These interviews reveal
a complex and subtle difference of opinion, as well as
elements of an old-fashioned power struggle as the
Sandinista party gears up for the 1996 elections.
By the end of 1994, what had
begun as a political debate
within the Sandinista Nat-
ional Liberation Front (FSLN) was
on the verge of developing into a
full-blown split, with front-page
reports in the Nicaraguan press of
an impending purge of certain
members from the Sandinista Nat-
ional Directorate (the party execu-
tive committee). There are two
principal currents of Sandinismo:
the “Democratic Left” (Izquierda
Democrdtica, ID), associated with
former President Daniel Ortega,
which has been characterized as
having a more “orthodox-left” ori-
entation; and the “Movement for
the Renovation of Sandinismo”
(MRS), associated with former
Vice-President Sergio Ramfrez–
who since these interviews has left
the party-which is considered
more “social-democratic.” These
interviews reveal that beneath the
rhetoric lie both a more complex
and subtle difference of opinion, as
well as elements of an old-fash-
ioned power struggle as the party
gears up for the 1996 elections.
The debate between the two cur-
rents first came to a head in the
special congress of the FSLN in
May, 1994, when Ortega was
reelected party general secretary,
and his Democratic Left current
won the majority of seats in the
Sandinista Assembly (the party
legislature) and two-thirds of the
seats in the National Directorate.
Ramfrez not only failed to win
reelection to the Directorate, but
his current was reduced to minori-
ty status in both party institutions.
Pointing to new party quotas for
women and youth, the Democratic
Left hailed the congress as a victo-
ry for democracy and pluralism.
The defeated tendency, however,
saw the congress as a setback, cit-
ing continuing control by the old
guard of a self-styled “vanguard”
party.
Following the congress, Sergio
Ramfrez was stripped not only of
his position as head of the Sandin-
ista delegation in the National
Assembly (Nicaragua’s national
legislature) but also of his seat,
which he had been occupying by
proxy on Daniel Ortega’s behalf.
The Sandinista Assembly ordered
that Ortega reclaim his seat, and
named him head of the Sandinista
delegation in the national legisla-
ture. The majority of Sandinista
deputies defied the Assembly,
however, and elected Ramfrez’ sec-
ond-in-command, Dora Marfa
T611ez, instead. The Democratic
Left then charged that the MRS
was trying to use its control of the
delegation to transform it into an
independent power base-espe-
cially after the latter introduced a
constitutional reform bill that had
been disowned by the newly elect-
ed Sandinista Assembly.
On October 25, the conflict
spread to the party-owned news-
paper, Barricada, with the sacking
of its MRS-affiliated editor, Carlos
Fernando Chamorro, and the subse-
quent resignations of the entire edi-
torial board, the president of the
board of directors, and over 20 edi-
tors and staff members. What party
leaders described as the reimposi-
tion of party discipline and
accountability was characterized
by the MRS as a high-handed ges-
ture of intolerance on the part of the
“authoritarian” and “orthodox-left”
current in the party. After the Bar-
ricada upheaval, poet and former
Sandinista Minister of Culture
Ernesto Cardenal resigned from the
FSLN, alleging fraud in the post-
congress municipal and regional
elections of party leaders, and
charging Daniel Ortega with “kid-
napping” the party to further his
own political interests.
The following interviews were
conducted in early December,
1994, by NACLA executive direc-
tor Pierre La Ram6e with Victor
Hugo Tinoco and Dora Marfa
Tllez, two prominent members of
the FSLN who are on opposite
sides of the debate.
Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 199511
Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 1995 11INTERVIEW / NICARAGUA
Victor Hugo Tinoco is a
member of the Demo-
cratic Left current. He is
currently a member of the
National Directorate and heads
the FSLN’s International Affairs
Department. He was deputy for-
eign minister during the years
the Sandinistas held power.
What are the major differences
between the positions of the Demo-
cratic Left and the Movement for
the Renovation of Sandinismo
(MRS)?
There are ideological and elec-
toral differences. The former have
always existed and go back to the
founding of the Sandinista Front in
the 1970s. As the Sandinistas suc-
ceeded in winning sympathy and
capturing the popular imagination,
various social and political ele-
ments from all sectors and classes
linked up with the Front-some
with the sole objective of over-
throwing Somoza, others with the
goal of revolutionary transforma-
tion.
Fundamentally, I believe that the
ideological differences are as fol-
lows. One sector, basically that of
Sergio [Ramfrez] and Dora [Maria
T611ez], holds that the world has
fundamentally changed and that
revolutionary social movements
have to adapt to these changes.
They argue that the country is in a
profound economic crisis and
requires stability. The need for
national stability leads these com-
paieros to reject the popular strug-
gle. The other group in the FSLN,
the majority, wants to promote
national stability, but without sacri-
ficing the popular struggle. That’s
the basic difference.
The difference appears principal-
ly in political practice. For instance,
with regard to the popular struggle,
the majority in the FSLN supported
the transportation workers’ strike
last year while the minority practi-
cally rejected it. The minority
group-especially in the legisla-
ture-has supported the govern-
ment’s plans to privatize while dis-
couraging protest and opposition.
