RSSHowever, the nature of the balloting did not provide a complete view of the relative position of the parties or other political groups in the country.
The Sandinistas won the elections handily, with victories in 105 of 146 races, while the opposition Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC) took only 37 seats, and minor parties won 4. Moreover, the Sandinistas captured the mayoralty of Managua, a position considered second in importance only to the position of the presidency. These election triumphs brought great jubilation to FSLN loyalists. However, the elections in general lacked many of the democratic features of other Central American elections, and, in fact, in Nicaragua itself. Many irregularities were reported, international observers were not permitted to function (although a few were present anyway), and there was considerable post-election violence between partisans, resulting in numerous injuries.
Ortega as Seen from Washington
Because of some of the ambiguities surrounding the elections’ legitimacy, the U.S. State Department dredged up complaints which were familiar during past occasions when the Sandinistas controlled the government and as seen from Washington, Daniel Ortega could do nothing right. Moreover, Washington acted to suspend economic assistance to the country for three months on the grounds that the elections were not conducted democratically. There did appear to be an abundance of evidence that the elections could have been staged more in keeping with Managua’s insistence about their democratic nature. But what can be said about the course of this and other events in the country, many of them distinctly controversial, since the return of the Sandinistas?
When Daniel Ortega first came into power on January 11, 2007, the end of the preceding conservative Bolanos administration was characterized as just “limping to the finish line.” It was a government which in fact had accomplished little and although Bolanos had worked to abolish corruption, which was one of his distinctive commitments after taking office, the country still ranked as the most venal in Central America, even after twenty years of post-Sandinista rule. So, in fact, the new government had nowhere to go but forwards.
It was predicted early in his term that Ortega rule would in fact have to face a “tricky balancing act,” as one Costa Rican newspaper called it. The country was deeply divided among competing groups; the Sandinista Party had broken into several factions; the country was facing divisions among ideological blocs; the country had to deal with the complexities of its relationship with the “colossus of the north,” which had done virtually everything in its power to undermine the electoral process that had brought Ortega into office; and Ortega’s rule would be bedeviled by the fact that he was at best a minority presidential candidate who received only enough votes to defeat the other minority candidates by relatively narrow margins. This is the position from which Ortega had to begin his administration in order to face problems dealing with poverty, illness, poor educational services and crime. Intent on bettering relations with the United States, he promptly began to forge new images of peace, concord, and reconciliation. He also strived to better relations with the Church, one of his master poles of opposition.
Views of Ortega and conceptions of how he might be able to deal with such issues have varied widely. Some have referred to him as a “fascist,” others have called him simply, “stupid,” while others have called him a “frustrated” socialist. Others point to his long and deeply controversial sordid ties to Arnoldo Aléman as undermining his credibility. But, by and large, Ortega can best be considered as a very ambitious would-be reformer of the poorest country in Central America. His goals appear to be driven by the forces of reform and by an attempt, by often very controversial methods, to leave his mark upon the image of Nicaragua. It is in this way that his methods often appear to provoke enemies and to leave insoluble problems in his wake, rather than by invoking solutions. But, although his personal conduct tends to create controversy, he certainly will be long remembered in the history of Nicaragua. Now, what are some of the accomplishments for which Ortega deserves to be remembered and for which he will be bequeathing to his country’s history?
The Good and the Ugly
On Ortega’s plus side are a number of accomplishments that must begin with his self-perceived status as “El Pueblo Presidente” (The People are President) approach to public projects. An example of this is his promotion of the new Granada-Nandaime highway as a symbol of his nation-wide “offensive against unpaved highways and roads. As he describes it, the building of highways like this one is part of a general “The Streets are for the People” program that will construct 1502 km. of highways in municipalities throughout the country, It should also be noted that this is part of a $26 million program funded under the auspices of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), with assistance from Venezuela. It was publicly argued as helping poor people to have first-class streets that will help to build pride in their neighborhoods.
