Keiko Fujimori and Roberto Sánchez debating their government programs on national TV one week before the final vote in Peru. Photo: Diario Red/JP.
While Keiko Fujimori defended the existing economic model, left-wing contender Roberto Sánchez backed a reform agenda and challenged the power of political elites. With a high number of undecided voters and many rejecting both candidates, the electoral outcome remains open.
One week before Peru’s presidential runoff, candidates Keiko Fujimori and Roberto Sánchez faced off in the campaign’s only official debate—an exchange that confirmed the depth of the political and ideological divisions tearing the country apart and laid bare two clearly opposing national visions.
Outside the venue, the streets mirrored the polarization playing out on screen. Hundreds of supporters of both candidates gathered outside while the contenders attempted to persuade an electorate that continues to show high levels of indecision and indifference toward the political class.
The proposals
In her opening remarks, right-wing Fuerza Popular candidate Keiko Fujimori backed restoring “order” with a firm-hand approach and institutional continuity in defense of the 1993 Constitution—enacted during the government of her father, dictator Alberto Fujimori, following his 1992 “self-coup.”
Roberto Sánchez of Juntos por el Perú framed the crisis as the “capture” of justice and the state by political elites, with direct accusations aimed at the legacy of the Fujimoris. In one of the debate’s most tense moments, he directly blamed Fujimorismo for the collapse of Peru’s democracy.
The debate was organized around four themes: citizen security; strengthening the democratic state and human rights; education and health; and the economy, employment and poverty reduction.
Fujimori defended the economic model established in the 1990s and anchored her proposal in private-sector-led growth and macroeconomic stability, with explicit echoes of the Washington Consensus framework under which national resources were privatized for the benefit of US multinationals.
Sánchez, for his part, challenged the existing model, invoked grassroots movements, and focused on employment, services and redistribution, seeking to translate social discontent into a mandate for change. The progressive contender proposed recovering resource sovereignty through an “intercultural state” that would grant direct budgets to Quechua, Aymara, and Amazonian communities and ratify the Escazú Agreement to protect environmental defenders from harassment by US-backed multinationals.
On education and health, Fujimori proposed continuity through public–private partnerships and service expansion, while Sánchez called for progressive financing and a more active role for the state.
An open election and the weight of the anti-vote
A national poll by consultancy Imasolu, conducted between May 23 and 26 on a sample of 1,200 people, places Fujimori at 39.6% in the polls versus 33.1% for Sánchez. While the gap is significant, it is not conclusive: 14.3% say they would vote blank or spoil their ballot, while 13.1% have yet to make up their minds.
The same poll shows that firm support for Fujimori stands at 29.3%, while fully consolidated backing for Sánchez reaches 23.5%. An additional segment of undecided voters leans toward Fujimori (17.8%) compared to a smaller group leaning toward Sánchez (9.7%).
One of the most notable features of the campaign is the persistence of the so-called “anti-vote”—a recurring phenomenon in contemporary Peruvian politics. According to the poll, 39.2% of Fujimori’s voters acknowledge that their support is driven primarily by rejection of the other candidate rather than programmatic affinity. In Sánchez’s case, the figure is even higher: 42.3% of his potential supporters say they will back him to prevent his rival from winning.
These numbers reflect an election dominated by mutual distrust and the perception that both projects generate significant resistance across broad sectors of the population.
Among those who have yet to decide or have chosen not to back either candidate, almost half (47.3%) declare equal dislike for both finalists. Another 22.9% say that they are waiting for the debates before making a decision—which explains the strategic importance acquired by Sunday’s televised encounter.
The final battle
Rather than substantially shifting already consolidated preferences, the debate appeared aimed at a specific segment: undecided voters and those considering voting blank or spoiling their ballots. In a tight runoff, small shifts in those groups can tip the balance.
With a gap of around six points in the Imasolu poll and a significant share of voters still not fully decided, the campaign enters its final week with no guaranteed outcome.
What is at stake goes beyond the election of a president. The runoff pits two opposing visions against each other: the role of the state, the economic model, and the country’s institutional direction. Each candidate’s ability to convince those still watching the process with skepticism could determine not only the electoral result but also the degree of legitimacy with which the winner will govern.
Peru Goes to Second Round of Presidential Elections: Revenge of the Downtrodden Nation
(Diario Red) by Crismar Lujano
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/CB/SL
Cameron Baillie is an award-winning journalist, editor, and researcher. He won and was shortlisted for awards across Britain and Ireland. He is Editor-in-Chief of New Sociological Perspectives graduate journal and Commissioning Editor at The Student Intifada newsletter. He spent the first half of 2025 living, working, and writing in Ecuador. He does news translation and proofreading work with The Orinoco Tribune.