The majority, however, has stated
its opposition to the privatization of
education and health.
Can you say something about the
“electoral” differences which you
mentioned?
The problem that the FSLN had
last year until the congress in July
ty. Unity is in crisis now not
because of political differences-
which have always existed-but
because the minority, Sergio
Ramfrez’ group, has decided to
break with democratic procedures,
and to act unilaterally in the
National Assembly without con-
sulting the party. Their actions, dic-
tated by an electoral strategy, are
the source of the crisis in the party.
The members of the MRS would say
that the recent coup at Barricada is a
The need for national stability leads the
compaFieros in the other group to reject the
popular struggle. Our group wants to promote
national stability, but without sacrificing the
popular struggle. That’s the basic difference.
was that we had these two conflict-
ing positions which amounted to a
political struggle within the party.
We called the special congress pre-
cisely because of this-to deter-
mine which of these two positions
was held by the majority within the
party and which would be the
party’s official position. The
majority position, as established by
the special congress, supports both
stability and the popular struggle.
Nevertheless, both the majority
and minority positions were repre-
sented in the National Directorate
and in the Sandinista Assembly.
The majority should respect the
rights of the minority, but at the
same time, the minority-while
fighting for its position-should
respect the decisions of the majori-
ty.
We haven’t succeeded in achiev-
ing such an accommodation
because of the electoral dimension
of the conflict-the compaileros of
the minority have begun to defy the
democratic decisions of the majori-
clear indication of a hegemonic and
intolerant attitude on the part of the
Democratic Left. How would you
respond?
As far as the party press is con-
cerned, we had a totally abnormal
situation where the minority group
controlled the two papers of the
FSLN, Barricada and Nuevo Diario.
[Strictly speaking, only Barricada
is an FSLN publication; Nuevo
Diario is autonomous, but its direc-
tor is an MRS member.-PL] In
Nuevo Diario, you find reflected
the point of view of the minority
and almost never that of the major-
ity. Before the changes at Barrica-
da, the paper reflected the point of
view of the minority and wasn’t
giving space to the majority. As a
result, the majority had no press in
which its position-or the official
position taken by the FSLN-was
clearly reflected. The change at
Barricada was carried out with the
simple objective of ensuring that
the paper owned by the party reflect
12NACLA
REPORT ON THE AMERICAS
12
NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICASINTERVIEW / NICARAGUA
the position of the majority-but
without excluding the minority
point of view. It is admittedly diffi-
cult, in the context of political
struggle, to resolve the problem and
strike a balance in which the point
of view of the minority will not be
lost, especially with all of the
recriminations and attacks.
Victor Hugo Tinoco
What are the main differences
between the two currents vis-a-vis constitutional change-more specifi-
cally with regard to the changes
being pursued by the Sandinista
deputies in the National Assembly?
The differences on the constitu-
tion are not on the ideological
plane, but rather are of an electoral
order. This is evident from what is
being discussed-the theme of
prohibiting relatives of the presi-
dent from being candidates, the
run-off ballot, etc. These differ-
ences are not differences based on
principle. In the Sandinista Assem-
bly, the FSLN officially approved
restrictions on relatives of the pres-
ident running for office as a poten-
tial reform. At the same time, how-
ever, we proposed that we would
give up this restriction in exchange
for a law to stabilize the situation
0
0
with regard to rural landed proper-
ty.
The position of the minority,
however, which constitutes the
majority of Sandinistas in parlia-
ment, is to introduce these constitu-
tional changes without any negotia-
tions. Why? The minority, led by
Sergio, senses that Antonio Lacayo
[leader of the moderate wing of the
governing UNO coalition and son-
in-law of President Violeta Cham-
orro-PL] is a natural rival for con-
trol of the country’s political center.
Sergio senses that Lacayo is in the
same ballpark politically as himself
and is trying to exclude him in
order to strengthen his own candi-
dacy. To accomplish this, the
minority is joining forces with
UNO conservatives who want to
punish Antonio Lacayo because
they feel he betrayed them after the
1990 elections when he arrogated
all the power to himself. It’s a
vendetta. So, you get a self-serving
position on Sergio’s part, combined
with a vendetta on UNO’s part,
resulting in a position of non-nego-
tiability.
The real adversary of the FSLN
is the right. In an election, Antonio
Lacayo would attract more votes
from the right than from the FSLN.
Therefore, we have an interest in
his participation, and we see no
reason to lock ourselves into a
position of restrictions on candi-
dates. As for the run-off, we think
that it would help the right because
they could unite in the second
round. I haven’t heard a single
rational explanation of how the
run-off could help us.
Are the differences between the two
groups irreconcilable?
I don’t think so. We are now
proposing a dialogue to find a way
to function as a single unified party.
This implies agreeing on the rules
of the game with respect to majori-
ty rule and minority representation.