Another innovative program is Ortega’s “Agro Revolution.” Considering that food is the centerpiece of his government’s National Security strategy, a virtual agricultural revolution is currently taking place in Nicaragua’s countryside in which the public sector is playing an increasingly formidable role. This means that through the medium of cooperatives that work closely with the government, a new reform initiative is now addressing the repairing of roads, clearing landmines, and cultivating a million manzanas (a unit of land) throughout the country. This is part of an ambitious program called Hambre Cero (Zero Hunger) whose objective the total elimination of hunger in Nicaragua. The specific goal is to pull 75,000 families out of poverty and hunger within five years. The program is budgeted at $150 million and is considered to be part of the UN Millennium Development Goal that is designed to eradicate extreme poverty in the world and to reduce hunger to zero, with heavy international funding.
Ortega’s Pluses
Some critics call the current Nicaraguan program merely another form of socialism because it will be based on a broad system of cooperatives. However, the goal is actually to create agricultural independence in Nicaragua in order to counter U.S. and European subsidized agricultural products, many of which have gained greater market access under the Washington promoted Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Ortega has said that he would rather appeal to other Latin American countries (including Venezuela, in particular) for assistance than to go to the United Nations, Europe or, in particular, to the United States.
Another achievement of the Ortega government is the conflation, and centralized encouragement of a free market system in Nicaragua while at the same time managing to talk favorably about socialism. While talking about the latter approach to solving problems, Ortega has in fact endorsed the free market system and has gone so far as to give his personal endorsement to the concept. Although Ortega has bashed “savage capitalism” and has talked about spreading socialism around Latin America, he also has advocated the creation of agricultural cooperatives which will embrace the poorest campesinos, who will be able to to coexist and compete with multilateral corporations and private farmers. In other words, he evidently now rejects his earlier ideas of creating a doctrinaire Marxist economy in Nicaragua. According to economists’ studies on the subject, the Ortega government has been working toward the development of an export-based economy in which state-run and private organizations will be able to co-exist and compete within a democratic governmental system.
Another laudable program being overseen by Oretga’s staff has the goal of eliminating illiteracy in the country by July 17 of this year. There is nothing very new about this ambitious aspiration. After all, in the 1980’s the Sandinistas used their Literacy Crusade to eliminate illiteracy when they were in power.
Ortega’s Critics Voice Another Type of Critique
Ortega has continuously been allied with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and his theoretical principles have secured a good deal of economic assistance through his relationship with his Venezuelan counterpart. Ortega’s close relationship with Chavez has unquestionably brought considerable benefits to Nicaragua in the form of economic assistance as well as membership in the Castro-Chavez ALBA initiative. This also has made Washington very uncomfortable, obviously because one of the clearly stated goals of ALBA is to reduce the U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
The benefits Nicaragua has derived through the Ortega presidency have been considerable, and the above list contains only a sampling of the more noteworthy ones. But, as pointed out earlier, Ortega, once in power, has inevitably become a very controversial character. To begin with, Ortega has not been an easy colleague upon for which to rely. He has alienated an unusually high percentage of his allies and supporters in the original Sandinista Party for a wide range of reasons. These include his former Vice-President, Sergio Ramirez, the Cardenal brothers, and numerous other allies from the days when the FSLN was the ruling party. The most frequently offered grounds for this alienation is that he has yielded to expedience and an unquenchable lust for personal power and that principle has not always driven him.
According to a poll taken during the spring of 2008, some 64 percent of Nicaraguans said that Ortega is an “authoritarian figure acting to establish” a personal dictatorship. Without a doubt this is the severest criticism of his current administration, and plenty of evidence is offered by his critics to support the claim. For one thing, he has been particularly hostile to the press, as well as to former colleagues and allies. Dora Maria Tellez, who was a colleague and an ardent supporter in the 1980’s, recently led a hunger strike in downtown Managua to protest his authoritarian intentions to abolish press criticism and opposition from anyone who disagrees with his policies.
The Nature of Dictatorship
Moreover, Dona Maria’s widely noted criticism has fostered a popular discussion of the nature of dictatorship in his country. As critics have pointed out, the government has not created a dictatorship like that of the Somoza era. It also has been pointed out that the President might be better described as being “authoritarian,” rather than “dictatorial.” The country sees no secret police and no military on the ready, nor strongman rule as existed in revolutionary times. At the same time it would be incorrect to call the government truly democratic; perhaps it could be better defined as basically “under-democratic,” because it lacks a division of powers and the rule of law, and a strongly-applied constituency traits that would be found in other truly democratic states.
