Congress rejects the re-election of mayors and governors, sparking a broad political debate.

The recent rejection by Congress of the constitutional reform that allowed the reelection of mayors and regional governors has sparked a wide debate about the limits and possibilities of politics in the country. Despite having the support of 70 legislators during its second vote, the initiative did not reach the 87 votes necessary for its approval, raising questions about the future of local and regional representation. The proposal was mainly promoted by Fernando Rospigliosi, president of the Constitution Commission, who argued that the reelection of local authorities could contribute to greater professionalization of politics, as well as stability and institutional integrity in project execution. According to Rospigliosi, allowing mayors and governors with good performance to continue in office favored a more efficient and effective administration in public service. During the debate, several legislators from parties such as Fuerza Popular, Avanza País, Perú Libre, and Renovación Popular expressed their support for the reform, defending the idea that reelection should be a right for those who have demonstrated positive performance in their management. Martha Moyano, a representative of Fuerza Popular, argued that if the reelection of congress members was allowed, it should not be different for mayors and governors. Her comment, "Do we have more rights than they do?" raised a concern about equality of rights in politics. However, the rejection of the reform was not without controversy. From the Socialist Caucus, the proposal was criticized on the grounds that its approval could constitute an undemocratic act by ignoring and weakening regional movements, which are considered an essential part of political participation in the country. Silvana Robles, a legislator from this caucus, emphasized that the initial vote lacked legitimacy and raised concerns about the constitutionality of the process. Robles stressed that any constitutional reform must be debated and approved through a clear procedure in accordance with the Congress regulations. Distrust towards established powers seems to be a common thread in the opposition to the reform, with fears about the concentration of power in the hands of a few political leaders. As the debate progressed, it became evident that the issue of reelection was not only technical but also touched on sensitive issues related to democracy, representation, and the possibility of renewal in politics. The resistance to reelection may reflect a desire for change and a need for new voices and approaches to enter the realm of governance. The implications of this rejection extend beyond Congress. For many citizens, the possibility of mayors and governors continuing in their positions could have represented an opportunity to improve the continuity and effectiveness of local projects. However, it is clear that for others, the risk of perpetuating certain political figures in power was a valid concern. The failure of this reform could also indicate a strained political climate, where attempts to modernize and professionalize politics face cautious skepticism. The current situation highlights a significant challenge for political parties, which must navigate between the need for renewal and the desire to maintain stability and continuity in public management. Finally, this episode in Congress could be a catalyst for a broader dialogue about regional politics and the need to foster authentic and representative participation at all levels of government. As doors close on reelection, a space opens for deeper reflection on the type of democracy that citizens wish to build and strengthen in the future.