Eduardo Dargent, a prominent Peruvian political scientist, has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the term “caviar”+ in his book, Caviar: Del pituco de izquierda al multiverso progre (Caviar: from the leftist posh to the progressive multiverse). In this work, Dargent explores the term’s 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.
My reflections in “Playing the Long Game: Politics, Elite Bargaining, and Change Over 20 Years in Peru“ 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.
This perspective aligns closely with Dargent’s nuanced critique of the technocratic elite’s detachment from political realities.
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.
I remember a discussion I had about a local think tank with a Central American political leader some years ago: “If they [the think tank], want to influence policies they should create a political party”. According to Dargent, technocrats – progressive technocrats in this case – failed to develop the political capital necessary to sustain reforms.
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.
Understanding the “Caviar” phenomenon according to Dargent
The term “caviar” first emerged during the Valentín 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 Mariátegui to replace the earlier term “cívico.” It referred to “pituco de izquierda”—members 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.
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 “economically liberal” 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 Cerrón, a left-wing leader of former President Castillo’s party, began using the term in the run-up to the 2021 presidential elections to refer to anyone to their right, while Rafael López Aliaga, a right-wing politician and currently mayor of Lima, applied it to those on the left, effectively broadening the label’s scope. As Dargent notes, the term eventually came to encompass a broader range of people, including “middle-class professionals on the left” and some sectors of the right that embraced modern social issues, such as gender equality and freedom of expression, as exemplified by the “Perú 21” phenomenon—a media outlet championing these causes.
The much more aggressive interpretation of the term was weaponised across civil society and littered hitherto friendly WhatsApp groups across the country.
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. 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.
The nature and weakening of “caviar” power
Dargent challenges the common portrayal of “caviar” as a powerful, centralised political entity with conspiratorial undertones. Critics like Rafael López Aliaga and Vladimir Cerrón often depict “caviar” as a shadowy elite pulling the strings behind the scenes – in a tone similar to that used by Trump and his acolytes when referring to the “deep state”. 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.
The influence of the “caviar” group has primarily been felt in:
- Technical roles within the Executive branch, particularly in ministries focused on social issues, such as the Ministry of Women, Development, Education, and Foreign Affairs.
- Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which have been crucial in advancing progressive agendas.
- Journalism, where many outlets and journalists have actively supported human rights and anti-corruption initiatives.
According to Dargent, this group has been pivotal in advancing policies related to human rights, gender equality, and anti-corruption, which were especially important in a country struggling with deep-seated corruption and inequality. Dargent argues that without the influence of the “caviar” group, advances in human rights for marginalised communities, such as women and indigenous populations, would not have been realised. Furthermore, their work on anti-corruption initiatives helped set Peru apart from other Latin American countries facing similar challenges – at least for a while.
The rise of “caviar” power was supported by a favourable international context. Following the Cold War, both the US and Europe strongly supported democratic movements, human rights, and policies promoting equality. International bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights played a key role in shaping domestic policies in Latin America, providing support for the implementation of democratic and constitutional norms. This external backing ensured that certain democratic standards were upheld, offering a “veto capacity” that shaped Peru’s political trajectory.
During the heyday of “caviar” power international development funders and agencies operating in Peru ‘took notice of their grantees’ new powers and celebrated them with features on their websites, annual reports, invitations to join global project boards and present at international conferences, and by offering more funding.’
The media was largely supportive, too. ‘The new, progressive digital media was happy to adopt what these experts said was the absolute truth. And for the traditional media, a rights-based agenda was acceptable if it also promoted a pro-market agenda.’
However, as Dargent notes, the decline of the international consensus — along with shifting political dynamics in the US and Europe – has weakened the influence of the “caviar” group. Additionally, the erosion of democratic institutions like the Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman’s Office) and the Constitutional Tribunal — once seen as pillars of democratic governance — has further diminished the “caviar” group’s ability to influence policy.
This is playing out across the word as international support for progressive causes is weaning and local organisations are struggling to find or defend their space in policy communities.
Self-criticism
In the past, I have laid the blame for many recent policy setbacks plainly at their doorstep – I have also accepted being part of the group, at one time or another. Dargent is more nuanced. He emphasises the need for self-criticism within the “caviar” group.