An example of anti-democratic imperfections on the part of the modern-day Sandinistas can be seen in the September, 2008 attack by masked Sandinista partisans (or “thugs” as they are now being called by the press) against a peaceful protest march by former Sandinista Party members who had joined the Sandinista Renovation Movement and who were now accusing Ortega of being a dictator. Dona Maria called the attack “pure fascism,” and accused Ortega of using these kinds of tactics to crush the opposition, and other political parties and to instill fear in the people — all so “he can stay in power.” But there is no evidence that Ortega in any way endorsed the attack.
Perhaps a somewhat more valid criticism is that Ortega has not done enough to end the food crisis in the country; which primarily, has consisted of high prices on both food and cooking oil caused by inflation, which has risen by 5 percent for 2008. Indeed, according to various estimates, the majority of poor families in Nicaragua spend 75 percent of their family income just to keep food on the table. Ortega’s answer to such grim numbers is that the “tyranny of global capitalism” or neo-liberalism, is the real cause of rising food prices. And many experts claim that he could be somewhat correct in embracing some of these judgments although there certainly are other explanations as well. As Ortega points out, the neo-liberal model of agriculture has reduced food availability in poor countries, and should thus be protested. But his critics insist that his creation of agricultural cooperatives and attempts to impose ill-administered and corruption-strewn “socialistic” policies on food production are the real causes of higher prices everywhere.
Then there basically is the impaired economic situation of the country, which has been worsened by the current world-wide economic crisis. One can claim that to an extent, this has been alleviated by Ortega’s cooperative relationship with Chavez..Venezuela has allocated a good deal of subsidized petroleum to Nicaragua over the past two years. So, Ortega’s good relationship with Chavez has certainly paid off. In fact, Ortega has correctly observed that the U.S. recession could actually somewhat ease the severity of the oil crisis in Nicaragua by bringing down world-wide prices.
Currently, Nicaragua is involved in a three-year program with the International Monetary Fund that began in 2007, under the previous government. Recommendations have been made that the country ought to protect and nurture its few and fragile hard currency earning sectors, namely tourism, trade, industry, and commerce. In fact, Francisco Aguirre, the head of the country’s Economic Commission observed that the President should work more to resolve problems. It should also be stressed that the three-month suspension of U.S. aid has certainly done nothing to ease the country’s economic crisis. In fact, the loss of the aid has seriously hurt the country’s economy more than any other single action over the last few months.
There are certainly other criticisms that can be directed to Daniel Ortega’s substantive program and operating style, including his sclerotic temper that tends toward dealing harshly with those who have the temerity to question his policies. His commitment toward using socialistic solutions to resolve economic problems can be explained in part by his close association with Chavez of Venezuela and in part by his own perhaps distant political values as a Sandinista. Moreover, while he certainly is obsessed with a personal odium towards Washington, this can be explained by the fact that the State Department had done everything in its power to bring about his electoral defeat both in 1990 and in 2006. Finally, he certainly always hasn’t proven to be a very tactful national leader, even toward other regional officials, including those in Central America.
By and large, however, it can be said that Daniel Ortega has been a better president with far greater concern about his country’s living standards and its attitude toward its poor and deprived majority, than any Nicaraguan president since the defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990. And, he has been far more successful than almost any other Nicaraguan president in standing up to Washington’s desires to manipulate and dominate the country.
“But there is no evidence that Ortega in any way endorsed the attack.”
Has, however, Ortega condemned the attack?
“By and large, however, it can be said that Daniel Ortega has been a better president . . . than any Nicaraguan president since the defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990.”
Yes, it might be argued that [Ortega] has shown “greater concern about his country’s living standards and its attitude toward its poor and deprived majority” than even Violeta Chamorro, but her overall accomplishments as President were considerable and were probably marked with far less corruption.
