How to steal an election, Sandinista-style

[luiz]

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.

I disagree. Unstable countries should not adopt parlamentarism, look at Italy. A presidentialist system like we have in Brazil, with multiple parties and a second round between the two most voted candidates for executive offices (if no candidate reaches 50% + 1 votes) is working very well. That said, Brazil also worked well in the 19th Century as a parlamentarist monarchy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

Well, technically that's true, since half of the Sandinistas' rule is dominated by the American embargo, but even during that, they made a much more conscious attempt to address the concerns of the people than Somoza ever even thought about doing.

As for the nature of their government, I will direct you to the following concept, a diagram of which I will also reproduce below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_needs

When the unmet needs of people include things at the bottom of this chart, their concern adjusts accordingly. To put it quite simply, people are more concerned with having food on their table, a place to sleep, and generally staying alive, than they are with politics, which lies at the top of this chart. What the Sandinistas did was address these very basic concerns, until foreign intervention (read, the US embargo) heavily impeded it. By the rules of this hierarchy of needs, once those basic of needs are secured, one's concern moves up the pyramid, and eventually they become concerned with having a voice in their government. Sooner or later, Nicaraguans were going to start having a problem with a dictatorial regime, but the fact that they were able to reach the level of security to have such issues as their chief concern, where before the regime they did not, says quite a bit about the deeds of the regime itself. However, this course was not allowed to play out in Nicaragua, so we cannot make the claim that Sandinista policy, apart from the wanton printing of money, would have been unable to solve the problems of Nicaraguans, or that the people would have been better off under a Somoza-style regime than an Ortega one, provided that both types of rule were allowed to play themselves out free from intervention, either foreign (the United States) or domestic (rebels, on either side).

We have previously established that the Sandinistas were voted out of power in 1990 because that would end the embargo, I don't think we should pretend it was anything by that.

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.

You are trying to portray the goal of the Sandinistas as being to steal most of the Somoza's land, and if someone else gets some of it in the process too, then hey, that's cool. I don't think it went down like that. Yes, they did take more than their fair share of land, yes that is corrupt, counterproductive, and no, I do not approve of it. However, I don't think that land redistribution was ultimately undertaken purely so that the Sandinista leaders could make off with huge estates. I think that they simply took more than their fair share because they were corrupt, but that overall their land redistribution was both right in action and just in principle.

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 understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that, the day before the embargo began in 1985, that events were in motion that would cause Nicaraguans to be as bad off in 1990 without the embargo as they were with it.

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.

Again, quality of life declined because of the period of time needed to recover from that civil war (things don't get better from a war overnight, especially in a backwater place like Nicaragua), and because only five years into that, 80% of their export market ceased to exist. What we should do is look at the things that the Sandinistas did right, which are really to provide very basic things for the people which they lacked under the Somoza regime, things like education and basic health care and medical practice. Those things were symbols of the Sandinistas' rule, that is why the Contras attacked them so readily.

I'm aware of the real problems with just printing money, and that such a thing can and will lead to economic collapse, but that is where your criticism should lie. To declare that the Nicaraguan people were better off under Somoza is only technically true, since half of the Sandinistas' rule is characterized by the suffering imposed by the American embargo. But objectively, the socialists did far more to address the everyday problems of the people than Somoza did.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes you were backing the Somozas, but the Somozas were the internationally recognised governnment, as crappy as it was.

International recognition was based on our support and dont matter one bit to the people living there.

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.

The Nicaraguan people fighting Somoza were the first to fund it, and we were supporting the Somozas for decades. If they could have come to us for support, they wouldn't have needed Russia. But the fact remains, overthrowing the dictatorship was right, regardless of where the weapons came from.

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.

The rebels were justified in overthrowing the dictatorship, I never said they were justified in everything else they did, on the contrary, I said the opposite. But I reject this attempt at equivalence - the rebels fought their war against the military dictatorship, the Contras (and us) waged a war of terrorism, even Reagan called the Contras thugs in private (Schultz memoir?). The Contras didn't engage the Sandinista army in direct battle, they mostly went around killing social workers, teachers, doctors, and peasants who tried to defend them. And citing economic management when we were doing everything to screw that country up is illogical.

We should have apologized for supporting the Somozas and offered to help Nicaraguans get back on their feet. Yeah, I'm not a fan of socialism but I could care less if Nicaraguans want govt health care and education etc. Our real motive for fighting the spread of socialism is the west doesn't want former colonies nationalizing corporate assets and native resources. Thats my take on the Cold War... "Land reform" is a threat to the land grabs under colonialism... Even our Framers had some disagreement about nationalizing England's assets here, Franklin argued we were obliged to pay what we seized. He lost the argument but we've since repaid that debt many times over.

 

[luiz]

Well, technically that's true, since half of the Sandinistas' rule is dominated by the American embargo, but even during that, they made a much more conscious attempt to address the concerns of the people than Somoza ever even thought about doing.

As for the nature of their government, I will direct you to the following concept, a diagram of which I will also reproduce below.

