Guise of Objectivity
Multi-party diversity in a revolu-
tionary socialist country has little his-
torical success, and Nicaragua’s ex-
perience could enrich our understand-
ing of paths for radical social change.
The brief article by Tony Jenkins
(September/October 1984) provides
some useful information but is filled
with factual errors and analysis more
suited to The New Republic.
Jenkins, under the guise of objec-
tivity, begins his analysis from a lib-
eral perspective, doubting all the ex-
pressed good intentions of the FSLN
leadership. Instead, he gives the ben-
efit of the doubt to the right-wing
Democratic Coordinating Committee
(CDN). Yet it is clear that the Nicara-
guan elections are a qualitative im-
provement over the “demonstration
elections” in El Salvador, and that the
FSLN has gone the extra mile in en-
couraging participation by all parties
in governing and in the elections.
Jenkins does not mention a crucial
fact: the FSLN won overwhelmingly
not because it suppressed the opposi-
tion, but because the Sandinistas out-
organized the other groups and de-
veloped a program that met the needs
of the majority. The FSLN led a
politicized population, united only in
opposition to Somoza in 1979, to a
point now where the majority support
a socialist program.
Jenkins also ignores U.S. manipu-
lation within the electoral process.
The CIA encouragement of the CDN
to boycott the elections fell on recep-
tive ears, and a major effort was
launched to pull more parties out of
the elections. While we do not know
the real reasons behind the withdrawal
of the PLI candidates, it certainly fit
into CIA strategy.
(1) Jenkins asserts that “the elec-
tions become little more than a cost-
ly distraction. . .a distraction [the
FSLN] long resisted.” In fact, the
Sandinistas announced in 1980 that
elections would be held in five years.
While some FSLN leaders may see
elections as a waste of time (prefer-
ring to concentrate on grass-roots par-
ticipatory democracy and reconstruc-
tion), the Sandinista line is that the
elections are a great step forward in
institutionalizing the revolution and
2
REPORT ON THE AMERICAS
building democracy in Nicaragua.
(2) According to Jenkins, “very Editor
few parties were prepared to commit George Black
themselves to the elections” [because
of restrictions under the emergency Features Editor
legislation].
Actually, the government an- Managing Editor
nounced May 31 that restrictions
Virginia Cannon
would be reviewed for the elections at Research Director
the revolution’s fifth anniversary cele- Robert Matthews
bration on July 19, and most were
lifted [on that day]. Of the ten parties Research Staff
with legal status, six had long leaned
Robert Armstrong
Deborah Huntington
toward registering and three had Janet Shenk
hinted since 1983 that they would not.
Given the newness of free elections, Art Direction
all parties [attempted to define what
Liz Mestres
they viewed as] fair conditions, but Librarian
only the most conservative two of the Ruth Kaplan
seven were not committed to elec-
tions. [sic] One of these, the PLI, re- Promotion Manager
gistered but withdrew October 21.
Kate Browne
(3) Jenkins quotes two seemingly Subscription Manager
important but unnamed sources: it Cecilia Chacon
“was clear the government
was be-
Businessanager
coming isolated . . . the Sandinistas Stuart Ozer
seem hellbent on a military show-
down.” What other socialist or even Distribution Manager
nationalist revolutionary governments
Ted Auerbach
have done more in the face of difficult On Leave
internal conditions and outside ag- Judy Butler
gression to keep from being isolated?
Nicaragua has been a lion on the dip-
lomatic circuit, has agreed to support Typography by: Your Type.
Contadora and promised to negotiate Book store distribution: Camrer Pigeon, 40 Plymp-
an end to any foreign military advisers ton Street. Boston, MA 02118.
Report on the Americas (ISSN 0149-1598) is pub-
or arms trafficking. lished bimonthly by the North American Congress
(4) The far-right wing of the tradi- on Latin America, Inc. (NACLA), an independent
tional Conservative Party left Nicara- non-profitorganization foundedin 1966 focusingon
gua with Somoza in 1979 and the the political economy ofthe Americas. Donations to
party dissolved. The PCN was actu- NACLA are tax-exempt.
ally formed this year by a right split The views expressed in Report on the Americas
off the PCD, which itself split from are those of the authors and do not necessarily repre-
sent the views of NACLA.
the old Conservative
Party. The PCD
never joined the CDN so it would Second class postage paid at New York, NY. Post-
master. send address changes to NACLA, 151 West
have been hard for millionaire 19th Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10011.
businessman Mario Rappaccioli to Subscriptions: $18 per year for individuals ($32 for
have been a “dominant voice inside two years; $45 for three years); $29 per year for
the CDN” for more than a few institutions ($54 for two years; $75 for three years).
months. The PCN joined the CDN For Air Mail Subscription add, per year: U.S. and
and while it is not legally recognized Canada $6; Mexico, Central America, Caribbean
as a party, it is considered so, and thus $9; South America, Europe $12; elsewhere $14.
as a party, it is considered so, and thus
the CDN is usually said to have four, Back Issues. $3 plus 75 cents postage and handling.
not three, member parties.
Back issue lists available on request.
