Political crisis in Paraguay LIVE | Congress debates the impeachment of Peña and the Colorado Party asked for his resignation

Horacio Cartes, head of the National Republican Association (ANR), announced Thursday that the Colorado Party will support the impeachment trial against President Santiago Peña, citing the crisis resulting from the intervention and closure of Ueno Bank, which deprived nearly three million clients of access to their funds. Cartes stated that the party would not support the looting of public, private, and retiree funds and confirmed support for the removal request to reestablish the Republic's institutional structure. This political position carries significance as Cartes promoted Peña's candidacy and controls the majority in both houses of the Paraguayan Congress. In parallel, the Prosecutor's Office requested preventive imprisonment for Miguel Vásquez, a founder of Ueno Bank, and house arrest for seven other directors following their testimony. The impeachment process is underway in Congress, with opposition deputies presenting an indictment against Peña and his vice president based on Article 225 of the Constitution, which requires specific majorities to proceed.

The political maneuvering surrounding the impeachment echoes a tension between institutional legality and perceived public trust. The linkage made by Cartes between the bank crisis and the demand for impeachment functions to frame the political action not as a partisan dispute, but as a necessary defense of institutional integrity against alleged financial malfeasance. This framing shifts the focus from electoral politics to accountability. The fact that the individual promoting the candidacy and controlling the ruling party structure is the one calling for the removal introduces an immediate self-referential dynamic that demands scrutiny regarding underlying motivations. The procedural details surrounding the impeachment—the specific thresholds for moving charges in both houses—reveal a calculated path that requires significant legislative mobilization, suggesting that the political support announced is contingent on achieving these legal milestones rather than being an unconditioned expression of moral outrage. The structure relies heavily on the perceived legitimacy of the current executive to justify challenging it, which is precisely what the procedural steps are designed to test. What is less apparent is whether the stated support truly reflects a commitment to the institution's future or serves as a strategic maneuver within the existing power configuration.