Skip to content

From Netflix ‘Narcos’ to Peru: money, drugs and elections

The tribunal has managed to secure the support of a broad-ranging coalition of institutions. Many forces converge when it comes to adopting such controversial decisions.

Published:
20105296401_23642cf9e1_z.jpg
20105296401_23642cf9e1_z.jpg

Narcos Netflix Pablo Escobar, una replica de las tanquetas.Flickr/ John Murphy. Some rights reserved.The US 2016 presidential race, in which as in House of Cards and Breaking Bad, the villain is the star, is not only a game of fear, but also of money. Estimates suggest that more than $185 million USD were spent before December last year, when the campaign had barely started. While all eyes are on the United States, another pivotal election has been unfolding, one that can substantially shape the future of democracy beyond its borders. Money is also shaping the Peru 2016 general election campaign. But the sources may not be as clean.

The world’s leading country in cocaine production, Peru is struggling to keep organized crime away from politics. Are they succeeding? The truth is that we do not know. What we do know is that Peru has drug and human traffickers, illegal miners and smugglers. We know that they bring in lots of cash—UNODC estimates the global illicit economy amounted to $2.1 trillion USD in 2009, out of which cocaine is the most profitable. And we know criminals need to launder their money.

We also know that politics is expensive, political finance hard to regulate, and those regulations even harder to enforce. We know criminals have a stake in an election that might substantially change power structures in the country. And we know that criminals use dirty money to corrupt politicians. In return they get protection from law enforcement and drain the state’s coffers. So, the election is up for grabs.