If the power were his alone, he would grant amnesty to every politician under investigation.
A hundred days into his presidency, José María Balcázar stood before labor leaders in the Government Palace and declared that, were the power his, he would grant amnesty to every politician under investigation in Peru. Invoking postwar European reconstruction and a papal encyclical on peace, he framed accountability itself as the wound dividing the nation — and its erasure as the cure. The proposal arrives not as a quiet trial balloon but as a public, unhedged statement from a sitting head of state, one that places the logic of impunity in direct tension with the ongoing prosecutions of former presidents and senior officials.
- Balcázar did not whisper the idea — he said it plainly, on the record, with the full authority of his office, proposing a clean slate for every politician currently facing legal scrutiny.
- The investigations he would erase are not procedural abstractions: they involve money laundering, corruption, and the abuse of public power at the highest levels of Peruvian government.
- By reaching for postwar Germany and papal teaching on peace, the president recast prosecution as perpetual conflict and reconciliation as the patriotic alternative — a rhetorical move that sidesteps the substance of the charges entirely.
- The proposal does not seek to reform courts, improve transparency, or make accountability more just — it seeks to shield those already in power from the institutions designed to scrutinize them.
- Peru's political landscape, already fractured and weaponized, now faces a sitting president who has publicly chosen protection over institutional integrity, signaling a potential shift in how prosecutions may be approached going forward.
One hundred days into his presidency, José María Balcázar made a declaration that cut through the noise of Peruvian politics with unusual directness: if the power were his alone, he would grant amnesty to every politician currently under investigation. He said it without hedging, during a ceremony at the Government Palace honoring labor leaders, while making the case for national consensus.
His argument was that Peru cannot sustain itself under the weight of perpetual political conflict — that investigations pile upon investigations while the country tears itself apart. Rather than proposing reforms to the justice system, Balcázar proposed something more radical: erasing the investigations altogether. To justify it, he looked to postwar Europe, to Germany rising from ruin not through endless reckoning but through the hard work of consensus-building. He also cited a papal encyclical on peace, suggesting Peru needed reconciliation more than it needed prosecution.
What the president left unaddressed was the nature of what he would erase. Former presidents and senior officials currently face formal charges — money laundering, corruption, the abuse of the powers entrusted to them. These are not procedural technicalities. They are allegations that go to the heart of how public office was exercised.
The distinction Balcázar's proposal collapses is a consequential one: there is a difference between making accountability more just and eliminating accountability altogether. One path strengthens institutions; the other protects the powerful from them. By speaking publicly, on the record, with the full weight of his office, Balcázar has made clear which path he is prepared to walk.
One hundred days into his presidency, José María Balcázar stood in the Government Palace and said something that cut to the heart of Peru's political crisis: if the power were his alone, he would grant amnesty to every politician currently under investigation. He did not hedge. He did not qualify the statement. He simply said it, in front of witnesses, during a ceremony honoring labor leaders and union negotiators.
The moment arrived as Balcázar was discussing the need for national consensus. Peru, he argued, cannot afford to remain locked in perpetual conflict. The country tears itself apart when politicians fight politicians, when investigations pile up, when the machinery of accountability grinds on without pause. His solution was not to fix the system or reform the courts. It was to erase the investigations altogether—to offer a clean slate to anyone in power who faced legal scrutiny.
Balcázar reached for a historical example to justify the idea. He pointed to Europe, to nations that had rebuilt themselves from rubble after the Second World War. Germany, he noted, had been blamed for two wars, buried under what he called "dark legends," yet it rose because Europeans understood how to build consensus rather than wage endless political battles. If those countries could move past such devastation through unity, why couldn't Peru do the same? The logic was seductive: stop fighting, start building.
The president invoked Pope Francis as well, citing a recent papal encyclical on peace—115 pages, he mentioned, as if the length itself conferred weight. The message was consistent: Peru needed reconciliation, not reckoning. It needed to read about peace and practice it, not pursue investigations that kept old wounds open.
What Balcázar did not address was the substance of those investigations. At the moment he spoke, former presidents and other high-ranking officials faced serious charges. Some were accused of money laundering. Others faced corruption allegations. The Public Ministry—Peru's prosecutorial body—had formal cases underway. These were not abstract legal matters. They involved real allegations of real crimes, many of them touching the core functions of government: the movement of money, the abuse of power, the betrayal of public trust.
By proposing blanket amnesty, Balcázar was not simply calling for mercy or forgiveness. He was proposing to erase the legal consequences of conduct that had already been formally investigated. He was suggesting that the pursuit of accountability itself was the problem—that the act of investigation, rather than the conduct being investigated, was what divided the nation.
The proposal landed at a moment when Peru's political class was already fractured along multiple lines. The investigations themselves had become weapons in factional disputes. Yet Balcázar's answer was not to make the investigations fairer or more transparent. It was to eliminate them. The distinction matters. One approach seeks to strengthen institutions; the other seeks to protect those already in power from institutional scrutiny. Balcázar had chosen the latter path, and he had done so publicly, on the record, with the full weight of his office behind the words.
Notable Quotes
If it were up to me, I would grant amnesty to all politicians who have some type of investigation, because this country cannot remain fighting permanently.— President José María Balcázar
Peru can build consensus like Europe did after the Second World War—not by fighting, but by working toward progress.— President José María Balcázar
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When a president says he would grant amnesty to all investigated politicians, is he speaking as a legal theorist or as someone protecting his own interests?
Probably both. But the framing matters. He's not saying "these investigations are unfair." He's saying "investigations themselves are the problem." That's a different argument entirely.
Why invoke Europe and the Pope? Why not just say what he means?
Because what he means—erase accountability to preserve power—sounds worse when stated plainly. The historical examples and moral language make it sound like he's choosing peace over conflict, unity over division. It's more palatable that way.
Do the investigations he's referring to actually exist, or is this theoretical?
They exist. Real cases, real charges. Former presidents under investigation for money laundering and corruption. He's not speaking hypothetically. He's describing an actual legal landscape and proposing to wipe it clean.
What does this tell us about how Peru's institutions are functioning?
That the person with the most power sees the institutions pursuing accountability as the threat, not the conduct those institutions are investigating. When a president can casually propose erasing all prosecutions of politicians, the system has already lost something fundamental.
Is there any chance this becomes policy?
That depends on whether Congress moves with him. But the fact that he can say it without immediate political cost—that's the real story. It signals what's possible in Peru right now.