Dear Readers,

Francisco Sagasti became President of Peru in November 2020 – he was the third head of state within just one week. If anyone is an expert in turbulent times, it’s him. The academic year at THE NEW INSTITUTE ended last week, and Sagasti was a fellow during the last trimester, working to complete a book he has been preparing for over 45 years. The book centers on the philosopher Francis Bacon. But it wasn’t just his scholarly work – his extraordinary life experience and sharp intellect also greatly enriched the debates at the Institute. I sat down with Sagasti for an interview to conclude this newsletter series, which I had the privilege of curating as a media fellow. What do political leaders need in times like these? Why is Sagasti convinced that autocratic regimes will ultimately fail due to a lack of good leadership? And what advice does he have for the younger generation?

Enjoy the read,
Felix Rohrbeck

P.S. We have a German version of the text available for you here.

Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from Francisco Sagasti

Francisco Sagasti was President of Peru. What can we learn from him about times of crisis – and why does he believe autocratic leaders will ultimately fail?

Photo by Maximilian Glas

Felix Rohrbeck: We are living in turbulent times – many people feel they can barely keep up with the pace of events. If anyone has experience with such challenges, it’s you. In November 2020, you became President of Peru – the third head of state within just one week. Your predecessor was removed from office for corruption, and his successor was forced to resign due to ongoing protests. What was your recipe for restoring stability in such an exceptional situation?

Francisco Sagasti: I didn’t have a ready-made recipe. If you approach such a volatile situation with a rigid plan, you’ve already lost. Events unfold too quickly and unpredictably. What you need most in a crisis like this is a set of intellectual resources to help you make sound decisions. In my view, there are three essential elements. First, you need a mindset – a set of ideas and beliefs with which you approach the crisis. Second, you need evidence. By this, I don’t just mean classic economic or demographic data, but also qualitative information. You have to really understand what’s going on. Third, character is crucial – the inner values and attitudes that shape you.

If you develop these three elements, you have a solid framework for making wise decisions, even in difficult situations.

FR: Can you give an example of how these three elements worked together during your time as President of Peru?

FS: When I took office, Peru had no vaccines against the coronavirus – not even firm commitments, just vague promises. So, what did I do? My mindset was to understand the situation in detail. I contacted a friend who works in the field, and within a week I knew exactly which nine companies were working on which vaccines and what the differences were between inactivated virus, mRNA, and viral vector vaccines.

With this knowledge, I started working every morning at 4:30 a.m. gathering targeted evidence: I read scientific journals, World Health Organization reports, and Financial Times analyses. For example, I realized that the Russian Sputnik vaccine was far too complex to be manufactured quickly in Russia itself – so negotiations with Russia were unlikely to succeed. Chinese manufacturers, on the other hand, offered various vaccines with very different efficacy rates and we specified in the contract that only the most efficient one should be provided. This knowledge was crucial in subsequent negotiations. In the end, we managed to procure vaccines from Chinese manufacturers, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca – a total of 78 million doses within six months.

The next challenge was distributing the vaccines. There were requests from all sectors of society, from journalists to prison guards – everyone wanted to be prioritized. Here’s where what I call character came into play. I am convinced that all citizens have equal value and that there should be no privileges based on money or status. That’s why I set up a commission of medical ethicists to determine which groups should be vaccinated first – doctors and healthcare workers were at the top of the list.

My conclusion: In times of crisis, there is no universal recipe. But with the interplay of mindset, evidence, and character, you can navigate even the toughest situations.

FR: Did this approach help you restore trust?

FS: When I took office, my approval rating was 32 percent – by the end of my term, it was nearly 60 percent. The way we communicated was a decisive factor. The most important decision we made was to present things as they actually were – not as we wished they were or as the public wanted them to be. We only spoke publicly when we truly had something substantial to say. My predecessors often appeared on television almost daily. I, on the other hand, only spoke when it was necessary – and only after I had thoroughly thought things through. I really believe we should ban presidents and prime ministers from tweeting. The more you react in real time, the less you think – and the more mistakes you make.

FR: What were your mistakes?

FS: There’s one mistake I’ll never forget. During my second press conference as President, I wanted to explain the COVID measures and thought it would be a good idea to give a detailed PowerPoint presentation. But in front of a group of expectant journalists, that was, of course, the completely wrong format. The press conference was a complete disaster. Afterwards, memes circulated on the internet, like: “Press conference with President Sagasti: 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. –definition of the problem. 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. – approach and methodology.” And so on. What can I say? They were right. You have to admit that honestly. Next time, we did it differently.

Photo by Luzia Cruz

FR: We’re currently witnessing in the U.S., as well as in other countries, how autocratic politicians are pursuing a completely different leadership style than yours, attacking and even dismantling democratic achievements. Are we experiencing a turning point?

FS: History moves in cycles. Nevertheless, I am convinced that autocratic systems don’t work in the long run. Especially in turbulent times, when everything is changing rapidly, it’s crucial to remain flexible, to listen, and to be willing to evolve. You also have to be able to inspire hope for a better future. Autocratic rulers rarely succeed at any of that. They are not adaptable, they cling to their mistakes, and they don’t listen.

A typical trait of autocrats is that they consider themselves indispensable – they believe only they can solve the problems. This is usually followed by an authoritarian leadership style: those who think they alone know the right way tend to impose their opinion on others. And often, corruption follows: those who believe they are irreplaceable often also think they deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifices.

Through threats, violence, and the ruthless use of money, autocrats sometimes manage to stay in power for a long time. But eventually, these systems collapse because they are unable to cope with change and crises.

FR: At THE NEW INSTITUTE, you’ve been working as a fellow on a book about the English philosopher Francis Bacon, who was born in the 16th century and is often quoted as saying, “Knowledge is power.” Why Bacon? What can we learn from him today?

FS: Like us, Bacon lived in turbulent times. The transition from the Middle Ages to modernity fundamentally changed the world. Bacon was convinced that we must understand nature in order to master it and improve human life. I believe we are now at the end of the “Baconian epoch.”

If we destroy nature through our dominance, we also undermine the idea that we can thereby improve human life. So, what comes next? How do we shape the transition?

My thesis is that we can also learn from Bacon on this question. In many debates about the future, extremes currently dominate: Are we on the brink of human extinction through artificial intelligence – or on the threshold of a golden age in which technology enables us to eradicate disease and optimize ourselves? Even Bacon had the idea that different logics and ideas can coexist – and that it is our task to work our way through them and find a viable path.

Leonard Cohen described this approach beautifully in his song “Anthem”:

“Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.”

I would add: “to illuminate the political darkness we are in.”

Photo by Maximilian Glas

FR: The concept of THE NEW INSTITUTE is to bring together practitioners and scholars from around the world to develop solutions to societal problems. What impact can such places have?

FS: There are too few places where people from different disciplines, countries, and cultures come together so that something truly new can emerge. I consider the work of such institutes extremely important – but it is also challenging. You can make many mistakes, and it takes perseverance. Just bringing together the right mix of people is a fine art that you don’t learn in three or four years. All the more regrettable, then, that THE NEW INSTITUTE is now closing – just as it was beginning to hit its stride.

FR: If you could give young people one piece of advice today, based on all of your experience, what would it be?

FS: Get involved in politics – whether at the national or local level, in parties, unions, or associations. Many young people shy away from political engagement today because they see politics as corrupt or dirty, or because access seems too complicated. The problem is: if the committed withdraw, they leave the field to those who are primarily power hungry and unafraid to play hardball. Plato already knew: the price of not getting involved in politics is being governed by the worst.