When Peru’s Congress voted unanimously on October 10, 2025, to remove President Dina Boluarte for “permanent moral incapacity,” the decision was framed as a constitutional act. In reality, it exposed the depth of Peru’s institutional decay (again). What followed was not a restoration of democratic order but a transfer of authority to a legislature that already dominated the state. With the swearing-in of José Jerí as Constitutional President of the Republic, Peru entered another cycle of crisis, one where legality conceals the hollowing of democracy.

Delegation Turned Upside Down

Years of conflict between the government and Congress came to an end with Boluarte’s collapse. After Pedro Castillo’s attempted self-coup, she took over in December 2022, assuming control of a legislature controlled by the opposition and a disjointed political structure. Boluarte operated without a party or legislative foundation, relying instead on haphazard coalitions that soon fell apart. Her approval dropped to less than 5 percent by the middle of 2025, which meant it became the margin of error, making it the lowest in the hemisphere, while Congress’s approval was close to 8 percent.

Political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell once described delegative democracy as a presidency ruling above institutions. In Peru, the pattern has inverted: Congress acts as a delegative legislature, claiming a popular mandate it does not possess. The result is a distorted equilibrium in which the least trusted branch governs unchecked — a textbook case of democratic erosion through institutional capture.

Weaponizing the Constitution

Peru’s Constitution authorizes Congress to declare a president “morally incapacitated” by a two-thirds vote of the members. Intended as an emergency measure, it has become a weapon of convenience. Every president since 2018 has faced at least one vacancy motion, and Boluarte’s removal was more about congressional opportunism than misconduct.

This dynamic exemplifies Milan Svolik’s theory of authoritarian equilibrium: when elites value self-preservation over democratic norms, institutions decay from within. By repeatedly invoking moral capacity, reshaping judicial oversight, and shielding its own members from prosecution, Congress has converted oversight into domination. Human Rights Watch reports that legislators have undermined anti-corruption prosecutors and redefined “organized crime” to limit investigations and prosecutions. In this sense, legality endures, but accountability collapses.

A Fragile Executive and the Rise of a Constitutional Presidency

Former president Boluarte’s administration was already weakened by scandal (or scandals). The “Rolexgate” controversy, involving undeclared luxury watches, symbolized elite impunity. When impeachment arrived, she offered no defense. Hours later, José Jerí, then congressional president, was sworn in as Constitutional President, pledging to restore “order and reconciliation.”

Yet legitimacy cannot be declared by decree. Within days, mass protests erupted across the nation. Reuters reported one protester killed and more than a hundred injured as security forces clashed with demonstrators. The new government responded with a state of emergency in Lima, deploying police and soldiers. What officials portrayed as a constitutional president, legitimacy remained absent.

The Collapse of Democratic Trust

The more profound crisis is moral, not procedural. Surveys by the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) and AmericasBarometer show that more than 90 percent of Peruvians distrust Congress, courts, and political parties. Civic participation persists essentially because voting is compulsory. Protest has replaced ballots as the primary expression of citizenship. As political theorist Nancy Bermeo warns, democratic backsliding often occurs “through legal means, by those who claim to defend democracy.”

Peru exhibits legislative decline: the branch designed to check power now accumulates it. Each impeachment fosters cynicism, and each wave of cynicism validates further manipulation. Democracy persists as a ritual but perishes as a belief.

A Regional Reflection

Peru’s crisis reflects a broader trend seen across Latin America. In Ecuador, legislative deadlocks hinder progress; in Guatemala, judicial capture undermines the rule of law; and in El Salvador, there is a notable erosion of judicial independence. These situations illustrate how institutions can deteriorate while still maintaining the appearance of constitutional governance. Peru’s situation is unique primarily in its extent: it was not a single authoritarian leader who dismantled democracy, but instead Congress itself, acting collectively and legally.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that democracies collapse when political elites abandon the principles of mutual toleration and forbearance. In Lima, these essential norms have vanished. Each political actor interprets the law to serve their own interests or those of their party, turning the Constitution into a battleground for partisan conflict rather than a platform for consensus.

Rebuilding from the Ruins

Restoring democracy in Peru will require more than just a change in leadership. The country needs structural reforms, including clearer standards for presidential removal, judicial independence free from congressional pressure, and genuine party development to improve representation. However, legal changes will not matter without public trust. As O’Donnell emphasized, democracy relies on horizontal accountability between institutions and vertical legitimacy from citizens. Currently, Peru has neither.

President Jerí’s anti-crime campaign and cabinet reshuffles—such as dismissal of Petroperu’s leadership—signal decisiveness, yet they risk reinforcing authoritarian shortcuts. An order achieved without trust is not stability; it is control.

A Democracy of Empty Forms

Peru’s situation challenges traditional views of democratic collapse. There are no tanks in the streets or canceled elections. Instead, power flows legally within an institution that no longer reflects the will of the public. Congress governs by procedure rather than by consent. Although the installation of a constitutional president has maintained a façade of legitimacy, it lacks substantive meaning.

What remains is a hollow democracy—a republic governed by rules but lacking genuine belief. Peru still uses the language of constitutionalism, yet those words resonate through empty institutions. Unless citizens reclaim both the right and the reason to trust, the country will remain democratic only in name.