What is behind authoritarian nostalgia?

“Not only in Peru, but in other countries, former dictators are remembered with nostalgia, and some even argue that, under their mandate, economies were more solid, crime was controlled or better “values” were promoted (…) omitting the devastating consequences that these governments have had.”

The death of Alberto Fujimori, the last Peruvian dictator, has sparked an interesting debate both in his country and across Latin America. His government, democratically elected in 1990, soon became an authoritarian regime, marked by a self-coup against Parliament in 1992, intervention in the Judiciary, the Public Ministry, and the Constitutional Court, along with severe human rights violations and high levels of corruption. Despite these abuses, a portion of the public continues to view his administration as moderately successful, particularly in areas such as economic stability and the fight against terrorism.

This stance reflects a dangerous tendency to idealize authoritarian governments under the terrible excuse that “the ends justify the means.” Not only in Peru but also in other countries, former dictators are remembered with nostalgia, and some even argue that under their rule, the economies were stronger, crime was under control, or better “values” were promoted. However, this kind of rationalization ignores the devastating consequences these governments have had on democratic institutions and human rights; the kidnappings, tortures, murders, and disappearances are quickly forgotten. Worse still, the abuses of current governments in power are still justified by a supposed priority of other sectors, such as the economy or security. This is a perverse trade-off, as if solving a country’s economic problems gives a blank check to govern without accountability.

To understand why certain authoritarian governments continue to be admired or supported, it is crucial to ask whether the public truly values democracy itself. According to the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), support for democracy in the region has steadily declined over the past decade. In 2023, only 59% of respondents expressed their support for this system, a worrying figure that reflects the disenchantment of citizens with a system that, for many, seems unable to solve fundamental problems.

This discontent is exacerbated by the inability of traditional parties to address basic issues such as inequality, insecurity, and economic crises. Countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela have experienced, and continue to experience, deep crises that have driven sectors of the population to prefer options in favor of a “strong hand.” The popular Peruvian phrase “he steals, but he gets things done” unsettlingly sums up the logic of an electorate that, in the face of total crisis, is willing to sacrifice fundamental rights for minimal order.

The political class has tried to respond to these challenges with both political and electoral reforms. According to the Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America, in the Lower Chamber’s electoral system alone, 19 countries in the region have made 91 modifications to their laws, with Ecuador (13) and Peru (11) leading the way. However, this hyper-reformism hides two extremely naive assumptions: first, changing the rules does not automatically transform the behavior of citizens; and second, legal changes do not immediately translate into perceivable improvements, and as a result, they are seen as ineffective.

The challenge, therefore, is much deeper. Reforming political systems is necessary to strengthen democracy, but it is essential to understand that the effects will be evaluated in the long term. Reforms require time to take effect and must be accompanied by a solid implementation and monitoring strategy. Moreover, it is crucial to have strong political parties that not only understand the basic needs of the people but are also committed to addressing them effectively. Only in this way can the dangerous nostalgia for authoritarian regimes be combated, and democracy be seen not as a lesser evil but as the most suitable system for facing the challenges of the future.