Jorge Coayla's proposal seeks to change the Law on Political Organizations.

In an electoral context marked by the constant search for greater representation and participation, Congressman Jorge Coayla, from the group Juntos por el Perú - Voces del Pueblo, has presented a bill that promises to generate extensive debate in the political arena. The initiative, identified as 8761/2024-CR, proposes to amend the Law on Political Organizations to allow candidates who have not resigned from their parties to run with other political organizations in the upcoming general, municipal, and regional elections. The proposal seeks to modify Article 24-B of Law 28094, arguing that it is essential to guarantee the right to be elected, a principle that has become crucial in the current context. In the statement of reasons, Coayla points out that this legislative change would not only expand options for citizens but also promote a more robust electoral competition, allowing those hindered by the internal structure of their parties to participate. Jorge Coayla emphasizes that the proposal is not merely an attempt to facilitate the entry of new candidates, but a response to the limitations many members face within their political organizations. In practice, this could mean that a citizen who, for various reasons, cannot participate in their party's primary elections would not be stripped of their right to run for public office. The project also considers various alternatives that have been discussed in the political realm, such as extending deadlines for resignation and affiliation, as well as the need for organizations to justify the exclusion of certain members from candidate lists. However, Coayla argues that these proposals, while valid, do not effectively address the issues of transparency and discrimination that may arise within parties. The proposal has generated diverse reactions in Congress. While some legislators support the idea of opening doors to greater political plurality, others warn of the potential risks of fragmentation and chaos in the electoral system. The concern lies in the fact that allowing these candidacies could facilitate the emergence of candidates who, without strong party backing, might dilute the quality of political debate. Amid this scenario, the prosecutor in the case has indicated that there is a sector in Congress that may be interested in having "the cases against criminal organizations 'broken'." This statement adds a disturbing nuance to the discussion, suggesting that politics and organized crime may have more complex interactions than perceived at first glance. The news raises questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the possibility that actors with dark interests could attempt to influence the election of representatives. Undoubtedly, the discussion on the modification of the Law on Political Organizations arrives at a crucial moment, as citizens seek answers and clarity in a political landscape overshadowed by scandals and distrust. Coayla's initiative could be a step towards inclusion, but it could also exacerbate existing tensions if not approached with seriousness and responsibility. Such proposals, which seek to challenge the foundations of a traditional political system, require in-depth analysis and broad consensus. The question that remains is whether Congress will rise to the occasion and whether the strengthening of democracy will truly be prioritized over the particular interests of some political actors. In conclusion, the future of Jorge Coayla's bill will depend on Congress's ability to debate it openly and transparently. The possibility of candidates being able to run without resigning from their party could be a breath of fresh air for the political system, but only if managed in a way that genuinely benefits citizens and not hidden interests. Civil society, for its part, must remain vigilant and active in the face of these changes to ensure that the decisions made reflect a true commitment to democracy and justice.