Critics argue that members of this group often exhibited moral superiority, maintaining a distance from the political realities of everyday Peruvians – this is reminiscent to the “cultural disconnect” that King and Crewe blame for policy blunders . Their reluctance or inability to engage in electoral politics and build coalitions with other political actors has made it difficult for them to broaden their base of support. While their arguments were grounded in expertise and principles, they have been criticised for being disconnected from the practicalities of political engagement, which require winning over the majority. This is an attitude consistent with their explicit rejection and even contempt for politics.
The threat of “anti-caviar” movements
Dargent also cautions against the political weaponisation of the “caviar” label, where progressive policies are undermined by branding them as elitist or out of touch with the people. Terms like “mafia caviar” are used to discredit those advocating for democratic values and constitutional principles. When adherence to legal norms and evidence-based approaches is dismissed as ideological or elitist, it creates space for political movements driven by short-term interests or populist agendas.
This is playing out across the world where think tanks report greater political polarisation that affect their work.
Parallels to global debates: progressive and “woke” politics
The debates surrounding the “caviar” phenomenon in Peru draw striking parallels to similar discussions globally, particularly around progressive politics and the rise of “woke” culture. In many countries, labels such as “progressive,” “liberal,” or “woke” are now being used pejoratively to describe individuals or movements that champion causes such as gender equality, racial justice, and environmental sustainability. These terms are often weaponised by critics to undermine these causes, portraying them as elitist or disconnected from the broader public’s concerns. In the UK and the US, for example, “woke” is used to characterise a certain strain of progressive politics that is perceived by some as excessively moralistic or out of touch with working-class or conservative values.
Much like the “caviar” label in Peru, these terms are often applied broadly to a range of political and social movements, many of which advocate for human rights, diversity, and social justice. However, the rise of populism and increasing political polarisation in Western democracies has led to these progressive ideals being actively attacked, both by the right and, in some cases, by left-wing populists. Right-wing populists typically portray “woke” politics as a threat to traditional values, while some left-wing populists critique the “woke” establishment for its failure to address economic inequality and systemic power imbalances.
The parallels between the “caviar” phenomenon in Peru and the “woke” debates in other parts of the world suggest a broader, global challenge: the tension between progressive ideals and the realities of political engagement. Just as Dargent critiques the “caviar” group for their perceived detachment from political realities in Peru, similar criticisms are levelled against “woke” politics for being out of touch with ordinary voters. In both cases, the challenge lies in how progressive movements can remain true to their principles while also engaging effectively with the broader public and the realities of politics.
Implications for evidence-informed policy
Although Dargent does not explicitly address “evidence-informed policy” in his work, his analysis offers key insights that resonate with the challenges of evidence-based policymaking in the Peruvian context and beyond:
- Reliance on expertise and principles: The “caviar” group prioritised constitutional principles, human rights, and social equality. Their commitment to policy grounded in legal frameworks, international standards, and institutional stability aligns closely with the principles of evidence-informed policy, which emphasises the role of expert knowledge in shaping effective governance.
- Institutional strengthening: The “caviar” group played a crucial role in building and fortifying institutions like the Defensoría del Pueblo and the Constitutional Tribunal, ensuring that the judiciary upheld constitutional norms. This focus on strengthening institutions is at the heart of evidence-informed policy, which requires robust, capable institutions to implement and monitor interventions effectively.
- Targeted policy interventions: The group’s focus on measurable, actionable goals was delivered through targeted interventions, often informed by empirical evidence. This reflects a technocratic approach to policymaking.
- The risks of disconnection: Dargent’s critique that the “caviar” group was often disconnected from everyday politics highlights a crucial challenge for evidence-informed policy: the need to bridge the gap between expert knowledge and public understanding. Effective policymaking requires not just technical expertise, but also political engagement and public support.
In conclusion, Dargent’s analysis of the “caviar” group highlights the complexities of evidence-informed policy in an increasingly polarised political environment. The decline of the “caviar” group, tied to shifting political and international contexts, highlights the risks of separating technical expertise and principled governance from broader political engagement and public support.
His work serves as a cautionary tale about the fragility of evidence-based approaches in the absence of robust political and institutional support, warning that the erosion of democratic norms and institutional integrity could undermine long-term social progress in Peru and beyond. Drawing parallels with global political dynamics, the lessons learned from Peru’s experience resonate with the broader challenges faced by progressive movements worldwide as they seek to balance principle with pragmatism.