(5) The article says the CDN “as- Microfilm reels of Volumes I through VI and VII
sume[s] the role of the legitimate through X available at $90 each. Copyright c
sume[s] 1985 by the North American Congress on Latin
voice of domestic opposition to the America, Inc. Indexed by Alternative Press
government.” Legitimate to whom? Index and Hispanic American Periodicals Index.
Continued on page 13
Continued from page 2
The CDN’s constant demands that the
government dialogue with the contras
make it quite unpopular in Nicaragua,
and it is a testament to the restraint of
the Sandinistas and their supporters
that the CDN and its mouthpiece, La
Prensa, were not shut down years
ago.
Reagan may say he views CDN’s
“participation in the elections . . . as
the touchstone of Sandinista commit-
ments to pluralism and democracy.”
In reality, the CDN’s participation is
viewed in Washington as the touch-
stone of Sandinista willingness to sell
out, and this the FSLN has refused to
do. Most Nicaraguans do not see ca-
tering to groups supporting the con-
tras as a “touchstone of democracy.”
Fifty thousand died fighting to over-
throw Somoza and Nicaraguans see
no reason to let somocista mercenaries
back in through negotiation.
Jenkins’ statement about the “re-
pression of all public political opposi-
tion” makes Nicaragua sound like El
Salvador. While strong opposition to
the FSLN is discouraged, La Prensa
keeps criticizing, new rightist groups
are formed and old ones continue to
exist (and can print materials). Out-
door opposition rallies were discour-
aged but indoor conferences con-
tinued.
Statements by CDN leaders have
confirmed [that they never intended to
run], so why Jenkins’ weak and tenta-
tive statement? Few independent ob-
servers were fooled by the CDN pre-
tense of preparing for elections-it
was a set-up to allow stronger criti-
cism of the process.
To the CDN and Washington, the
only fair elections are those that the
FSLN loses, a virtual impossibility
even if all parties ran. Fairness is not
the issue to Reagan and his allies, it is
class struggle and they “seem hell-
bent on a military showdown.”
Steve Watrous
Milwaukee, WI
Tony Jenkins responds:
Perhaps I underestimated my audi-
ence, but I felt it was important to
tackle the elections from the context
of the establishment U.S. media,
which are, after all, where most
people’s opinions are shaped. That I
should start from such a perspective
does not mean that I endorse it-I
think my article proves that. There is
no liberal bourgeois conspiracy.
To set the record straight: in five
years the Sandinista Front has trans-
formed Nicaragua from the plaything
of coffee and cattle barons into a soci-
ety focused on hospitals and schools,
women’s organizations and cam-
pesino cooperatives. No other society
has ever been so radically altered with
so little bloodshed. That does not
mean the Sandinistas are faultless; it
would be patronizing to pretend so.
(1) With regard to the date of the
elections it would be naive to suggest
that Sandinista policy has been consis-
tent since 1980. As Interior Minister
Tomas Borge has often admitted, the
elections should have been held ear-
lier. Yet within the Frente there were
many who argued that elections could
not be organized in a time of war–
after all, Britain held none during
World War II. Others argued that the
participatory, mass-organizational ele-
ment of the Council of State should
not be discarded. Yes, the elections
were a useful educational and mo-
bilizing operation, but, as many San-
dinista leaders have privately admit-
ted, the overriding priority was to
convince European Socialist Interna-
tional leaders of their pluralist com-
mitment.
(2) Yes, the Frente promised May
31 to lift restrictions. They had previ-
ously promised to lift them on Feb-
ruary 21. . . . In practice, as I wrote,
the major concessions did not come
until early August. You may believe
six parties were “leaning” toward
participation, but until the last mo-
ment the PLI and the PCD were vacil-
lating. Their excuse was the absence
of guarantees and conditions. The real
reasons are the subject for another ar-
ticle.
(3) I agree the Sandinistas have
made major efforts to avoid becoming
isolated. But, regrettably, in the
months leading up to the elections the
efforts were not being met with much
success. Like it or not, that is the real-
ity. Let’s recall where the Socialist In-
ternational is coming fron–they
would clearly like a “Portuguese sol-
ution” in Nicaragua. They have their
own political ax to grind. Fortunately,
the fairness of the elections helped the
Frente to recover much of the lost
ground.
(4) If Watrous wants to fault my
facts, to undermine my analysis, he
should get his own facts right. The
PCD was not a split but a coalition of
the three conservative parties which
reunited in 1979, as such it is the di-
rect descendant of the traditional Con-
servative Party. The PCN has never
joined the CDN. In practice it is an
ex-officio member. Through COSEP
Mario Rappaccioli has long been a
dominant voice in the CDN. The PCN
is the right wing of the Conservative
Party in Nicaragua.
(5) Watrous quotes me out of con-
text. For reasons explained in my arti-
cle, the CDN was able to assume the
role of the “legitimate” opposition in
international opinion. As I showed, it
has as yet to prove that the role is jus-
tified.
I could go on, but I won’t. All
Watrous’ points could be answered in
the same vein. All I will say is that,
given the context, the elections were
remarkably fair and open and this has
been reflected in the reports from a
broad range of observers.
Menu
