How to steal an election, Sandinista-style

[LesCanadiens]

Actully I should be the ones demanding your apology here. After all, you claimed that the OP article was factually incorrect. After I proved that it wasn't, you had to resort to some pathetic argument about the "spirit" of the sentence, which didn't make any sense either. So when will you apologise for that lie, Pasi?

I demonstrated to you how the first part of the article is factually inaccurate. That you refuse to acknowledge the obvious is not my fault. If you refuse to do so, that is your problem, not mine.

And now you owe me another apology. Nowhere did I state that the Constitution did not mandate elections every six years. I merely stated the documented fact that the Sandinistas viewed the elections much more as a concession than a right. For example:

Ah yes, wikipedia, that bastion of accurate information. I've read that page before, and discarded it since I can't verify its sources. Should I start citing books that you've never heard of written in languages you can't read?

As for your pathetic rant about justifiable state of emergency, I can onluywonder why abolishing freedom of press, freedom of speech and right to peaceful assembly. Is that the correct way to fight the Contras, abolishing freedom of expression?
And don't pretend the Contras had the monopoly on death squads. You might want to ask the Miskito indians what it feels like to receive a little Sandinista love. Of course I do condemn the Contras. But where are the Contras now? The Sandinistas, who are worse, are still out there stealing elections and delegating lands to themselves. All the while being opposed by a great majority of nicaraguans.

Anyway, waiting for two apologies.

You're so awesome because you asert that a few minor and unproven electoral inconsistencies today are worse than the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people. How were the Sandanistas worse? They did not do what the Contras did. You lied yet again when you claim they did the same thing. They did not rampage around Nicaragua massacring innocent people. You're pissing on the graves of tens of thousands of innocent people when you claim the Sandanistas were worse.

Just stop. We all know you hate anything you perceive as being leftist, but that doesn't justify putting the Sandanistas on the same level as the Contras. You're just one of those people who thinks that whenever leftists win an election, it must be because they have stolen it. So far your only proof that the Sandanistas "stole" this election is an op-ed piece written by a right wing publication in the UK. With such rigorous academic research at this, I'm sure Oxford is knocking your door down offering you a job.

Now I'm waiting for two apologies from you. First for lying, and second for baselessly accusing me of lying. I know you must do this to anyone who disputes your warped worldview with fact, but it is unacceptable.

 

[Berzerker]

While it is certainly valid to criticise the US funding the Contras, you have to keep in mind that it was the Cold War, and the Sandinistas received extensive funding and weapon supplies from USSR. It was expected that the US would react in some shape or form, given the proximity of Nicaragua.

I think you have the chronology wrong, the US "reacted" by propping up the previous dictators and then arming the ousted forces to wage what was in reality a war of terrorism on the population of Nicaragua until "free elections" were held. I dont know if any election there is free, but they had elections in Nicaragua in the 80s before the Sandinistas eventually lost in 90, but that loss was after a decade of our contra war. Our foreign policy toward the voters of Nicaragua was: elect the candidate we want or we will keep arming the Contras. And we call that a free election

Anyway, if this is all true Ortega is proving once again that the people who overthrow dictators usually aspire to replace them.

 

[Cutlass]

If "all communists are evil", shouldn't you abandon conservatism so that you ceases to make new recruits for the commies? No one goes from liberal to commie, only from conservative to commie.

Conservatism is the cause of communism. Adopting liberalism removes the cause of communism, and therefor defeats communism.

 

[Berzerker]

Whoever expected the US to sit idly while the Soviet Union funded a violent communist insurgency in a close country must not understand how the world works.

At any rate, all those who said that the Sandinistas (celebrated by the international left back in the 80) were crap are more than vindicated. They are corrupt, they steal elections, they mismanage the economy, they are hated by most people.

Sorry, should have read on a bit more first. Rik got most of it already, but my understanding is that we declared war on them and they sought weapons from our enemies for defense. Had we normalized relations with Nicaragua, Soviet influence would have been minimal - the Cuban Missile Crisis established the parameters for encroachment and the only way to justify Soviet backing is in the face of US hostility. We gave Nicaragua and Russia that justification. We gotta learn to let other countries iron out their problems without propping up dictators of any ideological stripe.

 

[Ansar]

So that's why my mother's friend, who's a reporter, was not allowed in.

 

[luiz]

So? Relatively speaking, the Canadian Prime Minister has more power than the President of the United States.

