I have family members who fled the hyperinflation and terrorism of the 1980s looking for a better future. Emigrating is difficult: you start, in many ways, from scratch. And the decision to leave – made by 3.49 million Peruvians – often occurs because politics leaves no choice. Taking away their right to vote, as Together for Peru intends, is an anti-democratic measure: it excludes them from democracy and takes away the only tool to change the policy that scared them away: the vote.
And, although it may seem like a bad joke, the party of the new hat – via Pedro Castillo’s lawyer, Walter Ayala – presented an amparo action to proclaim Sánchez only with national votes. They allege that ONPE changed the rules in the middle of the process and that the chain of custody was broken.
It’s false. Only one protocol was adjusted, simplifying a procedure that in the first round was cumbersome: the substantive rules were not touched, only the logistics. And custody was not broken: the transfer was documented and traceable, going from digitization to diplomatic bag does not break anything, and neither does a delay in arrival. No one has tested a single blind spot in the material’s path.
It is not the first time that an attempt has been made to discredit the vote of compatriots: in 2021 the attempt came from the opposite side, against the rural vote. But then, at least, irregularities were detailed, unlike the weak argumentative work of the Together for Peru lawyers. Then, as now, the JNE concluded that there was no fraud
The arguments are so crazy that it is evident that they are looking for an excuse. So much so that the virtual deputy of Together for Peru, Amalia Palomino, maintained that those who have not lived in Peru for more than 10 years would not have the moral authority to vote, because they would be unaware of the Peruvian reality and would live in prosperity.
The distinction that Palomino makes between full citizens – those who live here – and second category citizens – those from abroad – is unconstitutional. Our Constitution does not separate Peruvians into castes.
Furthermore, living abroad does not make you alien to the Peruvian reality. Many support their families: in 2025 alone they sent US$5,368 million in remittances. With that money, the grandfather buys his medicine, the housewife does the shopping, and the daughter pays for college.
And what a prejudice this new mother of the country is in assuming that being Peruvian abroad is equivalent to living in prosperity. There is no data on what they do there, but there is data on what they declared they did when they emigrated: according to the INEI (1990-2019), among those over 14 years of age, students (21.6%), office workers (12.7%), service and commerce workers (10.8%) and housewives (10.4%) predominate. Doesn’t seem like a portrait of high income
And even if some lived in prosperity now, why would they lose their vote to win more? We should be proud that they have moved forward starting from scratch and far from their own.
The truth is only one: since almost two out of every three Peruvians who voted abroad did not choose Together for Peru, we must take away their vote and proclaim Sánchez. What an undemocratic left! The vote from abroad was adverse and weighed; But Sánchez’s problem is not in Madrid or Buenos Aires, but in the Andes: in Cusco, Puno or Cajamarca – Castillo regions – it did not reach the magnitude of 2021, that of the original hat. If it had been equal, no foreign vote would have been enough to overturn it.
Let us not fall into the game of those who feed the narrative that considering votes from abroad violates the “popular will” and constitutes a kind of fraud, in elections whose suitability has already been endorsed by international observers. Respecting that vote is not generosity: it is complying with the Constitution.
*El Comercio opens its pages to the exchange of ideas and reflections. In this plural framework, the Diario does not necessarily agree with the opinions of the columnists who sign them, although it always respects them.