When the unmet needs of people include things at the bottom of this chart, their concern adjusts accordingly. To put it quite simply, people are more concerned with having food on their table, a place to sleep, and generally staying alive, than they are with politics, which lies at the top of this chart. What the Sandinistas did was address these very basic concerns, until foreign intervention (read, the US embargo) heavily impeded it. By the rules of this hierarchy of needs, once those basic of needs are secured, one's concern moves up the pyramid, and eventually they become concerned with having a voice in their government. Sooner or later, Nicaraguans were going to start having a problem with a dictatorial regime, but the fact that they were able to reach the level of security to have such issues as their chief concern, where before the regime they did not, says quite a bit about the deeds of the regime itself. However, this course was not allowed to play out in Nicaragua, so we cannot make the claim that Sandinista policy, apart from the wanton printing of money, would have been unable to solve the problems of Nicaraguans, or that the people would have been better off under a Somoza-style regime than an Ortega one, provided that both types of rule were allowed to play themselves out free from intervention, either foreign (the United States) or domestic (rebels, on either side).

We have previously established that the Sandinistas were voted out of power in 1990 because that would end the embargo, I don't think we should pretend it was anything by that.

My argument is that they were not able to improve the composition of their needs because of the Sandinistas. At the end of their regimes their most basic needs were still not matched, in fact they were worse off. Did the embargo play a role? Sure, but then again the US is not forced to trade with other countries. Did irresponsible macroeconomic policies play role? Sure as well, they managed the economy much like a 5 years old would. Did corruption play a role? Yes, they managed to make Nicaragua even more corrupt than it previously was, and that obviously harms economic development. The civil war which they started also had a clear negative effect.

The economic output of Nicaragua declined over the years of Sandinista rule, the conditions of poor people got significantly worse. Their stated goals aside, they only produced more corruption and suffering. That does not justify waging a civil war and tearing the nation apart.

You are trying to portray the goal of the Sandinistas as being to steal most of the Somoza's land, and if someone else gets some of it in the process too, then hey, that's cool. I don't think it went down like that. Yes, they did take more than their fair share of land, yes that is corrupt, counterproductive, and no, I do not approve of it. However, I don't think that land redistribution was ultimately undertaken purely so that the Sandinista leaders could make off with huge estates. I think that they simply took more than their fair share because they were corrupt, but that overall their land redistribution was both right in action and just in principle.

Well, corruption was not composed of small incidents in the land redistribution schemes. The majority of the nationalized land eneded up in the hands of the Sandinista leaders, including Daniel Ortega himself. After those acts, any credibility they might have had is gone, and they become little more than a kleptocracy.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that, the day before the embargo began in 1985, that events were in motion that would cause Nicaraguans to be as bad off in 1990 without the embargo as they were with it.

They certainly would. A civil war and grotesque mismanagement of the economy tend to achieve as much. It's interesting to note how the support for the Sandinistas amongs various groups that originally supported them, like the catholic clergy, quickly disappeared during the 80's when it became clear that they were a worse version of the Somozas.

Again, quality of life declined because of the period of time needed to recover from that civil war (things don't get better from a war overnight, especially in a backwater place like Nicaragua), and because only five years into that, 80% of their export market ceased to exist. What we should do is look at the things that the Sandinistas did right, which are really to provide very basic things for the people which they lacked under the Somoza regime, things like education and basic health care and medical practice. Those things were symbols of the Sandinistas' rule, that is why the Contras attacked them so readily.

None of those things actually improved, propaganda aside. In 1990 Nicarguans lived less than in 1970, even with all medical improvements. They had less spare money, and their nation was worse off in relation to the neighbours.

Was the Sandinista insurgency worth it?

Also, don't be so quick to classify all Contras as terrorists hell bent on killing poor people. They were a rather heterogeneuous group, that operated independently. Some Contra leaders were even former Sandinista leaders that became frustrated with the course of the new regime.

I'm aware of the real problems with just printing money, and that such a thing can and will lead to economic collapse, but that is where your criticism should lie. To declare that the Nicaraguan people were better off under Somoza is only technically true, since half of the Sandinistas' rule is characterized by the suffering imposed by the American embargo. But objectively, the socialists did far more to address the everyday problems of the people than Somoza did.

They addressed their own needs, their own agenda. They occasionally throwed a bone to the poor; don't think for a second that the Somozas didn't. Authoritarian latin-american caudillos, since the 19th Century, always made sure that the peopel had just enough bread and circus. The Somozas fell because the economy no longer allowed them to provide that minum level, after the crisis of the 70's, and so their corruption became unbearable. It wasn't much different with the Sandinistas.

 

[frekk]

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

Absolutely not!! He has no veto power, he can be removed from office relatively easily before the end of his term (his party caucus has the power to give him the boot and, if he heads a minority government, he might face an election anytime the opposition initiates a motion of nonconfidence), and he does not have nearly the same degree of executive power - technically, most of his executive influence consists of appointing other ministers and suggesting courses of action to the cabinet, which is where policy is determined.

The President, on the other hand, is modelled after an 18th century British monarch - the chief difference being that he has a limited term and is elected. Other than that they are more or less identical in scope of power. They are figureheads/idols, heads of state, commanders in chief, set policy, and wield direct, supreme executive power. And a veto.

