The votes cast by Peruvian citizens must be respected
Desde el centro histórico de Lima, el partido Juntos Por el Perú trazó en público los contornos de lo que sería —y no sería— un eventual gobierno de Roberto Sánchez. Al descartar explícitamente a Antauro Humala de cualquier rol ministerial o asesor, la dirigencia partidaria ofreció una señal tanto a sus propios votantes como al resto del espectro político: hay figuras cuyo peso en las urnas no garantiza un lugar en el poder. En ese mismo movimiento, el partido reafirmó su compromiso de indultar a Pedro Castillo, dibujando con claridad las lealtades que sí está dispuesto a sostener.
- El nombre de Antauro Humala había comenzado a circular con suficiente fuerza como para obligar a una negación pública y directa desde la sede del partido.
- Zunini no solo descartó a Humala como ministro, sino también como asesor, cerrando cualquier puerta que pudiera haber quedado entreabierta.
- El secretario general insistió en que el partido no está negociando repartos de carteras ministeriales, sino concentrado en que los votos ciudadanos sean respetados.
- Al mismo tiempo, el partido ratificó que indultaría a Pedro Castillo si llega al gobierno, presentándolo no como concesión política sino como postura declarada y pública.
- El doble mensaje dejó en claro qué figuras están dentro y cuáles fuera, trazando fronteras políticas en tiempo real y frente a las cámaras.
Desde la sede de Juntos Por el Perú en el Jirón Tarma, en el centro de Lima, el secretario general Ernesto Zunini salió a desmentir un rumor que había ganado suficiente tracción como para exigir respuesta: Antauro Humala no sería ministro ni asesor en un eventual gobierno de Roberto Sánchez. La negación fue tan explícita como la circulación del rumor lo requería.
Zunini encuadró la aclaración dentro de las prioridades del partido: en este momento no existe ningún reparto de carteras ministeriales. Lo que importa, dijo, es garantizar que los votos de los ciudadanos peruanos sean respetados. El tipo de negociaciones de trastienda que suelen acompañar las campañas era precisamente lo que su partido quería evitar.
Al descartar a Humala por su nombre, Zunini enviaba una señal clara: la popularidad en ciertos sectores no garantiza un lugar en el poder. La declaración decía tanto sobre lo que el partido no haría como sobre lo que sí estaba dispuesto a hacer.
En ese mismo espacio, Zunini reafirmó el compromiso de indultar a Pedro Castillo si el partido ganaba las elecciones, subrayando que se haría respetando el debido proceso. No era una negociación secreta, insistió: era política declarada. El mensaje final fue nítido: Humala, fuera; Castillo, dentro. Las fronteras del proyecto político se dibujaban en vivo, desde el centro histórico de Lima.
From the campaign headquarters on Jirón Tarma in central Lima, Ernesto Zunini, the general secretary of Juntos Por el Perú, moved quickly to distance his party from a figure whose name had begun circulating in political circles. Antauro Humala would not serve as a minister in any government led by Roberto Sánchez, Zunini said flatly. He would not serve as an advisor either. The statement was direct enough to suggest the rumor had gained enough traction to warrant a public denial.
Zunini framed the clarification within a larger argument about his party's priorities. Right now, he explained, there is no dividing up of ministerial posts happening at all. The focus, he insisted, remains on something more fundamental: ensuring that the votes cast by Peruvian citizens are respected. This was not the moment for backroom negotiations over who gets which cabinet seat. That kind of horse-trading, Zunini suggested, was precisely what his party wanted to avoid.
The denial carried weight because Antauro Humala carries weight in Peruvian politics—the kind that comes from controversy and a devoted following. By naming him explicitly and ruling him out explicitly, Zunini was signaling to voters and to rival political camps that Juntos Por el Perú intended to keep its distance from certain figures, no matter how much support they might command in certain quarters. The statement was as much about what the party would not do as what it would.
At the same time, Zunini used the opportunity to reaffirm another commitment that had become central to his party's platform: if Juntos Por el Perú won the election and formed a government, they would pardon Pedro Castillo. The former president, currently ensnared in legal proceedings, would be freed—though Zunini was careful to note that this would happen while respecting due process. The party had never hidden this position, he said. It was not a secret negotiation or a backroom deal. It was stated policy.
The dual message was clear: Juntos Por el Perú wanted to be seen as a party that would respect democratic outcomes and the rule of law, while also standing by figures it considered politically aligned. Humala was out. Castillo was in. The boundaries were being drawn in real time, in front of the cameras, from party headquarters in Lima's historic center.
Citas Notables
We have a priority: that citizen votes be respected. We are not participating in any distribution of ministries. I can tell you that in an eventual government of ours, Antauro Humala will not be a minister.— Ernesto Zunini, general secretary of Juntos Por el Perú
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Zunini need to say this now? Why not wait until after the election?
Because the rumor was already out there. If you don't deny it, people assume it's true. He's trying to control the narrative before it hardens.
But doesn't the denial itself suggest Humala was being considered?
Maybe. Or maybe someone else floated the idea to test the waters, and Zunini is shutting it down. Either way, he's making a choice about who's acceptable and who isn't.
What's the difference between Humala and Castillo in his eyes?
Castillo is their candidate, their political project. Humala is someone else's project—controversial, divisive. Zunini is saying: we'll stand by our own, but we won't absorb yours.
Does the emphasis on "respecting the vote" mean they're worried about losing?
Or they're worried about being seen as just another party that makes deals before the people have spoken. It's a way of saying: let's get elected first, then we'll talk about who does what.
And the Castillo pardon—is that a promise or a threat?
It's a promise to his base and a signal to his opponents. He's saying: this is non-negotiable for us. If you vote for us, you know what you're getting.