COORDINADORA NACIONAL DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DEL PERÚ Peru’s Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos A Case Study of Coalition Building by Coletta A. Youngers and Susan C. Peacock eru’s Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos1 (National Human Rights Coordinator) is one of the most successful country-based human rights coalitions Pin Latin America. An umbrella organization, the Coordinadora encompasses most of the country’s leading traditional human rights groups. It has over sixty member organizations. Organized in two sections, this case study seeks to answer two questions: How has the Coordinadora been able to remain unified, to carry out successful advocacy campaigns, and to become a prominent civil society actor in times of extreme violence and major political transition? What lessons can be learned from the experiences that the Coordinadora has had that can inform other civil society coalitions as they seek to carry out effective advocacy work? The first section of the case study summarizes the history of the human rights A WOLA Special Report movement in Peru. It traces how the Coordinadora came to be and highlights major accomplishments and challenges over the first fifteen years of its existence (1985- October 2002 2000). It identifies key actors in the vanguard of civil society efforts to put movement and the roles that each played Peru back on a democratic path. in its evolution. It tells the story of courageous efforts to defend human rights The second section looks at the lessons in the face of both extreme political learned from the Coordinadora’s violence and an abusive and corrupt coalition-building efforts over the years. regime. It describes how the Coordinadora It lists sixteen characteristics of the emerged, along with other non- Coordinadora that contribute to its governmental organizations, at the effectiveness as a coalition. PART 1. Peru’s Human Rights Movement History and Key Actors strike. Official figures indicate that 3,500 The National Strike held on July 19, 1977 people were dismissed from their jobs over Socioeconomic rights was a watershed event in the history of the the next two weeks. Unions and popular Peruvian human rights movement. The organizations put the figure at 5,000.5 were at the heart of military regime of General Francisco Morales the movement that Bermúdez (1975-1980) had adopted a harsh This loss of jobs had a significant emerged during the structural adjustment program that led to an galvanizing effect, generating even greater increase of approximately forty-five percent social discontent. In the two years that 1970s. People united, in the price of basic food products and to a followed, strikes swept the country and first and foremost, to dramatic deterioration in living standards.2 A were met with military repression, putting strike was called to protest increasing poverty human rights issues at the center of the improve the lives of and the repressive tactics of the government. national debate. This combination of Peru’s poor. Progressive political parties, labor unions and economic desperation and repression a vast array of grassroots and civil society became the principal catalyst for the organizations took to the streets in one of the formation of local human rights groups largest protests in the nation’s history. around the country that had the support of the progressive sector of the Catholic Socioeconomic rights were at the heart of church and leftwing political activists. the movement that emerged during this period. People united, first and foremost, to Peru is the birthplace of liberation theology. improve the lives of Peru’s poor. Many from the progressive sector of the Catholic church – bishops, priests, nuns and The military’s response to the strike was laity – seek to live out a “preferential option harsh. According to the Centro de Estudios for the poor” and participated in efforts y Publicaciones (Center of Studies and around the 1977 strike. Publications), the response was “one of the worst waves of repression unleashed by the With the help of the Comisión Episcopal de government. With it, the government tried Acción Social (CEAS, Episcopal to behead the union movement, intimidate Commission for Social Action), parishes its leaders, and deliver a hard blow to the around the country began providing entire popular movement.”3 At least material and legal assistance to detained sixteen Peruvians lost their lives as a result workers and their families. They also of the government’s actions.4 Scores more sought to raise the consciousness of the were wounded, and an estimated 1,500 population, organizing discussions on the people were detained. plight of workers and other activities to educate people about human rights, Two days after the strike, the government socioeconomic justice and related issues. decreed that the public and private sectors were authorized to fire any employee who As the primary agent of social activism had not gone to work on the day of the within the institutional church, CEAS 2 Peru’s Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos October 2002 promoted the formation of local human repression of strikes and other social rights organizations and provided mobilizations and in order to address technical assistance to that end. The pressing socioeconomic needs. The names of these organizations varied, but CODEHs brought together people from they were most often referred to as vicarías different sectors of civil society – or Comisiones de la Pastoral de la Dignidad government officials, teachers, lawyers, Humana (Commissions of Pastoral Work social workers, psychologists, leaders of for Human Dignity). unions and grassroots organizations, and sometimes political parties – to confront In 1977, CEAS opened a human rights human rights issues of concern to the local office. Human rights became part of its population.7 Most of the committees were institutional work plan with two main independent of the Catholic Church, areas of action. The first involved though often religious were key members of receiving complaints and testimonies, the CODEHs and local bishops sometimes documenting abuses and disseminating lent their political support. information and analysis via publications. Direct work with victims of human rights The original CODEHs combined legal violations and their families, consisting defense and human rights education, and The original CODEHs primarily of social and economic assistance also utilized local media outlets to address and legal aid, was the second. human rights issues. The range of strategies combined legal and activities developed at this time was defense and human In 1978, the staff from the CEAS human later adopted by the larger human rights rights education, and rights office began meeting every two weeks movement. For many Peruvians, the with a group of religious who worked in CODEHs were their first experience of also utilized local shantytowns. In these meetings, they would working in a diverse coalition. media outlets to share information and experiences, and reflect on the role of the church in The Peruvian left also played an important address human rights confronting the country’s structural role in the development of Peru’s human issues. The range of socioeconomic and political inequities. The rights movement. Unlike the Catholic strategies and activities group grew and in 1979 the Coordinación de Church, most left-wing political parties did la Pastoral de Dignidad Humana not take up the human rights banner per developed at this time (Coordinating Body for Pastoral Work for se, considering it “bourgeois.” Nonetheless, was later adopted by Human Dignity) was formed. The they shared the analysis that the country’s Coordinación became a space where human rights crisis was rooted in deep the larger human common pastoral responses to human rights poverty and inequity. rights movement. issues were shaped and later moved through official church structures by way of CEAS.6 Left-wing party activists worked at the community level with Peruvian workers Beginning in 1980, CEAS organized who were victims of government repression annual national meetings for all church- after the 1977 strike – visiting jails, related human rights groups in the country. providing assistance to the detainees and These meetings became a central means for their families, and the like. Many became sharing information and developing active members of grassroots organizations, advocacy strategies to confront Peru’s including CODEHs. As with the evolving human rights crisis. Groups in progressive church, left-wing political which pastoral agents participated were parties helped spawn a generation of included in the meetings even when they human rights activists. did not have formal links to the church. In 1979, prominent activists from progressive Local groups called Comités de Derechos sectors of the Catholic and evangelical Humanos (CODEHs, Human Rights churches and left-wing political parties Committees) were springing up across the joined together to form the Comisión country in response to the political Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CONADEH, Washington Office on Latin America October 2002 3 National Commission for Human Rights). In 1984 another coalition-building CONADEH was an attempt to form a initiative emerged, based out of Lima. The national coalition of diverse groups and Comisión de Derechos de la Persona y individuals to work together to defend Construcción de la Paz (CODEPP, human rights. It was intended to have a Commission for the Rights of the Person national presence and to serve as a point of and Peacebuilding) was a broad-based reference for the CODEHs and other local network of high profile individuals who human rights groups emerging around the could draw attention to the human rights country. Local affiliates were set up in concerns of grassroots church activists. An Ayacucho and Huancayo. effort was made to involve church and political leaders from both the left and the As was the case with most other groups at right in order to move beyond the the time, CONADEH’s human rights polarized debate on human rights.