In an article published April 9, 2026, Diana Roy titles Peru, “South America’s most politically unstable country.” (Roy, 2026) In the past ten years, Peru has had 8 different presidents and will elect a ninth in the coming months. Not a single president in those ten years served a full term, and none of them even made it over 3 years in office. Manuel Merino served for a mere five days in November 2020 before he resigned. This severe political instability is a clear marker of democratic erosion, as it represents the slow death of democratic norms such as forbearance and mutual toleration.
Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt define two norms “as fundamental to a functioning democracy: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance” (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). Forbearance is “avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit” (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). Unfortunately, this essential democratic norm has seen a decline in Peru in recent years. Perhaps the most primary example of the death of forbearance in Peru is Congress’s near-constant removal of the president from office. Not only does this create a shaky (at best) government, but it also reveals an ununited government body. In one of the most recent removals, there were “75 lawmakers who voted in favor of removing Jerí [president at the time], while 24 voted against and three abstained” (Reuters, 2026) – this was only four months into his term. The Congress’s lack of forbearance has resulted in a deeply unstable government. If this decline in democratic norms continues, Peru’s entire democracy could be at risk.
The other essential norm noted by Levitsky & Ziblatt is mutual toleration, defined as “the idea that as long as our rivals play by constitutional rules, we accept that they have an equal right to exist, compete for power, and govern” (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). Mutual toleration is essential to democracy, as it is the basis for successful elections in which the ruling party cedes power. Most commonly, we see the collapse of mutual toleration between two competing political parties; in the case of Peru, we see it between the legislature and the executive. In his article, “Peru: presidents vs parliamentarians,” Xavier Rodríguez-Franco calls Congress the “main stumbling block to the presidential administration” (Rodríguez-Franco, 2021), stating that the key characteristic of the Peruvian political system in recent years is “mutual and systemic distrust between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers” (Rodríguez-Franco, 2021). For example, in February of this year, the congress removed the president from office because of China-linked secret meetings, again revealing the distrust between the congress and the president. It’s also worth noting that this was the third consecutive president to be removed from office. (Reuters, 2026). This is not a case of a complete collapse of mutual toleration; however, it is clearly en route in that direction. The Peruvian Congress is showing a complete distrust of the executive, continually removing presidents from office and overriding or blocking the presidential administration. If the Peruvian government continues down this road, it will lead to a fragmented government in which there is no trust for other branches to carry out essential functions, ultimately leading to the collapse of democracy in Peru.
Peru might not be a complete autocracy, but its clear decline in democratic norms is surely something to raise concern. If Peru’s government continues to disregard essential concepts such as mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, it could be argued that Peru’s democracy will simply cease to exist.
Works Cited
Council on Foreign Relations. (2026, April 14). Peru is about to elect its ninth president in a decade: What happened to the other eight?. https://www.cfr.org/articles/peru-is-about-to-elect-its-ninth-president-in-a-decade-what-happened-to-the-other-eight
Lozano, D., & Associated Press. (2022, April 7). Peru congress ousts president over China-linked secret meetings. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/peru-congress-ousts-president-china-linked-secret-meetings-rcna25948
Rodríguez-Franco, X. (2026, April 15). Peru: Presidents vs parliamentarians. Latinoamerica21. https://latinoamerica21.com/en/peru-presidents-vs-parliamentarians/
This is a strong use of Levitsky and Ziblatt’s ideas to explain what is happening in Peru. The examples of Congress repeatedly removing presidents make the decline in forbearance feel very real, not just theoretical. I also like that you point out how this isn’t a total collapse yet, but the country is moving in that direction. It could be interesting to think about whether Peru’s political system itself is making this conflict worse.
I liked this deep dive into Peru. Within democratic erosion, we tend tot all about how there can be a lot of executive overreach but Peru is a great example of it being a form of legislative overreach. Using Levitsky and Ziblatt’s ideas explain how this overreach is taking place. The stripping of forbearance was more than just an idea in this post, but a reality.
I really appreciated this view into a country I did not know much about previously, other than for its beauty. This level of severe political instability causes much disruption amongst the citizens of countries who are only looking to be protected by the rights granted to them by their constitutions. Having an untrustworthy government, and untrustworthy leaders, creates a level of uncertainty that is not easy to change back. I hope overtime that the future leaders of Peru can amend and work through the differences that divide the people from their government. Being that they had three presidents consecutively impeached, I can only imagine how difficult it feels for their citizens to trust someone who is ruling their lives. It’s hard to believe that Peru may consider their government a democracy based on these authoritarian autocracy.