{"id":2852945,"date":"2025-09-24T08:47:45","date_gmt":"2025-09-24T13:47:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=2852945"},"modified":"2025-09-24T09:19:47","modified_gmt":"2025-09-24T14:19:47","slug":"a-review-of-caviar-by-eduardo-dargent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/a-review-of-caviar-by-eduardo-dargent\/","title":{"rendered":"A review of \u201cCaviar\u201d, by Eduardo Dargent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eduardo Dargent, a prominent Peruvian political scientist, has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the term “caviar”+<\/span><\/span> in his book, Caviar: Del pituco de izquierda al multiverso progre (Caviar: from the leftist posh to the progressive multiverse)<\/em>. In this work, Dargent explores the term\u2019s origins, evolution, and contemporary use, particularly in the context of Peruvian politics. His study offers significant insights into the role of technical expertise and principled governance, highlighting the challenges faced by evidence-informed policy. The book offers a lens through which we can better understand the intersection of politics, social issues, and their effects on public policy, particularly within an increasingly divided society.<\/p>\n

My reflections in “<\/em>Playing the Long Game: Politics, Elite Bargaining, and Change Over 20 Years in Peru<\/a>“<\/em> resonate with Dargent’s observations. Back then I underscored that policy change is rarely linear and that the relationship between evidence and policy is inherently complex. Politics, rather than research alone, play a crucial, and central, role in shaping policy outcomes in the long term. We look down on politics at our peril.<\/p>\n

This perspective aligns closely with Dargent’s nuanced critique of the technocratic elite’s detachment from political realities.<\/p>\n

His analysis suggests that for evidence-informed policies to be sustained, they must be embedded within the political fabric of the country, requiring not only technical expertise but also political engagement. Navigating elite bargaining and shifting political dynamics is vital for the longevity and success of progressive policies.<\/p>\n

I remember a discussion I had about a local think tank with a Central American political leader some years ago: \u201cIf they [the think tank], want to influence policies they should create a political party\u201d. According to Dargent, technocrats \u2013 progressive technocrats in this case \u2013 failed to develop the political capital necessary to sustain reforms.<\/p>\n

Although the book focuses on Peru, I believe it is relevant to our efforts to understand the changing political landscape and the role evidence plays in policymaking.<\/p>\n

Understanding the “Caviar” phenomenon according to Dargent<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The term “caviar” first emerged during the Valent\u00edn Paniagua transitional government (2000-2001), a period marked by the fall of the Fujimori regime amidst significant political upheaval. The label was coined and popularised by journalist Aldo Mari\u00e1tegui to replace the earlier term “c\u00edvico.” It referred to “pituco de izquierda”<\/strong>\u2014members of the upper-middle or high social classes who espoused social rights, yet were perceived as disconnected from the everyday realities of the populations they claimed to represent. These individuals were criticised for their privileged lifestyles, which made their advocacy for social causes appear disingenuous. This early usage of “caviar” reflected a broader tension within Peruvian politics, where a political elite with limited engagement from the wider public often framed discussions about social issues.<\/p>\n

Dargent highlights that this initial usage occurred in a less politically polarised context, marking the beginning of a period (roughly 2000-2016\/17) in which \u201ceconomically liberal\u201d figures coexisted with those more focused on social issues within government cabinets. Over time, however, the meaning of “caviar” expanded and became more blurred, particularly as political polarisation intensified. Figures such as Vladimir Cerr\u00f3n, a left-wing leader of former President Castillo\u2019s party, began using the term in the run-up to the 2021 presidential elections to refer to anyone to their right, while Rafael L\u00f3pez Aliaga, a right-wing politician and currently mayor of Lima, applied it to those on the left, effectively broadening the label\u2019s scope. As Dargent notes, the term eventually came to encompass a broader range of people, including “middle-class professionals on the left”<\/strong> and some sectors of the right that embraced modern social issues, such as gender equality and freedom of expression, as exemplified by the “Per\u00fa 21” phenomenon\u2014a media outlet championing these causes.<\/p>\n

The much more aggressive interpretation of the term was weaponised across civil society and littered hitherto friendly WhatsApp groups across the country.<\/p>\n

For Dargent, the contemporary “caviar” is a much more nuanced and diverse group. These individuals, ranging from the centre-left to a liberal-egalitarian right, share a commitment to human rights, democracy, gender equality, and social justice<\/strong>. In this broader sense, “caviar” refers to a political and social cohort that, despite being pejoratively labelled, advocates for social progress in ways that challenge the rigid ideological divisions of the past. This understanding moves beyond a simplistic left-right dichotomy, embracing a progressive commitment to human freedoms, redistributive policies, and educational reforms.<\/p>\n

The nature and weakening of “caviar” power<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Dargent challenges the common portrayal of “caviar” as a powerful, centralised political entity with conspiratorial undertones. Critics like Rafael L\u00f3pez Aliaga and Vladimir Cerr\u00f3n often depict “caviar” as a shadowy elite pulling the strings behind the scenes \u2013 in a tone similar to that used by Trump and his acolytes when referring to the \u201cdeep state\u201d. Dargent dismisses this view, arguing that “caviar” power has always operated more like a decentralised network, lacking the hierarchies typically associated with a political party or, crucially, strong electoral representation.<\/p>\n

The influence of the “caviar” group has primarily been felt in:<\/p>\n