As Peru’s presidential election on April 12 approaches, recent voting intention simulations suggest a pattern that Peruvians have seen before: right-wing candidates competing closely with left-wing contenders, with no strong center.
The image resembles 2021, when pre-election polls failed to capture the eventual winner, Pedro Castillo. In the final weeks, Castillo ranked between sixth and eighth place in major surveys; in some cases, he barely registered. Yet on election day, with less than 3% in polling averages, he secured 18.9% of the vote and advanced to the runoff.
What happened then, and what may be happening again, is not simply polling error. It reflects political fragmentation in a socially imbalanced Peru. With nearly 34 million people, roughly four out of five Peruvians live in urban areas, but still close to 7 million live in rural areas.
These are not just geographic distinctions. Urban voters are divided, exposed to large volumes of information and reactive to short-term campaign dynamics. Rural voters, by contrast, operate within tighter social structures, and the cohesion of this electorate can be decisive.
In 2021, the power of the rural vote was on full display. In a field of 18 candidates, it was not the fragmented urban vote that defined the outcome of the first round, but rather the consolidation of rural support behind a single candidacy. Castillo’s strength came from the southern and central highlands: Huancavelica, Apurímac, Ayacucho, Puno, and Cusco, regions characterized at the time by high rurality and poverty rates above 30% on average.
Five years later, the picture has only partially changed. Poverty has declined in some of these regions, particularly in Huancavelica and Ayacucho; however, the structural conditions of rurality remain largely intact. Geographic isolation, limited access to services, and weak state presence continue to define everyday life.
At the same time, the map of poverty has evolved. According to recent data, the five regions with the highest poverty rates include Cajamarca, Loreto, Puno, Pasco, and Huánuco. Together, these regions represent nearly half of Peru’s rural population, or around 3 million people.
This matters more than ever in 2026. The number of presidential candidates in 2026 has doubled to 36 from 18 in 2021, deepening divides and lessening alignment among voters, particularly in urban areas. In such a scenario, even a relatively small but cohesive electorate can determine who advances to the second round.
The key question, then, is not only which candidate leads in the polls, but who is able to consolidate the rural vote. Beyond electoral strategy, what these regions share is a common experience: a government that remains distant and insufficient, and a sense of exclusion from the economic growth Peru has experienced in previous decades. These are not merely economic gaps; they are social and political fractures.
This context presents both a challenge and an opportunity, particularly for right-wing candidates, who are not typically associated with strong social agendas in the eyes of the electorate. Keiko Fujimori and Rafael López Aliaga, currently among the leading contenders, offer contrasting social approaches despite occupying a similar ideological space. Fujimori proposes strengthening and reorganizing existing social programs, incorporating community-based mechanisms such as ollas comunes into formal food security strategies, and others. López Aliaga, on the other hand, emphasizes infrastructure investment and economic growth as indirect pathways to social improvement.
This divergence reflects a broader fragmentation, not only of candidates, but of policy visions. Even within the right, the role of the state in addressing social needs is contested. Ultimately, beyond ideological divides, the Peruvian electoral process cannot afford to sideline its social realities. Nearly 70% of the workforce remains informal, and around one in four Peruvians lives in poverty. These are not marginal issues; they are defining features of the country.
The 2026 election will not be decided solely by political messaging or campaign strategy. It will be shaped by whether candidates are able to engage with the lived realities of those who have historically remained on the margins.
In a highly fragmented election, it is often the most structurally cohesive segments of society that define the outcome. In Peru, that may once again be the rural electorate.
Fabiola Ventura Pacheco is a fellow at Global Americans and a co-founder of Perú sin Brechas.
