The country is in a deep crisis under the current government, and various ministries are facing serious problems, while others are trying to ignore the situation. On the economic front, expectations according to the BCR in this sector are declining, and the government’s actions continue to undermine confidence and investment. For the first time in 22 years, the fiscal deficit exceeded the limits imposed by law. In the interior sector, a minister arrived from abroad, not knowing the Peruvian reality and unwisely facing many challenges in the face of the growing threat of organized crime and illegal activities. The Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), because of the Petroper crisis, is in a compromising position. The Ministry of Environment lacks the leadership to strongly face the changes made by Congress to the Forest Law, which seriously undermines the progress of forest management.
Ministries are often occupied by people who are not suitable for their positions because competent professionals refuse to be part of this government. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the president and prime minister to find qualified professionals willing to be part of their administration.
I do not believe that a ministerial change will make a difference, because the real problem lies in the fact that the president and his premier do not have a clear program for the country or the legitimacy to build consensus or power. Right now, Congress is in control of the ball and the initiative.
There are no articulated, comprehensive, achievable plans
In a country like Peru, which has suffered a crisis of institutions and citizens’ trust since the times of no reason, the search for short-term results reduces more and more space for the action of the ministries and is damaged by the changing circumstances of the authorities of the times. at the time. somewhat reduced. However, put aside the time factor, and based on the immediate facts and performances of the sector, it is necessary to refresh some portfolios.
In the Interior portfolio, it is known, since the event of uncertainty and criminality This is beyond the available capabilities of the state. However, the daily work shows a lack of measures that are sustainable over time, efficient, and effective in light of the problem, as well as monitoring and evaluating what has been done to measure the impact. Likewise, access to health and education—universal and quality services—continues to emerge as a major defect in the real development of society and the country.
The recent pandemic and the aforementioned crises have not only brought to light the existing gaps and lack of prioritization in these sectors, but the successive management of these fields has shown that, beyond the visible consequences of the short term, the existence of comprehensive, measurable, achievable, and tangible plans over time designed based on the needs of citizens is important. The right question is: why change?
In politics, Dina Boluarte has no incentive to change ministers. The crooked alliance between his government and Congress guaranteed him a strength never seen before: Congress rejected its role as a regulator of the actions of the executive in exchange for keeping both until at least 2026. Since there is no real reason for change, Boluarte believes, and is led to believe, that he is managing well, that there are no better people for the ministries than the current ones, and that in Castillo we are worse. Nothing could be further from reality.
The DBA-Boluarte coalition gives strength and permanence to the two powers to continue doing what they are doing: nothing.
So, faced with a government that believes that everything is doing well, a Congress that does not exercise effective control, and a society that is weakened by the crisis and daily problems, a real and effective change of ministers does not seem to be an alternative of thoughts. in Boluarte, at least not in the short term.
Changes to certain portfolios or the entire Executive
The answer to whether there should be changes in the cabinet of ministers or not is doubly valid. If we say that there must be a change, it is because the management of the executive is not good. The economy is deteriorating, and no policies appear to be showing signs of recovery, nor is there an aggressive, say, social policy that alleviates the crisis of the most needy. The government does not seem to notice the big mistakes that further delegitimize it among the population. The economy, the uncertainty of social policy, disaster prevention, the justice sector, and the head of the cabinet deserve changes.
On the other hand, if the answer is no, it is not because things are going well, but because there should not only be changes in the ministries; it should also involve the entire executive. We are at a time when the government will withdraw or be withdrawn because the problem is not only sectoral but also one of legitimacy. Dina Boluarte must think carefully about what she will do when everything is over, because many cases, including those against human rights, seem to await her and her family.
Change the cabinet or Government
To guarantee effective management, it is important that the Executive Branch guide the needs of society through legitimate responses translated into public policies that contribute to the solution. We do not find efficient answers to the problems of the region. If the strategy does not work, it is necessary to opt for a change if the development and stability of a country are at stake, and if this means a change of cabinet It is necessary to maintain this oxygenation.
The lack of attention to problems such as security, preventive policies against possible natural events, economic instability, and the lack of promotion of comprehensive and universal health, among other problems, is enough reason to consider a permanent evaluation to maintain the cabinet in full. .