We are not enemies of private investment
En medio de una campaña electoral marcada por la desconfianza y las alianzas cuestionadas, Juntos por el Perú se ve obligado a trazar una línea entre el diálogo político y la complicidad ideológica. El secretario general Ernesto Zunini salió a desmentir que Roberto Sánchez haya forjado un pacto de tres décadas con el líder etnocacerista Antauro Humala, insistiendo en que la referencia temporal era una reflexión académica sobre la reconstrucción democrática del país. En el fondo, el episodio revela una tensión perenne en la política peruana: la dificultad de construir coaliciones amplias sin que la proximidad con actores radicales contamine la credibilidad institucional.
- La acusación de un pacto de 30 años con Humala amenaza con definir la campaña de Sánchez antes de que él mismo pueda hacerlo.
- Zunini respondió con precisión quirúrgica: la cifra era aspiracional y académica, no un compromiso político sellado en las sombras.
- El partido reconoce puntos de contacto con el movimiento de Humala, pero los encuadra como diálogo electoral transitorio, no como fusión ideológica.
- Para blindar su flanco económico, JP anunciará próximamente voceros técnicos que demuestren compatibilidad con la inversión privada y la gobernanza institucional.
- El mensaje final apunta a dos audiencias a la vez: a los votantes, que el partido no alberga extremistas; al empresariado, que un gobierno de Sánchez sería predecible y democráticamente sólido.
Ernesto Zunini, secretario general de Juntos por el Perú, dedicó la mañana a desmontar una narrativa que ha comenzado a perseguir la campaña presidencial de Roberto Sánchez: la de un compromiso político de tres décadas con Antauro Humala, líder etnocacerista cuyo movimiento polariza el escenario electoral peruano.
La defensa de Zunini fue meticulosa. La referencia de Sánchez a un horizonte de 30 años no era una declaración de lealtad a Humala, sino una reflexión académica —con Héctor Béjar como testigo— sobre el tiempo necesario para reconstruir las instituciones del país por vías democráticas. El plazo era una aspiración, no una conspiración.
El secretario también trazó una distinción entre coincidencia programática y alianza política. Que JP comparta algunas posiciones con el movimiento de Humala no es distinto de los puntos en común que tiene con políticos de centro. El propio Humala, señaló Zunini, ya describió el acuerdo como un vehículo electoral para que sus simpatizantes participen en el proceso, nada más. Ningún candidato afín a Humala resultó elegido en la lista congresal del partido.
Pero la conversación fue más allá de la gestión de daños. Zunini aprovechó el espacio para enviar señales al sector empresarial, inquieto ante la visión económica de Sánchez. En los próximos días, JP presentará voceros técnicos especializados que integrarían un eventual gobierno, una apuesta para demostrar que el partido no es hostil a la inversión privada.
Sobre la legitimidad institucional —herida recurrente en la política peruana reciente— Zunini enmarcó el diálogo democrático y los referéndums no como amenazas, sino como fuentes de estabilidad. El mensaje era inequívoco: Juntos por el Perú no es un partido radical, no está capturado por extremistas, y gobernará con prudencia económica y respaldo democrático genuino.
Ernesto Zunini, the general secretary of Juntos por el Perú, spent the morning pushing back against a narrative that has begun to dog his party's presidential campaign: that Roberto Sánchez, the party's candidate, has forged a three-decade political compact with Antauro Humala, the ethnocacerist leader whose movement has become a flashpoint in Peru's fractious electoral landscape.
Zunini's denial was precise. When Sánchez spoke of a 30-year horizon, he was not, Zunini insisted, pledging loyalty to Humala. Rather, Sánchez had been engaged in academic reflection—Héctor Béjar was present at the discussion—about what it would take to rebuild the country's institutions over the coming three decades through democratic means. The timeframe was aspirational, not conspiratorial. It was about the nation's reconstruction, not about backroom deals.
The secretary general went further, drawing a distinction between shared policy ground and political alliance. Yes, Juntos por el Perú and Humala's movement held some positions in common, much as the party did with various centrist politicians. But this was dialogue, not fusion. Humala himself, Zunini noted, had already characterized the arrangement as an electoral agreement—a vehicle for his supporters to participate in the political process, nothing more. The relationship was transactional and temporary, not ideological and permanent.
Zunini also addressed the character of his party directly. Juntos por el Perú, he said, harbored no misogynists, no racists, no antisemites. And on the question of whether Humala-affiliated candidates had infiltrated the party's congressional slate: none had been elected. The party's ranks remained, by his account, untainted by association.
But the morning's conversation extended beyond damage control. Zunini used the platform to signal reassurance to Peru's business community, a constituency that has grown wary of Sánchez's economic vision. The party was not hostile to private investment, he said. In the coming days, Juntos por el Perú would unveil specialized spokespersons who would form part of the technical team that would staff a potential Sánchez government. These appointments, he suggested, would dispel any lingering doubt about the party's commitment to market-friendly governance.
On the question of institutional legitimacy—a concern that has shadowed Peru's recent political history—Zunini framed democratic dialogue and referendums not as threats but as sources of stability. An open conversation about the country's direction, he argued, was the most democratic posture available. It was also, he implied, the surest way to convince investors and business leaders that any future JP government would rest on solid institutional ground. The message was clear: we are not radicals, we are not captured by extremists, and we will govern with both democratic legitimacy and economic prudence.
Citações Notáveis
What Sánchez said was that it was time to establish a project through democratic means, speaking to the next 30 years of the country because we are rebuilding a new republic as we aspire to— Ernesto Zunini, JP general secretary
We are not enemies of private investment— Ernesto Zunini
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When Sánchez talked about 30 years, what was actually on the table? Was it always just about rebuilding institutions, or did the language shift once people started asking questions?
The way Zunini tells it, the 30-year frame was always about democratic reconstruction—the timeline for rebuilding the country. But I think the real issue is that when you're in coalition with someone like Humala, even a loose electoral coalition, the language gets read through that lens. People hear "30 years" and they think "alliance," not "nation-building."
So the Humala relationship is real, but it's being characterized as smaller than critics claim?
Exactly. Zunini doesn't deny the relationship exists. He says there's dialogue, shared positions on some issues, and yes, an electoral agreement. But he's drawing a hard line: it's not ideological fusion, it's not permanent, and it didn't result in Humala people getting elected to JP's slate. It's a marriage of convenience, not a marriage.
Why does the business community matter so much in this conversation?
Because if investors think JP is captured by ethnocacerist ideology or radical economic policy, capital dries up. Zunini is essentially saying: we're not your enemies, we welcome private investment, and we'll govern with institutional legitimacy. He's trying to separate the party from any taint of extremism.
Is that separation credible, given the Humala connection?
That depends on whether you believe that electoral coalitions can be purely transactional. Zunini is arguing they can be—that you can work with someone on an election without adopting their worldview. Whether voters and investors buy that is another question entirely.