If we can’t agree on how to func-
tion as a single group, the other
option is for them to form their own
group, and for all of us to stop
attacking each other. In the final
analysis, whatever our political dif-
ferences, we are closer to each
other than to other political groups.
Whether we function as one group
or two, the door should be left open
to eventually recombining our
forces.
Dora Maria Tdllez is one of the leaders of the
Movement for the Ren-
ovation of Sandinismo (MRS), a
deputy in the National Assembly,
and, until recently, a member of
the National Directorate. She is a
Sandinista comandante who
fought in the struggle against
the Somoza dictatorship, most
notably as second-in-command
of the occupation of the Nation-
al Palace in August, 1978, and as
the commander of the forces lib-
erating Le6n in July, 1979. In the
Sandinista government, she
served as minister of public
health.
How would you characterize the dif-
ference between your position and
that of the Democratic Left?
The country wants peace, stabili-
ty, employment and dynamic com-
munity development. Sandinismo
has to come up with a proposal that
demonstrates the FSLN can credi-
bly meet this challenge, and therein
lie our differences. The problem
goes beyond what we think of our-
selves-if the people perceive us as
militaristic and authoritarian, then
that is a perception we have to
change. The Democratic Left has
opted for a proposal that uses the
rhetoric of revolution, but that at
this moment is fundamentally con-
servative and backward-looking.
Nothing can be resolved by looking
backwards; we can only resolve our
problems by going forward.
We believe that the Democratic
Left has made a fetish of the popu-
lar struggle, and that this has been
Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 199513 Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 1995 13INTERVIEW / NICARAGUA
as detrimental to
the popular move-
ment as neoliber- Our
alism has been. in keep We also differ on
the question of should n
methods. Our me-
thods of struggle political
have to be in keep- to ing with a democ-
ratic and constitu-
tional system, and
IIoUld IIUt unlerl-
mine Nicaragua’s hard-won politi-
cal stability. Of course, strikes are
totally legitimate, and the right to
strike-as well as the popular strug-
gle-are enshrined as rights in the
Constitution. But violence doesn’t
have any place in Nicaragua and
just contributes to instability and to
a further separation between San-
dinismo and the people.
The Democratic Left insists on
defining the FSLN as a “vanguard
party.” The idea of the vanguard
made sense when the FSLN was
fighting the Somoza dictatorship
and needed a strong, solid, central-
ized, and closed mechanism to
confront the repression. But things
have changed. Another difference
between us concerns both the
process of democratization within
the Sandinista party, and the insti-
tutionalization of democracy in the
wider society. While we have tried
to achieve a more profound politi-
cal democratization in the party,
the Democratic Left has main-
tained a vertical, authoritarian and
sectarian style, creating a greater
distance between Sandinismo and
the people.
Why has constitutional reform been
such a contentious issue between the two currents?
We have been pushing for consti-
tutional reforms to deepen democ-
racy and to ensure that politics will
not be reduced to inter-elite rela-
tions. The changes we have pro-
posed include a restructuring of the
executive and the legislature that
methods of struggle have
ing with a democratic syst
ot undermine Nicaragua’s
stability. Violence just con
a further separation betw
iandinismo and the people
Dora Maria T6Ilez
would limit presidential power. We have also proposed greater trans- parency and accountability in gov- ernment and public service, a non- partisan, professional army and police force, and various changes in the electoral model, such as who can be a candidate. There are
major differences between the par-
ties in Nicaragua, but at least we
are looking for a system that will
work as a model for the country.
Basically, the Democratic Left’s
opposition to constitutional reform
has been the result of an alliance
between Antonio Lacayo and
Daniel Ortega. The Democratic
Left ended up supporting the posi-
tion of Lacayo to ensure the possi-
bility that he will be a candidate in
the 1996 elections.
The Democratic
Left claims that in
to be the interests of
maintaining stabili-
em, and ty to attract foreign
investment, the hard-won MRS is selling out
tributes to the Nicaraguan elite and foreign
een capital, and that
the MRS wants to
privatize all public
services. What is
vour response?
We support foreign investment,
but to say that we are selling out to
foreign capital is a complete false-
hood. It is widely recognized that
foreign investment-and invest-
ment in general-is needed for eco-
nomic development and to combat
poverty. The Democratic Left is
making a serious error in claiming
that foreign investment is unneces-
sary. How else can the country
develop? To promote investment is
to promote employment. As for pri-
vatizing public services, what we
want are constitutional guarantees
of free, obligatory and universal
education at the primary and sec-
ondary levels, with free health care
and non-privatization of essential
services. We have never said other-
wise-anything to the contrary is
pure propaganda.
How do you stand on the issue of
state enterprises being privatized to workers?
These are being run as highly
centralized organizations in which
the workers have very little partici-
pation or sense of property. There is
little sense that there has been a real
transition to worker-managed en-
terprises. The idea of union leaders
becoming enterprise directors is
absolutely inimical to the labor
movement. If union leaders are at
the same time enterprise directors,
who will defend the rights of the
workers? The rank-and-file worker
has not benefited but, on the con-
trary, has ended up with no rights.
Menu
