Peruvian Congress Fails to Pass Constitutional Reform on Immediate Reelection of Mayors and Governors
Table of Contents
In a closely watched second vote, the Plenary session of the Peruvian Congress fell short of the required two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional reform proposal aimed at restoring immediate reelection for mayors and governors. The final tally saw 70 votes in favor, 35 against, and five abstentions, leaving the initiative unapproved.
The proposed constitutional amendments, which targeted bills 2027, 2067, and others, sought to modify articles 35, 191, and 194 of Peru’s Political Constitution. The goal was to allow mayors and regional governors to seek immediate reelection for an additional term. Proponents argued that this change would professionalize politics, foster institutional stability, and ensure the continuity of medium- and long-term projects, ultimately leading to more efficient governance.
Under the proposed reforms,regional governors,elected alongside a regional vice-governor by direct suffrage for four-year terms,would have been eligible for immediate reelection for a single additional period. Similarly, mayors and councilors, also elected for four-year terms, would have been allowed to run for reelection once immediately. Both positions would have retained thier revocable mandates, as stipulated by law, with mayors and councilors also maintaining inalienable mandates except in cases outlined by the Constitution.
Congressman Fernando Rospigliosi Capurro, president of the Constitution and Regulations Commission, highlighted two key aspects of the proposal during the debate. ”The first is the restoration of reelection for mayors and governors,” he said, “and the second is the elimination of regional movements.” Rospigliosi argued that removing regional movements would reduce political fragmentation and encourage the participation of political parties with greater technical capacity and strategic vision for the country.
The debate saw mixed reactions from lawmakers. Some supported the proposal, emphasizing the need for mayors to complete ongoing projects through reelection. Others, however, expressed strong opposition to the elimination of regional movements, viewing it as a threat to political diversity and local representation.
Despite the spirited discussion, the lack of a two-thirds majority means the proposal will not move forward, at least for now. The outcome reflects the deep divisions within the Peruvian Congress on issues of governance and political reform.
Office of Communications and Institutional Image
Interview: Exploring the Implications of PeruS Failed Constitutional Reform on Reelection of Mayors and governors
In a recent Plenary session, the Peruvian Congress failed to pass a constitutional reform proposal that aimed to restore immediate reelection for mayors and governors. The initiative,which required a two-thirds majority,fell short with 70 votes in favor,35 against,and five abstentions. This interview delves into the implications of this decision with Dr.Alejandro Morales, a political science expert specializing in Peruvian governance and constitutional reforms.
Senior Editor: dr. Morales, thank you for joining us today. The recent vote in the Peruvian Congress on the constitutional reform proposal has garnered significant attention. Can you provide some background on why this reform was being considered?
Dr. Morales: certainly. The proposed amendments targeted articles 35, 191, and 194 of Peru’s political Constitution. The primary goal was to allow mayors and regional governors to seek immediate reelection for an additional term. Proponents argued that this change woudl professionalize politics,foster institutional stability,and ensure the continuity of medium- and long-term projects.Essentially, they believed it would lead to more efficient governance.
Senior Editor: It seems like a significant shift in governance policy. What were the key aspects of the proposal that were debated in congress?
Dr. Morales: Yes, there were two main aspects. First, the restoration of reelection for mayors and governors, which was seen as a way to allow them to complete ongoing projects. Second, the elimination of regional movements, which Congressman Fernando Rospigliosi Capurro argued would reduce political fragmentation and encourage the participation of political parties with greater technical capacity and strategic vision for the country.
Senior editor: The debate seemed to highlight deep divisions within the Congress. Can you elaborate on the opposing viewpoints?
Dr. Morales: Absolutely. while some lawmakers supported the proposal, emphasizing the need for continuity in governance and project completion, others strongly opposed the elimination of regional movements. They viewed this as a threat to political diversity and local depiction. This division reflects broader tensions in Peruvian politics regarding centralization versus regional autonomy.
senior Editor: Given the lack of a two-thirds majority, what are the immediate and long-term implications of this failure?
Dr. morales: The immediate implication is that the current restrictions on immediate reelection remain in place. This means mayors and governors cannot seek reelection immediately after their term. In the long term, this failure highlights the deep divisions within the peruvian Congress on issues of governance and political reform. It also underscores the challenges in achieving consensus on significant constitutional changes, which could impact future reform efforts.
Senior Editor: Dr. Morales, thank you for your insightful analysis. The implications of this vote are indeed far-reaching for Peruvian governance and political reform.
Dr. Morales: My pleasure. Its crucial to continue monitoring these developments as they reflect broader trends in Peruvian politics.
Senior Editor: Thank you, Dr. Morales. We appreciate your time and expertise.
Dr. Morales: Thank you for having me.