Let me spell it out for you. In parlamentarist nations such as Canada, you vote for MP's, not the PM. The number of MPs in each party will then determine who gets the PM, who is not directly elected. Following thus far? The PM does not have a pre-determined term, if he loses the vote of confidence he will be forced to resign or dissolve parliament. Essentially, in a parlamentarist system the government always need to have support from a majority of MPs. It is impossible for a PM to rule while being rejected by a majority of the representatives of the people.

In a presidentialist system, however, the president is directly elected, usually by popular vote. If you don't have two rounds, in multi-party system you may end up with a president who is rejected by a majority, both in congress and among the population. And unlike a parlamentarist system, even if the president has a very small congressional backing, he will finish his term.

 

[luiz]

I demonstrated to you how the first part of the article is factually inaccurate. That you refuse to acknowledge the obvious is not my fault. If you refuse to do so, that is your problem, not mine.

No, you have not. You have provided your bizarre conspiracy theory about the true spirit behind the sentence. Show me an actual factual error, not your interpretation.

Ah yes, wikipedia, that bastion of accurate information. I've read that page before, and discarded it since I can't verify its sources. Should I start citing books that you've never heard of written in languages you can't read?

Only one of the books is in spanish... and well, wiki may not be the bastion of accurate information, but it is better than your word. And at least that's a referenced article, and considering how this is a controversial topic that people from all political alignemnets read, I have to assume that the references and quotes are correct, otherwise someone would have pulled them off.

You're so awesome because you asert that a few minor and unproven electoral inconsistencies today are worse than the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people.

Do you know what "to assert" means? I asserted that the Sandinistas are worse, I didn't name that reason.

How were the Sandanistas worse? They did not do what the Contras did. You lied yet again when you claim they did the same thing. They did not rampage around Nicaragua massacring innocent people. You're pissing on the graves of tens of thousands of innocent people when you claim the Sandanistas were worse.

Didn't I mention the Miskito indians? Were they guilty of what? Nothing, but that didn't stop the Sandinistas from massacring them, as recognised by any human rights organization in the world. Some Miskitos were resisting sandinista totalitarianism, and so in a typical stalinist manner the sandinistas retaliated killing innocents just because they were of the same ethnicity.

And of course those were not the only people massacred by the Sandinistas. Again, they abolished freakin' freedom of expression and of the press, and even the right to peacefully assemble. What to expect from those kinds?

Now, why are tha Sandinistas worse than the Contras? Simple, they're still around. The Contras have accepted their place in the trashcan of history, but not Ortega and his thugs. They're still out there stealing elections and getting filthy rich. Or are you going to deny that Ortega is corrupt?

Just stop. We all know you hate anything you perceive as being leftist, but that doesn't justify putting the Sandanistas on the same level as the Contras. You're just one of those people who thinks that whenever leftists win an election, it must be because they have stolen it. So far your only proof that the Sandanistas "stole" this election is an op-ed piece written by a right wing publication in the UK. With such rigorous academic research at this, I'm sure Oxford is knocking your door down offering you a job.

It is one of the most prestigious publications in the world, and you know it damn well. Many of those who write for them were from Oxford, so you gotta acknowledge the irony in your words.

Now I'm waiting for two apologies from you. First for lying, and second for baselessly accusing me of lying. I know you must do this to anyone who disputes your warped worldview with fact, but it is unacceptable.

You might as well quote the OP again and show where the factual inaccuracies are, in actual words and not bogus interpretations. If you can't do that, I am waiting for your two apologies.

 

[luiz]

Sorry, should have read on a bit more first. Rik got most of it already, but my understanding is that we declared war on them and they sought weapons from our enemies for defense. Had we normalized relations with Nicaragua, Soviet influence would have been minimal - the Cuban Missile Crisis established the parameters for encroachment and the only way to justify Soviet backing is in the face of US hostility. We gave Nicaragua and Russia that justification. We gotta learn to let other countries iron out their problems without propping up dictators of any ideological stripe.

"Your understanding" is completely flawed. The soviets were backing the sandinistas since their insurgency against the Somozas, who were a government aligned with the US. The USSR intervened before the US did; in fact that's the rule since virtually all communist movements in Latin America received funding, training and in many cases weapons from the USSR.

 

[Berzerker]

but we were backing the Somozas, we were backing dictators... It dont matter when the rebels sought or got weapons, they were justified in over throwing the dictatorship and we should have recognized that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, it is now clear from the Moscow Files that the Soviets supplied the Sandinistas with weapons since the insurgency begun. Far before the Contras, obviously.

I'm not surprised, but I wasn't aware that such things were actually known now.