 

[luiz]

International recognition was based on our support and dont matter one bit to the people living there.

It was based on the fact that they were the ruling party. You don't have to like a regime to recognise that they're in charge. It was not only the US that recognised the Somoza regime.

The Nicaraguan people fighting Somoza were the first to fund it, and we were supporting the Somozas for decades. If they could have come to us for support, they wouldn't have needed Russia. But the fact remains, overthrowing the dictatorship was right, regardless of where the weapons came from.

First we must clarify things. At the time of the coup, the United States were not backing the Somozas. Jimmy Carter had suspended american support for that regime.
Second, it is absurd to suggest that "they should have come to us". Do you expect the US to fund a marxist insurgency in Central America? Not on this planet, not on this life.
Finally, I would argue that overthrowing a dictatorship is only a noble goal if you plan to install something better. The Sandinistas did not; most nicaraguans, after witnessing the results of their regime, would have rather sticked with the Somozas than go through a civil war just get more of the same.

The rebels were justified in overthrowing the dictatorship, I never said they were justified in everything else they did, on the contrary, I said the opposite. But I reject this attempt at equivalence - the rebels fought their war against the military dictatorship, the Contras (and us) waged a war of terrorism, even Reagan called the Contras thugs in private (Schultz memoir?). The Contras didn't engage the Sandinista army in direct battle, they mostly went around killing social workers, teachers, doctors, and peasants who tried to defend them. And citing economic management when we were doing everything to screw that country up is illogical.

As I said to Cheezy, be careful in generalization. The Contras were not a specific organization - Contra comes from counter-revolutionary. Some "Contra" groups were composed of poor peasants and ethnic groups that resented Sandinista authoritarianism. Case in point - the Nicaraguan Coast Indian Unit.

While the first groups of "Contras" were former members of the Somoza's National Guard - despicable types, generally - the movement rapidly diversified and encompassed not only peasants and indians, as I already mentioned, but even former Sandinista leaders that grew frustrated. A famous example would be the charismatic Edén Pastora and his group based in Costa Rica.

Both the Contras and the Sandinistas engaged in terrorism. I already mentioned what the FSNL did to the Miskito indians, and that was hardly an isolated case.

Furthermore, being under an embargo is just another reason to not mismanage the economy like they did. And keep in mind that the embargo only begun in 1985, while they seized power in 1979. And that they could and did trade with other nations.

We should have apologized for supporting the Somozas and offered to help Nicaraguans get back on their feet. Yeah, I'm not a fan of socialism but I could care less if Nicaraguans want govt health care and education etc. Our real motive for fighting the spread of socialism is the west doesn't want former colonies nationalizing corporate assets and native resources. Thats my take on the Cold War... "Land reform" is a threat to the land grabs under colonialism... Even our Framers had some disagreement about nationalizing England's assets here, Franklin argued we were obliged to pay what we seized. He lost the argument but we've since repaid that debt many times over.

Except that the Sandinistas proved to be worse than the Somozas in the corruption department.

It is obvious that the US rationale for opposing them was stopping the spread of socialism, and the opposite is true for Russia's reason.

 

[Incanam]

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.

Whether the facts are incorrect doesn't matter if the connotation given is incorrect.

 

[luiz]

Whether the facts are incorrect doesn't matter if the connotation given is incorrect.

The connotation is not incorrect. If you got the impression that the Sandinistas ruled over an undemocratic regimes prior to 1990, you got the right the right impression. The state of emergency abolished freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom to assemble.

 

[lovett]

The President, on the other hand, is modelled after an 18th century British monarch - the chief difference being that he has a limited term and is elected. Other than that they are more or less identical in scope of power. They are figureheads/idols, heads of state, commanders in chief, set policy, and wield direct, supreme executive power. And a veto.

The President is modeled after the British Monarch, but whilst the prime minister holds control of commons, he (or she) is the monarch. Since the monarch doesn't actually use any of her almost absolute powers, they are vested in her first minister. They have all the royal prerogatives of supreme executive power, which does include declaring war, calling elections, negotiating treaties, the appointment of ministers so on and so forth. As opposed to the US system of separation of powers, parliamentary systems tend to adopt unity of powers. Sure, a vote of no confidence has the potential to kick out the Premier, but to put that in perspective, British governments have lost exactly three vote of confidence in the last hundred years. And if you think that US presidents are completely secure in their office, I'm sure Mr Clinton might have a word or two of input

 

[Homie]

I won't go into the history of the debate here, but luiz is right to criticize their electoral system if they indeed have what is called a single-plurality vote. That means that there is only one round of voting, and winner takes all. Which means that if there are 6 candidates, 1 of whom is hated by 80% of the population, that candidate can win, even though 80% of the population would want ANY candidate BUT him. Because if the other votes are split among the other 5 candidates, they have only 16% each and will lose to the least preferred candidate by the majority of the population.

This problem can easily be fixed by having a second round between the two candidates who got the most votes in the first round, a run-off election. This way, the candidate who is least preferred by the majority of the population cannot possibly win. This is the American system. It is not the best system, but a one round, winner takes all system is the worst system you can have for this type of an election.