The big question in Peru is whether nationalist candidate Ollanta Humala can overcome former President Alan Garcia's clear lead in the polls to win the election on Sunday. The last surveys I saw suggested that votes for former candidate Lourdes Flores (who did not make it to the second round) are tilting toward Garcia. We shall see.

But, regardless of what happens in Peru, Humala's candidacy is yet another sign of Latin Americans' vast dissatisfaction with their leaders and the so-called benefits of democracy and free markets.

A couple of months ago I was in "Lima, the Ugly," as the capital's residents call it. It was painful seeing the contrast between evident opulence _ the new lavish constructions in Miraflores, luxury hotels for foreigners and posh oceanfront restaurants _ and the hordes of jobless adults and young children begging in the streets. In spite of Peru's 7 percent growth rate last year, 50 percent of its citizens is poor.

According to a U.N. Development Program survey, nine out of 10 Peruvians believe that it is the politicians' fault that the democratic system doesn't function. Two decades ago, when the region was suffocating under authoritarian regimes, confidence that democracy would solve all problems _ like income disparity and lack of health and education systems _ was widespread. But that confidence has plummeted.

It is obvious to everyone that for democracy to work, it needs to go much further than guaranteeing clean, transparent, multiparty elections. That hasn't happened. And that is called democratic deception.

Latin Americans in general and Peruvians in particular have realized they cannot eat democracy. Because of this democratic deception, elections in Peru have been won by candidates campaigning against everything.

Authoritarian (former) President Alberto Fujimori _ who was recently released from detention in Chile _ won his election in this manner, and so did the unpopular current president, Alejandro Toledo. Now, Humala has emerged as the anti-system candidate.

Humala _ a former rebellious military officer who defines himself as a "nationalist" but not a leftist _ was successful in the first electoral round, labeling Lourdes Flores as the "candidate of the rich" and Garcia as an evil, egocentric has-been and a specialist in hyperinflation.

In the campaign for the second round, Humala stumbled. He did not have a convincing defense for the accusations made against him about human rights violations _ when he was in the military _ and his links to the controversial and meddling Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. He sank like a perforated submarine. Also, he inexcusably arrived 20 minutes late for the one and only presidential debate.

With so many mistakes, Garcia overtook Humala who was then forced to go on the defensive. By the same token, Garcia himself was saved from having to explain why he was such an incompetent administrator from 1985 to 1990 _ accumulated inflation during that period topped 2.2 million percent _ and how he could justify his affluent lifestyle on a public servant's modest salary.

"Choosing between Alan and Ollanta is like choosing between cancer and AIDS," a Peruvian journalist told me. Or, as writer Mario Vargas Llosa put it, it's about deciding who is the "lesser evil." But, aside from the June 4 elections, there's a reason for candidate Humala's rise to the forefront of politics: Peru's crippling poverty.

Humala, in a long conversation, explained to me the hopelessness many Peruvians feel: "I belong to a generation of Peruvians that has realized we have been fooled by the traditional political class ... political systems have collapsed and people feel these representative democracies do not really represent the interests of citizens."