Dinero, poder y política: financiamiento electoral como clave en la influencia de Odebrecht en Perú y México

Abstract

espanolEn la acualidad, Odebrecht es el caso mas emblematico de corrupcion en America Latina, involucrando a decenas de politicos, empresarios y obras publicas de paises como Peru y Mexico. Sin embargo, el problema no solo se trata de corrupcion, sino que detras hay un sistema poco conocido, donde la preocupacion tiene que ver con las “reglas de juego” y sus “jugadores”. Por ello, este articulo pretende explicar por que Odebrecht pudo influir en las decisiones de los Estados peruano y mexicano para adjudicarse contrataciones publicas. En esa linea, se sostiene que fueron por tres razones. En primer lugar, su entrega oportuna era atractiva para los politicos, porque tenian eficacia para terminar las obras antes de que acaben su mandato; y por ende, puedan inaugurar las con un incentivo adicional (“lado bueno de la empresa”). En segundo lugar, otro factor fue su influencia en el Estado, porque crearon una red de corrupcion con las esferas mas altas de Gobierno a traves del financiamiento electoral, sobornos, lobbies y constructoras locales para ganar licitaciones (“lado oscuro de la empresa”). El financiamiento electoral resulta clave, porque creaba las bases para luego armar una red peligrosa a fin de buscar mas poder en la politica a traves del dinero. En tercer lugar, un ultimo factor fue la debilidad institucional, porque la firma brasilena aprovecho un contexto de leyes “sastres”, que no solo evitaban fiscalizaciones y rendicion de cuentas, sino que facilitaba la corrupcion como si fuesen hechas a las medidas del “cliente”. Finalmente, se explican estos tres factores a partir de dos megaproyectos en Peru y Mexico: Metro de Lima Linea 1 y Refineria Miguel Hidalgo Tula I. EnglishCurrently, Odebrecht is the most emblematic case of corruption in Latin America, involving dozens of politicians, businessmen and public works, including Peru and Mexico. However, the problem is not only about corruption, but it is behind a little known system, where the concern has to do with the rules of the game and their players. Therefore, this article aims to explain why Odebrecht was able to influence Peruvian and Mexican states’ decisions about awarding public contracts. In that line, it is argued that they were for three reasons. First, their timely delivery was attractive to politicians, because they were effective in finishing the works before they finished their term; and, therefore, they can inaugurate them with an additional incentive (good side of the company). Second, another factor was its influence on the State, because they created a corruption net with the highest levels of government through electoral financing, bribes, lobbies and local constructions to win tenders (dark side of the company). In particular, electoral financing was key, because it creates the basis for later building a dangerous network in order to seek more power in politics through money. Third, a final factor was institutional weakness, because the Brazilian firm took advantage of a context of tailor laws that not only avoided audits and accountability, but also facilitated corruption as if they were made to the measures of the client . Finally, it explains these three factors from two megaprojects in Peru and Mexico: Metro de Lima Line 1 and Miguel Hidalgo Tula I Refinery.