非营利组织乐施会的一项分析发现，秘鲁前1%的人群在2019年至2025年间获得了该国新增财富的42%。
The top 1 percent in Peru captured 42 percent of all new wealth generated between 2019 and 2025, an analysis by the nonprofit group Oxfam has found.
该报告周二发布，凸显出南美国家日益加剧的不平等现象，并引发了关于政府如何应对日益加深的社会分裂的疑问。
The report, released on Tuesday, highlights growing inequality in the South American country and raises questions about how the government is addressing deepening social divisions.
“秘鲁的经济不平等现象几十年来一直居高不下。当人们觉得总是同一群人获胜，什么都不会改变，也无法改变时，不平等开始看起来不像是一种不公，而更像是事物的自然秩序，”乐施会秘鲁分支机构执行主任亚历杭德拉·阿拉伊萨说。
“Economic inequality in Peru has remained stubbornly high for decades. And when people feel that the same people always win, that nothing changes and nothing can change, inequality starts to look less like an injustice and more like the natural order of things,” said Alejandra Alayza, the executive director of Oxfam in Peru.
“这是一种危险的宿命论，我们必须将其打破。”该非营利组织在一封电子邮件中向半岛电视台表示，42%的数字较2000年至2019年期间有所上升，当时前1%的人群获得了约39%的新增财富。
“That is a dangerous kind of fatalism, and we must tear it down.”The nonprofit told Al Jazeera in an email that the 42 percent figure represents an increase from the 2000 to 2019 period, when the top 1 percent captured about 39 percent of all new wealth.
该组织表示，2019年至2025年间，该国最贫困的50%人口仅获得了1.4%的新增财富。专家警告称，这一趋势不利于公众对政府和民主机构的信任。
Just 1.4 percent of new wealth from 2019 to 2025 went to the poorest 50 percent of the country’s population, according to the group. Experts warn the trend bodes poorly for public faith in government and democratic institutions.
乐施会与利马智库秘鲁研究所合作，本月发布了一份关于秘鲁人对本国不平等现象看法的报告。
Oxfam worked with the Institute for Peruvian Studies, a think tank in Lima, to publish a report this month on Peruvians’ perceptions of inequality in their country.
该组织发现，84%的秘鲁人认为，他们的国家由强大的利益集团治理，这些集团塑造政治以谋取自身利益。超过75%的人还表示，富有的公司和个人避免缴纳其应承担的税收份额。该调查还表明，公众舆论支持采取行动解决这一问题。
The groups found that 84 percent of Peruvians believed their country is governed by powerful interests that shape politics to their benefit. More than 75 percent also said that wealthy corporations and individuals avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The survey also suggested that public opinion was in favour of action to address the issue.
约70%的受访者表示，他们希望政府采取更多措施减少不平等，大多数人认为不平等限制了他们获得医疗保健、就业、教育和司法等服务的机会。
About 70 percent of respondents said they want the government to do more to reduce inequality, which a majority felt had limited access to services such as healthcare, employment, education and justice.
“公众支持采取行动减少不平等的规模是不可否认的，这不容有丝毫松懈，”阿拉伊萨说。
“The undeniable scale of public support for action to reduce inequality leaves no room for complacency,” Alayza said.
“不平等并非自然力量使然，而是政治选择造就的。不同的选择可以建设一个不同的秘鲁。”秘鲁不平等加剧的同时，也伴随着一段政治动荡时期，尤其是在总统府。
“Inequality is not a force of nature; it is made by political choices. And different choices can build a different Peru.”Peru’s rising inequality has been accompanied by a period of political turmoil, particularly in the presidential palace.
一连串的调查、丑闻和弹劾，导致秘鲁在过去10年里先后由九位总统执政。
A stream of probes, scandals and impeachments has led to Peru being governed by nine presidents in the last 10 years.
