The paradox of military dictatorships that Fernando Belaunde Terry proposed doesn’t, really apply to the dictatorship of General Juan Velasco Alvarado in Peru. His regime was certainly reformist, but it only maintained stability and order for a short time. Furthermore, there was a relative lack of repression and abuse of human rights.
Alvarado’s left-wing government brought about many reforms, especially in the areas of land, foreign investments, and education. Under the Agrarian Law of 1969, haciendas larger than 375 acres were expropriated and put in the hands of government-directed collectives, individuals, or Indian communes. Rural infrastructure was financed. Large-scale irrigation projects were carried out to make arid land farmable, as there wasn’t enough for the many landless peasants. In terms of foreign investments, the junta of Alvarado embarked on a program of economic nationalism. It nationalised American petroleum, copper and sugar companies, as well as the fish meal industry and mining industries. The government also insisted that the majority of foreign companies’ stock be held by nationals. In education, a reform bill was passed in 1972 which featured the recognition of the equality of women, the establishment of rural schools, the granting of autonomy to universities, and the use of the Indian Quechua or Aymara languages in schools (which was part of a movement to emphasize Peru’s Indian heritage).
Peru’s reforms led to only temporary economic stability. There was a gradual rise in production from 1969 to 1974. However, the land reforms were too radical and backfired in the end. The hopes of becoming a major oil exporter were unfulfilled; the reserves were overestimated, which resulted in the fact that the large sums of money being pumped into the project almost brought the country to bankruptcy. Also, the disappearance of anchovies in 1972 brought down fish exports. Foreign loans obtained for the agrarian reforms and large copper and oil projects increased the national debt.
Politically, Peru was also not as stable as most military dictatorships. Upon coming to power, Alvarado had imprisoned opposing politicians and suspended constitutional liberties. He disbanded other important political parties, and held no elections throughout his entire rule. He also censored the press, closed some radio stations and newspapers, and acquired control of some privately owned television stations. However, there wasn’t much actual repression and abuse of human rights, and political opposition did exist, often objecting to the government’s policies. The relatively premature end of Alvarado’s dictatorship when he was replaced by a new junta, is also a sign of the relative instability of his regime.
As mentioned, Alvarado’s government wasn’t very repressive, nor did it generally abuse human rights. There weren’t many cases of torture or execution. Asides from some political intolerance and its censorship of the media, there was little actual repression and human rights were generally maintained. In fact, the land reform and other socialist reforms actually attempted to raise the standards of life of the average Peruvian. Alvarado was sympathetic to the people, and therefore treated them relatively well.
Thus, Alvarado’s government is not an example of Belaunde’s paradox. It is true that he was very reformist, but his dictatorship was not very stable and orderly, and repression and abuse of basic human rights were generally absent during his regime.