Disqualification Rhetoric in a Polarising Landscape: The Peruvian Case

This paper studies disqualifying rhetoric used by Keiko Fujimori and Pedro Castillo in the 2021 Peruvian presidential election. By elaborating from a qualitative thematic analysis of a TV debate, the study explains how the candidates used different rhetorical techniques to undermine each other, thus reflecting and reinforcing the social divisions in Peru. The analysis identifies 4 main themes: Fujimori's overt identity-based disqualifications targeting Castillo’s identity; Castillo’s covert contrast disqualifications emphasising policy and anti-elite narratives; mutual critiques of the prior government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic; and pervasive overt disqualifications focused on corruption accusations. Such results highlight how disqualifying rhetoric not only shaped voter perceptions but amplified polarisation, aligning with framing theory and theories of negative campaigning. Ultimately, this study contributes to understanding the relationship between political rhetoric and social polarisation in electoral contexts, representing better implications for democratic governance in Latin America.