The sentencing of Pedro Castillo, once known as the “president of the poor” in Peru, to more than eleven years in prison marks an extremely critical period in the country’s political trajectory. The Peruvian Supreme Court’s decision on November 27, 2025, convicted Castillo of “conspiracy to commit insurrection” in connection with his attempt in December 2022 to dissolve the national legislature and rule by decree. This attempt was widely regarded as an “autogolpe,” or a self-coup.[i]
Castillo’s past and political rise have profoundly shaped how both his presidency and eventual downfall are perceived. A rural primary school teacher and unionist of humble origins, Castillo won the 2021 election without any prior political experience, becoming the representative of a reaction against the established order in Peruvian politics. Close to the people, Castillo cultivated an image of being one of the people throughout the election campaign. His voter base consisted mainly of people living in rural and poor areas of the country; this class-based social divide also determined the main axis of the tensions Castillo experienced with Congress during his term.[ii]
By December 2022, Castillo faced a third impeachment process amid allegations of corruption. In response, he announced that Congress had been dissolved, the judiciary had been temporarily suspended, and he would govern the country by decree. Immediately after this move, Congress removed him from office that same day; Castillo was arrested while attempting to seek asylum at a foreign embassy, and his government collapsed within hours.[iii]
In the case brought against him, prosecutors initially sought a prison sentence of up to thirty-four years on charges of rebellion, abuse of authority, and disruption of public order.[iv] However, the Court acquitted Castillo of the charges of abuse of authority and disruption of public order, convicting him only of “conspiracy to commit rebellion” and significantly reducing his sentence. In addition to the prison sentence, Castillo was banned from holding public office for two years and ordered to pay compensation along with the defendants.
The decision affected not only Castillo but also his former ministers. Some ministers, including the former Prime Minister, received the same sentence; one of them, Betssy Chávez, sought refuge in a foreign embassy, leading Peru to sever diplomatic relations with that country. This situation demonstrates that the Castillo case has consequences not only in terms of domestic politics but also in terms of regional diplomatic balances.[v]
These developments, when considered alongside the fact that almost all of Peru’s former presidents in recent years have been tried or convicted for corruption, abuse of power, or constitutional violations, make the country’s institutional weakness and political instability much more apparent. The frequent removal, prosecution, or imprisonment of presidents demonstrates that the political system is unable to produce stability and that the balance between the executive and legislative branches lacks institutional safeguards.
When viewed within the broader context of Latin America, this picture also reveals the recurring nature of political tensions based on a crisis of representation, institutional insecurity, and social inequality. Sentencing decisions made in the name of protecting the institutional order may appear positive from the perspective of the rule of law; however, from the perspective of socio-economically marginalized groups, there is a high risk that such decisions will be perceived as “elite revenge.” This situation further weakens the bond of representation between the state and the people and erodes democratic legitimacy.
It is clear that such a political cycle undermines Peru’s foreign policy capacity, international credibility, and predictability in the eyes of its economic partners. The rapid spread of political crises to diplomatic channels and regional networks once again highlights the permeability between domestic politics and foreign policy in Latin America.[vi] At a deeper theoretical level, the Castillo case is a powerful example of how formal democratic institutions—namely, the constitution, separation of powers, and rule of law—can clash with material social demands, such as inequality, representation, and participation. As long as social exclusion persists, the weakening of institutional legitimacy is inevitable; when institutional legitimacy weakens, political actors’ tendencies to exceed constitutional limits increase, deepening crises. Judicial decisions produce legal outcomes but are not sufficient on their own to resolve social divisions.
Therefore, Castillo’s conviction should be seen not so much as the end of an era but as a sign that Peru has entered a more complex and possibly more polarized political phase. Unless comprehensive reforms are implemented to reduce inequalities, strengthen representative mechanisms, address regional and cultural imbalances, and restore trust in institutions, the social dynamics that brought Castillo to power will continue to persist.
[i] “Peru’s ousted ‘president of the poor’ gets 11-year sentence for rebellion”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/27/perus-ousted-president-of-the-poor-gets-11-year-sentence-for-rebellion, (Date Accessed: 28.11.2025).
[ii] “Former Peru President Pedro Castillo sentenced to 11.5 years in prison”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/27/former-peru-president-pedro-castillo-sentenced-to-11-5-years-in-prison, (Date Accessed: 28.11.2025).
[iii] “Former Peruvian President sentenced to 11 years in prison for attempting coup”, EFE, https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2025-11-27/former-peruvian-president-sentenced-to-11-years-in-prison-for-attempting-coup/, (Erişim Tarihi: 28.11.2025).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] “Former Peruvian President Pedro Castillo sentenced for conspiracy”, The Telegraph, https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/world/article/former-peruvian-president-pedro-castillo-21211484.php, (Date Accessed: 28.11.2025).