That, of course, still doesn't excuse the approval of, and funding of, the Contras, who were in many ways far worse than the Sandinistas, in both their waging of insurgency and in actual rule.

Actually I am. The total embargo from the USA only came in 1985, even before that their economy was contracting. The Sandinista government used the idiotic technique of printing money in large scale to pay for their expenditure, what generated an inflation of 14,000% per year. There's no excuse for that.

What was the point of the whole Sandinista insurgency?
The land taken from the Somozas ended up with Ortega and his chronies.
Average family income was smaller in 1990 than in 1970.
In faci, by most measures, nicaraguans were considerably worse off in 1990 than 1970.

That's not fair. If you're going to argue against Ortega's system, then use numbers before the embargo began, not from 1990.

They killed alot of people, wrecked havoc, provoked a civil war, alienated their country from the rest of the continent, for what?

Provoked a civil war? Come on, the Contras were trained at the US Army School of the Americas to fight them, that insurgency was a US surrogate all the way.

Unless you're faulting them for being rebels during the Seventies, in which case, I think you're just being silly.

As for alienating their country, it was the US who imposed the embargo, not Nicaragua.

To replace a group of corrupt oligarchs for another even more grotesquely corrupt? To make the lifes of nicaraguans even worse?

There is no positive aspect about the FSLN. No wonder Ortega's approval rating is of 20%. They are a failure and a disgrace, and it speaks alot about the left that so many people refuse to properly condemn them until this day.

The Sandinistas' land redistribution plan (which was heavily supported and organized by the catholic church) actually increased Nicaraguan caloric intake. Literacy and infant mortality rates got much better once they took over, too, because with all that money they were printing, they were using to build schools, hospitals, and health clinics around the country. While absolute income may have fallen during that time (for which I am waiting for data about - from pre-embargo, not from 1990), the lives of many more Nicaraguans were both immediately better, and getting better still, than when under Somoza's regime.

I can understand you holding the opinion that land redistribution is corruption, but I cannot understand why you would think that this "corruption" was worse than Somoza essentially stealing the Red Cross money after the 1972 earthquake.

 

[luiz]

but we were backing the Somozas, we were backing dictators... It dont matter when the rebels sought or got weapons, they were justified in over throwing the dictatorship and we should have recognized that.

Yes you were backing the Somozas, but the Somozas were the internationally recognised governnment, as crappy as it was. The Soviets were therefore the first to fund the insurgency, the US followed and funded an insurgency against the insurgency (that by then was the government)... as I said earlier, a typical Cold War mess where all sides are bad.

As for the rebels being justified... they stablished a regime as corrupt as the one of the Somozas, and certainly more violent. Their economic management was much worse as well. Fighting tyrants is all good, unless you replace them for something not really any better.

 

[luiz]

That's not fair. If you're going to argue against Ortega's system, then use numbers before the embargo began, not from 1990.

Their is hardly any data avaiable from their time of rule. All we can do is compare how things were before them and after.

Provoked a civil war? Come on, the Contras were trained at the US Army School of the Americas to fight them, that insurgency was a US surrogate all the way.
Unless you're faulting them for being rebels during the Seventies, in which case, I think you're just being silly.

How am I being silly? They rebelled against a corrupt government, in armed fashion. Then they stablished a government, that was opposed by people in the same manner that they opposed the Somozas. And for what? More corruption, more restriction on civil liberties, less income.

The Sandinistas' land redistribution plan (which was heavily supported and organized by the catholic church) actually increased Nicaraguan caloric intake. Literacy and infant mortality rates got much better once they took over, too, because with all that money they were printing, they were using to build schools, hospitals, and health clinics around the country. While absolute income may have fallen during that time (for which I am waiting for data about - from pre-embargo, not from 1990), the lives of many more Nicaraguans were both immediately better, and getting better still, than when under Somoza's regime.

I can understand you holding the opinion that land redistribution is corruption, but I cannot understand why you would think that this "corruption" was worse than Somoza essentially stealing the Red Cross money after the 1972 earthquake.

I was not talking about distributing land to the people, but rather distributing land to the Sandinistas leaders. The Piñata Acts. Ortega and his chronies ended up with the best part of the Somoza's lands.

I would also point out that you don't create wealth by printing money; any effect it might have is destroyed by inflation and the domestic product ends right where it started - but now those too poor to have bank accounts will see all that they own evaporate before the end of the month.

As for comparissons, just look at any measure of quality of life. After the Sandinista rule, Nicaragua was actually in a terrible position, for example, in the UN's HDI index in Latin America. It's not only income that went down, but rather most relevant indexes. Their rule was a catastrophe.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Their is hardly any data avaiable from their time of rule. All we can do is compare how things were before them and after.

