All institutions must come together so this new process restores citizen trust
En un momento en que la desconfianza ciudadana amenaza con erosionar los cimientos democráticos, el Defensor del Pueblo del Perú, Josué Gutiérrez, entregó un veredicto que distingue entre lo que ocurrió y lo que se temía: no hubo fraude en las elecciones del 12 de abril, pero sí hubo un fracaso institucional en la comunicación y la logística que permitió que el rumor ocupara el lugar de la verdad. Las actas de la serie 900 en zonas rurales fueron validadas, pero el silencio de las autoridades electorales ante las irregularidades logísticas abrió una brecha de desconfianza que ningún informe puede cerrar del todo. El verdadero desafío no es ya demostrar que no hubo manipulación, sino reconstruir la credibilidad de las instituciones antes de que la segunda vuelta llegue a un electorado ya parcialmente retirado.
- Una abstención del 20% no es solo una cifra: es una señal de que una parte significativa de la ciudadanía ha dejado de creer que su participación importa o que el proceso es confiable.
- Las narrativas de fraude se propagaron no por evidencia, sino por el vacío que dejaron ONPE y JNE al no explicar en tiempo real las fallas logísticas que sí eran reales y graves.
- El Contralor General ya había advertido sobre irregularidades en la contratación del operador logístico antes del día de las elecciones, pero esas señales de alerta fueron ignoradas.
- En las zonas rurales donde se instalaron las actas de la serie 900, más del 20% de votos fueron en blanco y más del 7% fueron nulos, revelando que llevar la urna a comunidades vulnerables no es suficiente sin garantizar una participación informada.
- Gutiérrez convocó a todas las instituciones —políticas, electorales y gubernamentales— a articularse antes de la segunda vuelta para que el proceso restaure la confianza ciudadana y no la siga erosionando.
El Defensor del Pueblo, Josué Gutiérrez, presentó su informe de supervisión sobre las elecciones del 12 de abril con una conclusión inequívoca: no existe evidencia de fraude electoral. También despejó la controversia en torno a las actas de la serie 900, instaladas en zonas remotas de baja participación histórica, confirmando su validez y su respaldo en los padrones locales. La intención del Estado era legítima —acercar el voto a poblaciones vulnerables—, pero los resultados en esas zonas revelaron una deuda pendiente: los votos en blanco superaron el 20% y los votos nulos el 7%, evidenciando que participar sin información no es participación plena.
Sin embargo, la ausencia de fraude no equivale a un proceso sin fallas. Las deficiencias logísticas fueron reales y severas, especialmente en el transporte de materiales electorales. El Contralor General había advertido sobre irregularidades en la contratación del operador logístico antes del día de las elecciones, advertencias que no fueron atendidas. La frustración de los ciudadanos de Lima tenía, en ese sentido, fundamentos concretos.
Lo que agravó la crisis fue el silencio. ONPE y JNE no explicaron lo que ocurría mientras los problemas se desarrollaban, y ese vacío fue llenado por teorías de manipulación que, aunque infundadas, encontraron terreno fértil en una ciudadanía sin información oficial. Gutiérrez fue directo: la opacidad de las autoridades electorales fue tan dañina como las propias fallas operativas.
De cara a la segunda vuelta, el Defensor llamó a todas las instituciones a actuar en conjunto para restaurar la confianza ciudadana. Respaldó las auditorías al sistema electoral como herramientas necesarias de transparencia, y advirtió que el 20% de abstención refleja una fragilidad institucional que ningún candidato puede ignorar: quien gane necesitará gobernabilidad real, y eso requiere ciudadanos que crean en el proceso.
Peru's ombudsman released his supervisory report on the April 12 elections with a clear verdict: no fraud. But the finding came wrapped in a more complicated picture—one of logistical chaos, communication failures, and a public increasingly skeptical of the institutions meant to protect democratic integrity.
Josué Gutiérrez, the Defensor del Pueblo, was categorical on the fraud question. His office found no credible evidence of electoral manipulation. He also moved to settle a controversy that had shadowed the rural vote: the so-called 900 series ballot records, installed in remote areas where voters rarely participated, were valid and properly grounded in local electoral rolls. The state's intention had been sound—bringing the ballot to vulnerable populations who typically abstained. But the execution revealed something troubling. In those rural zones, blank votes exceeded 20 percent and spoiled ballots climbed above 7 percent. Gutiérrez acknowledged the obligation this placed on authorities: if you're asking people to vote, you owe them informed participation.
Yet the absence of fraud did not mean the elections ran smoothly. Gutiérrez was direct about what actually went wrong. The logistical failures were real and severe, particularly in the transport of electoral materials. The Comptroller General had already flagged irregularities in how the logistics contractor was hired—warnings that went unheeded before election day. Lima residents who felt angry about the process had legitimate grounds for their frustration.
What made the situation worse was silence. The National Electoral Office (ONPE) and the National Electoral Jury (JNE), the two bodies responsible for running the elections, failed to explain what was happening as problems unfolded. They did not communicate clearly or quickly. Into that vacuum, fraud narratives took root. A significant portion of the public came to believe something sinister had occurred, not because evidence supported it, but because the authorities tasked with transparency had been opaque.
Gutiérrez called on all institutions—political leaders, electoral bodies, government—to work together before the runoff. The stakes were high. Voter abstention had reached 20 percent, a sign of deeper institutional fragility and democratic weakness. Whoever won the second round would need genuine public confidence to govern effectively. "All institutions must come together so this new process restores citizen trust," he said. He endorsed audits of the electoral system as necessary and appropriate, tools for making the process transparent to a population that had grown skeptical. The path forward required not just clearing the record of fraud, but rebuilding the credibility of the institutions themselves.
Citações Notáveis
All institutions must come together so this new process restores citizen trust— Josué Gutiérrez, Defensor del Pueblo
The state has an obligation to provide informed voting access to vulnerable populations— Josué Gutiérrez, Defensor del Pueblo (paraphrased)
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
If there was no fraud, why does the public feel so betrayed?
Because they watched the machinery break down in real time and nobody explained it to them. The logistics failed, materials went missing or arrived late, and the electoral authorities stayed silent. People filled that silence with their own conclusions.
But the rural ballots—those 900 series records—those seemed genuinely suspicious to many observers.
They were valid. The state had a good reason to set them up: reaching voters in remote areas who almost never participate. The problem wasn't the ballots themselves. It was that turnout in those zones was very low, with lots of blank and spoiled votes, which suggested people didn't understand what they were voting on or why.
So the state created the infrastructure but didn't do the groundwork?
Exactly. You can't just hand someone a ballot in a place where voting is rare and expect informed participation. That's on the authorities.
What about the 20 percent abstention rate? Is that normal for Peru?
It signals something broken in the system itself. When a fifth of eligible voters don't show up, it's not just apathy—it's a sign that people have lost faith in the institutions. The ombudsman called it institutional fragility.
And the runoff election coming up—what needs to happen?
Transparency, communication, and real effort to bring people back into the process. Whoever wins needs legitimacy, not just a technical victory. That requires the electoral bodies to actually talk to the public and explain what's happening.