最新一位是右翼总统藤森庆子，她在经历了一场选票延迟、主要候选人之间激烈相互指责的险胜竞选后，于7月宣誓就职。专家认为，强大的利益集团在政治动荡中找到了可乘之机。
The latest, right-wing President Keiko Fujimori, was sworn into office in July after a narrow race that saw voting delays and heated recriminations among the leading candidates. Experts believe powerful interests have found opportunity amid the political tumult.
“这有点像一个悖论。精英阶层如此频繁更替，却仍然存在一个相对狭窄的政治-犯罪-商业精英群体掌握着大量权力，这怎么可能？我认为这两种情况在秘鲁同时存在，”美国智库外交关系委员会研究员威尔·弗里曼对半岛电视台说。
“It’s sort of a paradox. How can you have such a rotation among elites but still have a relatively narrow political-criminal-business elite that holds a lot of power? I think both things are true in Peru,” Will Freeman, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based think tank, told Al Jazeera.
政治动荡的部分原因来自总统府与秘鲁强大的国会之间的冲突，国会有权以“道德无能”这一含糊术语为由弹劾行政领导人。分析人士认为，反复的领导层更迭削弱了秘鲁的民主。
Part of the political upheaval has come from clashes between the presidency and Peru’s powerful Congress, which has the power to impeach executive leaders on the basis of “moral incapacity”, an ambiguous term. The repeated leadership shakeups have weakened Peru’s democracy, according to analysts.
例如，2022年12月，时任总统佩德罗·卡斯蒂略宣布，为回应反复的弹劾企图，他将非法解散国会。
In December 2022, for instance, then-President Pedro Castillo announced that he would illegally dissolve Congress in response to repeated attempts to impeach him.
他随后被罢免和逮捕，引发了广泛抗议。卡斯蒂略的继任者迪娜·博卢阿尔特政府对抗议活动实施了长达数月的镇压，人权组织称其中包括广泛的侵权行为，而相关责任几乎没有被追究。
His subsequent removal and arrest prompted widespread protests. The government of Castillo’s successor, Dina Boluarte, implemented a months-long crackdown on the demonstrations that rights groups say included widespread abuses for which there has been little accountability.
此后几年，秘鲁政府还采取措施削弱司法监督，并掏空反腐败监督机构。
In the years since, the Peruvian government has also taken steps to weaken judicial oversight and hollow out anticorruption watchdogs.
非营利组织自由之家对世界各国的政治自由度进行衡量，曾在2022年将秘鲁评为“自由”。但由于安全部队与抗议者发生致命冲突，其评级在次年降为“部分自由”。
The nonprofit Freedom House, which measures political freedom in countries around the world, ranked Peru as “free” in 2022. But its ranking dropped the following year to “partly free”, in light of the deadly clashes between security forces and protesters.
在2026年的报告中，自由之家维持秘鲁“部分自由”的评级，部分原因是某些群体（包括原住民）被剥夺了充分的政治权利。
In its 2026 report, Freedom House maintained that Peru was only “partly free”, citing in part the denial of full political rights to certain groups, including Indigenous peoples.
该非营利组织表示：“高调腐败丑闻削弱了公众对政府的信任，司法独立性的弱化冲击了该国的治理机构。”合法与非法的势力集团均利用了这些变化。
“High-profile corruption scandals have eroded public trust in government, and the weakening of judicial independence has impacted the country’s governing bodies,” the nonprofit said. Powerful interests, both licit and illicit, have taken advantage of those changes.
弗里曼表示：“这些群体本身不稳定且流动。然而，我认为秘鲁人有理由得出结论：总体而言，这些群体行使着过大的影响力，以捍卫自身的商业利益或政治权力，而非服务于某种普遍福祉。”
“The groups themselves are unstable and fluid,” said Freeman. “And yet, I think Peruvians are right to conclude that, generally, they are wielding outsized influence in defence of their own commercial interests or political power rather [than] in service of some kind of general welfare.”