I think we should let that part go, then, as we cannot draw an accurate conclusion about the success of their policies by themselves.

How am I being silly? They rebelled against a corrupt government, in armed fashion. Then they stablished a government, that was opposed by people in the same manner that they opposed the Somozas. And for what? More corruption, more restriction on civil liberties, less income.

I think it's silly to fault someone for causing a civil war when they're fighting against a corrupt kleptocratic dictatorship. Fault them after the fact for not installing democracy, but don't fault them for having the courage to rebel in the first place. Violent uprising is the most pure form of a people's expression of discontent.

I was not talking about distributing land to the people, but rather distributing land to the Sandinistas leaders. The Piñata Acts. Ortega and his chronies ended up with the best part of the Somoza's lands.

I don't know anything about them.

I would also point out that you don't create wealth by printing money; any effect it might have is destroyed by inflation and the domestic product ends right where it started - but now those too poor to have bank accounts will see all that they own evaporate before the end of the month.

As for comparissons, just look at any measure of quality of life. After the Sandinista rule, Nicaragua was actually in a terrible position, for example, in the UN's HDI index in Latin America. It's not only income that went down, but rather most relevant indexes. Their rule was a catastrophe.

Again, it's not fair to blame the consequences of the embargo on the Sandinistas. I know how low Nicaragua ranked when the embargo was lifted, that's why they were voted out of office; the people knew that the embargo was there because of the Socialist government in power, and that getting rid of it would get rid of the embargo. Do I blame them for voting the way they did? Absolutely not, but I don't think it was fair of the American government to behave the way that it did, because of the great harm that came to the Nicaraguan people due to their embargo. One must ask; which is more important, the welfare of the people, or the party of the government in power? The US has made clear repeatedly in history that the welfare of the people is NOT in their interest, that is why they behave the way they do. I can understand that the US might not approve of a leftist government (or really anyone who deposed someone they liked) in power somewhere, but why must they strangle the people of those countries because of that? I mean, its just politics, at the end of the day, I think the average person cares far more about food on their table and a roof over their head than who exactly is running their country. I know that many more Nicaraguans enjoyed those simple things before the embargo began than during it. This is beginning to turn into a rant, so I'll stop here, but I think you see where I'm going with this. Ignoring the human factor is just unacceptable in my book, regardless of the objective.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA Prolly Did This DURR HURR HURR

 

[tonberry]

Let me spell it out for you. In parlamentarist nations such as Canada, you vote for MP's, not the PM. The number of MPs in each party will then determine who gets the PM, who is not directly elected. Following thus far? The PM does not have a pre-determined term, if he loses the vote of confidence he will be forced to resign or dissolve parliament. Essentially, in a parlamentarist system the government always need to have support from a majority of MPs. It is impossible for a PM to rule while being rejected by a majority of the representatives of the people.

In a presidentialist system, however, the president is directly elected, usually by popular vote. If you don't have two rounds, in multi-party system you may end up with a president who is rejected by a majority, both in congress and among the population. And unlike a parlamentarist system, even if the president has a very small congressional backing, he will finish his term.

In theory, your right. What happen in real life however is that almost no one vote for MP. Their choice is based on which party or PM they want to be elected.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

armed with an alliance with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, he seems determined to snuff out Nicaragua’s young democracy.

Snuffing out Nicaragua's young democracy? Ha! More like reforming the already tarnished and corrupted old democracy; for to start anew by the inspiration from the likes of Chavez, Morales, and the many others.

While it is certainly valid to criticise the US funding the Contras, you have to keep in mind that it was the Cold War, and the Sandinistas received extensive funding and weapon supplies from USSR. It was expected that the US would react in some shape or form, given the proximity of Nicaragua.

You can't "justify the unjustifiable" by saying that it is in US rights to maintain their hegemony of what was once a crisis in Nicaragua during the so-called "Cold War." If you are ever skeptical of this catch phrase "Cold War," which is a misleading term anyway, since United States before the term still was hostile in undeveloped areas in Central and South America by making it underdeveloped so that they can control the monopoly of the indigenous people's own resources. And how did they do that, it is by selecting and funding certain nationals of that given country the power and the ability to represent US corporate businesses; and to steal the wealth that generate out of it by not investing in infrastructures the can give people the chance to grow in posterity.

Communism wasn't a failure back then. It was unachieved because of US intermingling: which is the ability to manipulate the power structures of the elites in almost all of Latin America. Now the tide is turning, and they will create a multi-polar world without United States say so.

