The world's most unpopular president? Peru's leader clings to power
With an approval rating of just two percent, Peru's President Dina Boluarte may be one of the most unpopular politicians in the world. Yet, she has survived a string of scandals, protests and investigations.
Protests greeted Boluarte's rise to power 29 months ago, and have accompanied her throughout scandals over allegations of military repression, an alleged nose job and gifted jewels.
Yet analysts say voter lethargy and political expediency may well help Boluarte, 62, see out the remainder of her term to July next year -- bucking a trend of prematurely-ousted Peruvian leaders.
"In Peru there is a political paradox: Boluarte is the weakest president of the last decade," political analyst Augusto Alvarez of the University of the Pacific told AFP.
But her weakness is "also her strength," he explained -- particularly in Congress, which has the power to oust presidents.
"It is a great business to have a fragile president whom they (lawmakers) use" to entrench their own power and pass laws beneficial to allies and backers, said Alvarez.
Plagued by political instability, the South American country has had six presidents in eight years. If Boluarte lasts to the end, she would have been the longest-serving among them.
The conservative leader replaced leftist rural school teacher Pedro Castillo in December 2022 following his impeachment and imprisonment for trying to dissolve Congress.
Having served as Castillo's vice-president, Boluarte opted not to call fresh elections but take over herself.
Despite not having a party in Congress, she has managed to stay in power with the backing of Peru's majority right-wing parties.
- Rolexgate -
Boluarte is the target of a dozen investigations, including for the police crackdown that caused the death of 50 protesters after Castillo's ouster.
Others have looked at her alleged omission in declaring gifts of luxury jewels and watches in what has been dubbed "Rolexgate," and at her two-week, undeclared absence for nose surgery she insists was medical, not cosmetic.
This month, Boluarte's popularity hit rock bottom, according to the Ipsos polling agency -- down to two percent from 21 percent when she took office.
"We might be talking about a world record of sustained presidential disapproval," Ipsos Peru president Alfredo Torres told AFP.
Ipsos has not measured such a low score in any of the other 90 countries it surveys, he added.
But Boluarte does have factors counting in her favor.
Congress is seemingly keeping her around for lack of a better, consensus, candidate, and because her political feebleness means she cannot stop it passing tax and environmental laws that benefit lawmakers' political and business backers, critics say.
Transparency International's Peruvian chapter Proetica has cited Congress for "counter-reforms, setbacks in anti-corruption instruments... and shielding of members of Congress who are ethically questioned."
Another plus for Boluarte: Peru's economy has been performing well, with GDP growing 3.3 percent last year and 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2025 -- a steep improvement from the 2020 recession blamed on Covid pandemic lockdowns.
Peru's inflation rate is one of the lowest in the region.
"Another reason Boluarte remains in power is that the economy continues to function, there is enormous resilience, and the population's income is growing," said Alvarez.
But this may have little to do with policy, observers say, and more with external factors such as rising copper prices. Peru is one of the lead producers of the metal.
- 'Terrible image' -
On the street, there is little love lost for Boluarte as Peru battles a surge in gang violence characterized by a wave of killings linked to extortion rackets.
Boluarte "has no empathy, she is an incapable president, she does not solve the security problem," Saturnino Conde, a 63-year-old teacher, told AFP.
At frequent marches against the president, the catchphrase: "Dina, Asesina!" (Dina, Murderer) has become a popular refrain.
But a full-out rebellion appears unlikely, say analysts.
Peruvians "feel it's not worth it: if she resigns or is dismissed, she would be replaced by a member of Congress, but Congress also has a terrible image," said Ipsos manager Torres.
In addition, "there is no other candidate that captivates, which is why people are not in a hurry to remove her from power."
ljc/cm/vel/lbc/mlr/arb/bgs
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.
Wall Street Journal
15 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Will Iran Attempt to Block the Strait of Hormuz?
An image provided by the Iranian Army office in 2022 shows Iranian troops during a military drill near the Hormuz Strait. (Iranian Army office/AFP/Getty Images))
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.
Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