Frank, I must confess that this article disappointed me greatly. I am now living in Nicaragua, since shortly before the November elections. Contrary to the impression your article gives, there has been presented no evidence of significant irregularities in the elections. Eduardo Montealegre, who lost to Ortega in 2006 and to Alexis Arguello in the contest for mayor of Managua, has been screaming “fraud” at the top of his lungs since 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon of the day of the elections. But when the Supreme Electoral Council asked him to present proof, which he said he had, he was a no-show. He has been continuing his allegations and the local and regional (and US) press have been echoing them, but no evidence has ever been presented. The Supreme Electoral Council, which runs the elections, has seven judges: three are Sandinista; three are opposition and one is independent. They were elected by the Legislative Assembly, in which the Sandinistas are a minority. All seven signed off on the elections as being accurate.
You mention his “earlier ideas of creating a doctrinaire Marxist economy” as though that were a fact. It is not. The Sandinistas never proposed a doctrinaire Marxist economy. Throughout the 80s they were promoting a mixed economy. It was the US State Department and its lackeys that claimed they were “doctrinaire Marxists.” Not so.
You mention his hostility to the press: what can you expect when the only two dailies and majority of local TV in the country publish outlandish lies about his government every single day. They make Fox News look like objective reporting. But the press in Nicaragua is completely free, making outlandish and libelous claims virtually every day. Of course he is hostile. But he hasn’t shut them down.
As to his “former allies,” such as Sergio Ramirez and the Cardenal brothers: Sergio Ramirez got his nose out of joint when the FSLN decided to go with Daniel again in 2006, instead of making him their candidate. Sergio is an intellectual, a highly respected writer, and very intelligent. But there was no way he would have gotten even 10% of the vote in 2006 if he had been the candidate. He does not resonate with the people of Nicaragua. His Spanish is so elegant that most Nicaraguans don’t even understand him. He doesn’t understand that, and so took a opposition position in 2006. As for the Cardenal brothers: the Cardenal family has been one of the ruling families of Nicaragua for more than 150 years. They both did yoeman service in the 80s. Fernando, the Jesuit, was the minister of education who led the literacy campaign in 1980, financed by the World Council of Churches, that reduced illiteracy from 50% to 12% in less than a year. Ernesto became the darling of the world’s left because of his good work as the Minister of Culture, his poetry and his verbal emphasis on liberation theology. But when the Sandinistas lost the election 1990, largely because of the interference of the US, with the contra war killing more than 30,000 Nicaraguans and Bush I promising more of the same if the Sandinistas won; (Bush even went to far as to say, after his invasion of Panama in December of 1989, which killed more than 4,000 Panamanians–more than the 911 victims in a country of less than three million people–that “I hope the people of Nicaragua are paying attention”–the US Embassy also orchestrated Violetta’s campaign and put millions of US dollars into it, in violation of not only Nicaraguan law, but US law), the Cardenal brothers lost their platform and status and haven’t known what to do with themselves since then. Fernando went back to a Jesuit monastery and took a vow of silence for a year. Ernesto got into a quarrel with a neighbor over a piece of property and when the courts ruled against him, he claimed that Daniel was out to get him. He now travels around the world making speeches against Ortega, saying even “he is worse than Somoza” which has got to be the maximum of hyperbole.
You say that “Dora Maria Tellez led a hunger strike in downtown Managua to protest his authoritarian intentions to abolish press criticism and opposition from anyone who disagrees with his policies.” Those were her allegations, but you make them sound like established facts. I have been observing lots of criticism and opposition to his policies here in Nicaragua. And for the most part Daniel ignores it. It should be noted that no opposition figure or even demonstrator has been killed in the alleged conflicts. But several Sandinistas have been killed by opposition mobs.
You observe “It should also be stressed that the three-month suspension of U.S. aid has certainly done nothing to ease the country’s economic crisis. In fact, the loss of the aid has seriously hurt the country’s economy more than any other single action over the last few months.” That is certainly true. This is the same tactic the US used against Aristide in Haiti after his re-election to the presidency. It strongarmed its European allies to cut off all aid, and, literally, bankrupt the country. That is what the withholding of this aid is designed to do.
You refer to “his sclerotic temper that tends toward dealing harshly with those who have the temerity to question his policies.” What are you talking about? Lots of people, inside and outside of his government question his policies. Eden Pastora, the famous Comandante Cero, who later joined the contra, said recently when asked about Ortega’s “dictatorship” “If this were a dictatorship these folks would not be able to be out in the streets protesting and the papers would be shut down.”
Your last paragraph, Frank, is splendid. For those who have been watching Nicaragua over time, there can be no question but that the current Sandinista government is working to benefit the poor masses of the population more than any government in the country’s history, with the possible exception of the Sandinista government of the 80s. That doesn’t mean that it is perfect, but the commitment to the people is more than admirable. And certainly the alleged events of corruption pale in comparison to those of former President Aleman, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his stealing of funds from the public treasury and to that of “liberal” politicians under the Bolanos government.
Fred Morris
former editor and publisher of Mesoamerica (1982-1989)
“Under-democratic?” I pray you were kidding. How you failed to mention the hottest topic in the news in Nicaragua, ‘el pacto’ between Ortega and Arnoldo Aleman (a convicted crimanal who stole around $45 million from the Nicaraguan people, the same people you claim Ortega is so concerned about) and thier scheme to work together is a joke! You also failed to mention the cancellation of the legal status of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) and the Conservative Party (PC), the robbing of the mayorship of Managua from Montealegre of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN) who came in secound in the national election, the raiding of journalist Carlos Fernando Chamorro’s Center of Communication and Investigation, and the destruction of three opposition radio stations prior to the November elections!
The idea of Ortega turning Nicaragua into another Venezuela honestly makes me tear up. I understand one gets tired of the lack of progress in Nicaragua over the past 18 years, though it has made formidable macroeconomic progress that can be seen just by traveling the streets of Nicaragua, simply playing the ‘blame Washington’ excuss is getting old.
Two observations: First, the MRS and the PC were canceled as parties because they could not get enough people to run on their platform. The Electoral Law, established in 2005, requires that any party field candidates for a majority of the post in any given election. If they cannot do that, they cannot continue to operate as a party. MRS could only field a handful of candidates for the mayoralty races–nothing near the 145 posts at stake. That was not a decision by Ortega. It is the law.
Though I have nothing but contempt for Arnoldo Aleman, the president-crook who stole massive amounts of money from the country, what needs to be appreciated is that the Conservatives (Aleman) and the Liberals (Bolanos) hate each other even more than they hate the Sandinistas. From a purely political point of view, Ortega has played the game very well getting Aleman to help him isolate the Liberals–who hate Aleman even more for his doing that. I would rather he not even speak to a sludge like Aleman, but if you are forced to play the political game under the rules that exist in Nicaragua, Ortega’s “pacts” are simply the way to get things done. The latest “agreement” had to do with getting enough votes in the Assembly to elect a majority of Sandinistas to key posts. Aleman agreed to do that to put sand in the machinery of Eduardo Montealegre’s political ambitions.
Another detail that was not reported anywhere is that the decision by the Supreme Court to cut Aleman loose from his “country for prison” status was made by the four opposition judges, while the three Sandinistas were out of the country attending a conference. It was not a “deal” with Aleman.
Fred Morris
fced@aol.com
Having visited Nicaragua nine times during the Sandinista times, and after when Chamorro was president, I find myself saddened to see that so many former Sandinistas are no longer cooperating.
But I will tell you that every time I arrived in Nicaragua (I drove down 7 of the 9 visits) it was like a breath of fresh air after the repulsive corruption and multiple layers of local police, national police, national guard, customs police, and of course the ever present military checkpoints.
At least 50% of the time we were stopped (and Honduras had about 14 checkpoints as I recall in the Looooong one day drive) the crooks in uniform tried to rob us of something, threatening arrest, seizure of our vehicle and cargo (medical aid) every kind of low life trick in the book. And WE WERE AMERICANS, the ones who gave them the very guns they were pointing at us. There was death squad activity in Honduras at the time, in Guatemala and El Salvador, and everyone lived in mortal fear of the thugs both in and out of uniform.
Then we would finally arrive in Nicaragua, the only country really at full on war at the time, and it would all vanish. No internal checkpoints, no thugs to harass and intimidate us. Just a straight drive without interruption to Managua.
And the police? They were the new “Sandinista Police” mostly freshly recruited young men that no one was scared of. Hopelessly inefficient for lack of funds (we had to file a police report once) I NEVER got the creepy feeling that I did dealing with the scum (hard word but true) that ruled the streets of the rest of Central America. And no one was scared of the Sandinista Army either, there was a draft, not a collection of creeps whose families had historically dominated the military thru the elite group of thugs who went to the elite military schools there (and traned in the U.S.)
The soldiers were just like American soldiers in the sense that nobody was impressed, because so many people were either in uniform, or had been before. An army officer, armed, had to wait in line for the bus like everybody else. And want a real laugher? How about a young Sandinista soldier, with an AK47 and probably 5 banana clips across his chest, hitch hiking? And not getting a ride, at least when I saw him. Heck, in the rest of Central America, the Army and police TAKE what they want.
Nicaragua had a genuine revolution of the poor, and will never go back to a dictatorship, and to say that Ortega wants this, or let alone could even accomplish it is absurd. It is also noteworthy that last time I was there, lots of people still were armed with rifles donated during the war by the Soviet Union. I hate guns, but there is not another country in all of Latin America where the POOR are armed. Keeps the government honest, and lets then know there is always a counterweight amongst the population as a whole against armed repression.
Ortega and his compatriots paid the price in blood, and years of imprisonment before they were able to throw out America’s Poster Child of terror and graft, the Somoza dynasty.
Thereby, in my opinion, there isn’t an American citizen breathing that has a damned bit of right to criticize Ortega, or the Sandinistas, that is unless they can show their credibility by working and fighting alongside them, and other national liberation movements so sorely needed throughout Latin America.
The United States government (not the people) have been the biggest source or terror and repression in the world (besides of course Hitler, and Stalin and his purges) and have treated the people of Latin America with an attitude worse than contempt.
I suggest those who wish to pass judgement on Ortega, or Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, etc. GO TO A LIBRARY AND SPEND A YEAR OR SO reading about the dirt we have done to these nations. Then go live in El Salvador or Guatemala or Honduras or Haiti for awhile. A nice long while. And ask the people of those nations about what they think of our treatment of their countries historically.
Mentions a few key words, like “CIA” “Death Squads” “freedom of speech and assembly” “family dynasties” “rigged elections” …..I’m sorry but only someone terrifically ignorant of both Nicaraguan history and US foreign policy in Latin America and the Caribbean would turn his nose up at Ortega or Chavez. These fellows are the ONLY ones who give a damn about improving the plight of their citizenry, and for that matter, try to imagine the difference in the lives of Cubans if the regular US owned and operated capitalist model had never been dislodged.
Castro has worked miracles considering the deck we stack(ed) against him, and Ortega worked his entire first administation under the gun of the drug dealing, ex military thug group known as the contras, U.S. supplied terrorism at its best.
Can one even IMAGINE an Ortega administration raping and murdering nuns, assassinating the Archbishop of the country, doing wholesale murder of people in the opposition as was and still IS the rule (although greatly diminished) in the other nations of Central America?
I will close with this: I am an Army veteran, got two cops in my family, and consider myself to be conservative on many matters. The lying crooks that have run my beloved nation have done unspeakable acts to virtually every country in our hemispshere save Canada, and I’ve met with the men who were on the ground doing it, yes, I’ve had dinner with a CIA agent or two, an ex ambassador, it was my life’s passion for awhile to try and help these desperately poor people who for no good reason had to live under tyranny.
So, the elections of populist presidents in Latin America and the Caribbean, often in spite of US efforts (including murder) to prevent it, is the only hope these folks have, or will ever have. Shame on any American who thinks they can sit back and be an armchair critic unless you’ve been thru the fire of dictatorship and repression and state terror yourself. Open your eyes and ears, before you open your mouth.
Sincerely
Patrick Young
Social Science teacher
Fresno, CA
Wow, thanks so much for the enlightening comments, Patrick and Fred.
Patrick, I have a lot of respect for the effort you’ve put into attempting to atone for our governments crimes against the Latin American people. I’m still in college, but I hope to in some way use my life to work towards progressive political and economic change and to help the poor and downtrodden achieve their right to live a fulfilling life.