 

[Winner]

Southern American countries absolutely need to switch to parliamentary democracy, the sooner the better. Presidential system is, I dare say, the most important reason why they suffered so much upheavel in the last 100 years. Instead of trying to mimic the U.S., they should look to Spain or Portugal for guidance.

 

[Incanam]

No, I think you're the one ignoring the spirit of the sentence. In 1984 they won the elections, so it's not really to their merit that thet acknowledged the result. In 1990, however, they lost the election and still acknowledged the result, and that is worth mentioning.

Also, your perspective is not very correct. The Sandinistas themselves said that the 1984 election was a concession and an act of generosity, they were not very enthusiatic about it and they certainly didn't care very much about the Constitution, which was largely ignored in the 1982-1988 State or Emergency, when civil rights were suspended and plenty of abuse happened.

I am not very knowledgeable about the subject, so the first time hearing about the subject was reading your article. This shows that I have no bias, nor did I have any previous knowledge of the issue.

When I read the article for the first time, I got the impression that the Sandistas had had dictatorship like powers until 1990, when they decided to hold free elections for the first time. That is what the connotation of the article is.

 

[luiz]

I think it's silly to fault someone for causing a civil war when they're fighting against a corrupt kleptocratic dictatorship. Fault them after the fact for not installing democracy, but don't fault them for having the courage to rebel in the first place. Violent uprising is the most pure form of a people's expression of discontent.

Violent uprising is a very ugly thing. Innocents get killed, the economy goes to hell, the social tissue of the country is destroyed for at least one generation. I think that sometimes an armed uprising is necessary, but for it to be justified it's not enough that the government is bad, you must be fighting for concrete improvements and not more of the same under a different flag. The Nicaraguans would be better off had the Somozas stayed in power, and this is what matters at the end of the day. I blame the Sandinistas for starting a civil war which resulted not in liberty, but in oppression and more corruption.

I don't know anything about them.

I referenced them in the OP. Ortega gave the majority of the Somozas' lands to a handful of Sandinista leaders, including himself. He is extremely wealthy nowadays.

Again, it's not fair to blame the consequences of the embargo on the Sandinistas. I know how low Nicaragua ranked when the embargo was lifted, that's why they were voted out of office; the people knew that the embargo was there because of the Socialist government in power, and that getting rid of it would get rid of the embargo. Do I blame them for voting the way they did? Absolutely not, but I don't think it was fair of the American government to behave the way that it did, because of the great harm that came to the Nicaraguan people due to their embargo. One must ask; which is more important, the welfare of the people, or the party of the government in power? The US has made clear repeatedly in history that the welfare of the people is NOT in their interest, that is why they behave the way they do. I can understand that the US might not approve of a leftist government (or really anyone who deposed someone they liked) in power somewhere, but why must they strangle the people of those countries because of that? I mean, its just politics, at the end of the day, I think the average person cares far more about food on their table and a roof over their head than who exactly is running their country. I know that many more Nicaraguans enjoyed those simple things before the embargo began than during it. This is beginning to turn into a rant, so I'll stop here, but I think you see where I'm going with this. Ignoring the human factor is just unacceptable in my book, regardless of the objective.

My point is precisely that the embargo is not at all the sole responsible for the destruction of the nicaraguan economy. Besides the deleterious effects of the Civil War itself, we must look at the awful macroeconomic management of the economy, including as I said, printing money to pay for everything, what resulted in inflation in such a scale that the salaries of the poor, that didn't have access to banks, was destroyed in one week.

I completely understand where you're going. But I am going somewhere else; I am saying that the Sandinistas didn't fight for the human factor. They got rich, they abolished the most basic civil liberties to degreer far worse than under the Somozas, they mismanaged the economy in the most bizarre manners, and the result was more suffering, less quality of life, and they remaining highly unpopular until today.

 

[luiz]

I am not very knowledgeable about the subject, so the first time hearing about the subject was reading your article. This shows that I have no bias, nor did I have any previous knowledge of the issue.

When I read the article for the first time, I got the impression that the Sandistas had had dictatorship like powers until 1990, when they decided to hold free elections for the first time. That is what the connotation of the article is.

Your impression is no good. The article mentions nothing of dictatorships, however your impression is not wrong because during the State of Emergency (1982-1988) the Sandinistas did in fact rule as dictators, even though there were election in 1984.

Pasi said the article was factually incorrect, which it isn't. Furthermore it is an article form The Economist, aimed at people who know who the Sandinistas are and have a basic knowledge of history.