fujimori, Popular Force’s leader, by just 50,000 votes out of 18m, after her campaign was hit by a last-minute scandal. Her surprise defeat stung; she has not talked to Mr Kuczynski since the election. He only reached the run-off after two other candidates were disqualified on questionable grounds. His party has just 17 of the 130 seats in Congress, while Popular Force has 72.

Párrafo 7, habla sobre la posibilidad de la cuestión de confianza, pero falla en comentar que esta posibilidad solo era un deseo sin sustento. Luego comenta anécdotas sobre lo que podría haber ocurrido, también sin sustento, porque una cuestión de confianza no conduce a vacancia presidencial. Finalmente comenta sobre las posibilidades en esto que es más una suerte de ciencia ficción que política real.

Mr Kuczynski could have turned Mr Saavedra’s future into an issue of confidence in the cabinet as a whole. Lose two such votes, and Peru’s constitution gives the president the right to dissolve Congress and call a fresh legislative election. But this has never been tested, and Popular Force hinted that it would hit back by declaring the presidency vacant. On December 13th Mr Kuczynski announced that he had rejected this course, calling for dialogue with the opposition. He could seek a coalition with Popular Force, inviting them to take cabinet posts. But that would appal many of his own supporters, who voted for him purely to stop Ms Fujimori, whose father controversially ruled Peru as an autocrat in the 1990s and is serving jail sentences for corruption. The alternative may be to submit to years of harassment from Congress by an opposition intent on showing its power.

Párrafo 8, finalmente no comenta nada acerca del porqué esto es un suicidio, y se limita a señalar anécdotas sobre Fuerza Popular y cierra con la frase Es cierto que una mejor educación no asegura una mejor democracia, sin embargo, ayuda, y que es esencial si Perú quiere desarrollarse como país próspero.

As for Mr Saavedra, his likely departure illustrates the vicious circle that makes sustaining good policies so difficult in Latin American democracies. Popular Force has too many chancers who see a state that long failed to provide proper public services as a vein to be mined for private profit. That the party represents so many Peruvians is in part an indictment of the country’s educational backwardness. Better education is no guarantee of a better-quality democracy, but it certainly helps. And it is essential if Peru is ever to grow truly prosperous.

¿Donde está el suicidio? Sigo esperando.

Allí mismo, en el último párrafo :slight_smile: