Lujo Wins Presidency in Paraguay

Submitted by fyl on 21 April, 2008 - 11:40.

Ex-Bishop Ferdinando Lujo wins the presidential election in Paraguay ending almost 60 years of single-party rule. That single party was clearly not the party of the people.

Paraguay shares a lot of the "people are poor and jobless" characteristics with Nicaragua. Unlike Nicaragua, however, it appears that:

  • The people gained control in an election rather than through a revolution.
  • "The church" in Paraguay supports the poor. (This is a serious simplification but probably the most important piece to watch in the future.)

While I don't see this as specifically anti-U.S. it is certainly another country added to the list in Latin America that will be ruled by someone who doesn't see the IMF, et al, as the solution to the problems of the average citizen. This conversion to "let's do it our way" rathern than looking to the U.S. (or getting stuck with the U.S.) to set national direction is virtually complete in Latin America.

Hopefully, this can get played in the international press as what it really is, the people of a country wanting to pick what is right for them. Today, there are enough examples (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua to offer a subset) that seem to be on the nationalism first bandwagon that there is no reason to consider this anything more than another country on the same bandwagon.

‹ Do Presidents Play Futbol? Food Crisis Opinion from Lula de Silva ›
( categories: )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Input from the UK

Submitted by fyl on 22 April, 2008 - 06:18.
The UK Independent offers a bit more on the significance of what is happening. And a caution.
All over the continent, a generation of politicians prepared to reach out for the votes of indigenous communities and the economically dispossessed is displacing a class of pro-American politicians. A coterie of leaders that proved infinitely more adept at enriching themselves and their acquaintances than their populations has been voted out of power.

sorry to

Submitted by Pinolero2 on 21 April, 2008 - 15:11.

dissapoint you Phil,but Daniel Ortega was NOT the people's choice,unless you consider 39% of the votes the people's vote/choice.

FAP

i thought

Submitted by Che Guevara on 21 April, 2008 - 15:42.

it was 38%? but i have been mistaken before.....

when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson

but that is how democracy works . . .

Submitted by arlington on 21 April, 2008 - 15:16.

but that is how democracy works . . . where there are more than two choices - and two choices just isn't enough for most of the world.

true but..

Submitted by Pinolero2 on 21 April, 2008 - 15:34.

Would any or has any president in the USA has ever been elected with a mere 39% of the total votes?

FAP

I wonder..

Submitted by Doug on 22 April, 2008 - 14:58.

for years and years the US election night exit polls done by the news agencies and TV networks were very accurate, then along comes Dieblod and Bush. The exit polls are now so far off now they stopped using them. So I don't believe anyone knows how many people REALLY voted for the current occupant of the oval office. One thing, the majority don't like what he is doing judged by the most recent Gallup pole .

I have more faith in the results from Nicargua's elections.

-Doug

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

Yes

Submitted by fyl on 21 April, 2008 - 16:07.

The big difference is the way you count them. Let's take the 1980 US election for comparison.

While Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote, the total vote count was only 86,574,904. The population of the United States in 1980 was about 227,000,000 and the adult population was about 70% of that number. That means that less than 28% of those that "could have voted", voted for Reagan.

If we contrast that with the Nicaragua 2006 election, we see that Ortega received 854,316 votes. I don't have the exact numbers but 3,000,000 people that "could have voted" seems like a reasonable guess. Thus, he received a bit over 28% of those potential votes.

I expect the numbers for the second election of Bush II are probably worse than the Reagan numbers but the 1980 election was something that was of interest to me.

So, while you could say "people didn't bother to vote in the U.S.", you need to ask why. Here are some thoughts:

  • The voter registration process in the U.S. has more steps. In most states you need to specifically register to vote whereas in many countries (including Nicaragua) your ID card is your voter registration card.
  • In some countries (it used to be this was in El Salvador and may still be) you are legally required to vote.
  • Many people in the U.S. see no chance for a third party candidate to make a difference and just don't bother voting for "the lesser of two evils". (Proportional representation in many countries and mandatory radio time in many countries including Nicaragua, means minority candidates can make a difference.)

1980 U.S.Presidential Election & the Electoral College

Submitted by Alra on 22 April, 2008 - 20:15.

"One of the most troubling aspects of the electoral college system is the possibility that the winner might not be the candidate with the most popular vote, Three presidents-Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000-were elected with fewer popular votes than their opponents.....In 18 elections between 1824 and 2000, presidents were elected without popular majorities-Including Abraham Lincoln who won election in 1860 with under 40% of the national vote"

www.britannica.com/presidents

Al

i have

Submitted by Che Guevara on 22 April, 2008 - 20:19.

i have met abraham lincoln, and sir, mr. ortega is no abraham lincoln....

when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson

Humor?

Submitted by fyl on 23 April, 2008 - 07:07.

I assume this was humor however it does illustrate how most of us only know "popular history". Lincoln is, of course, known for "winning the Civil War" but, at what cost. Here are some random points to research.

  • He proclaimed a blockade (rather than involving Congress)
  • He suspended the writ of habeas corpus
  • He authorized Grant's bloody approach in what was called a "war of attrition" which included targeting civilians and infrastructure
  • He used government funds without congressional authorization
  • He imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial

I am not saying Lincoln was a bad person or president. However, it is easy to see what Ortega has done that should be questioned but just as easy easy to forget what Lincoln (or anyone else who only exists in history books) did that should be questioned.

Back to my favorite Eduardo Galeano quote, "History is written from the point of view of the victor." In the case of the U.S. Civil War, who won was established* long ago. In Nicaragua, we are still trying to decide who the real victor of the revolution is.

* On reading this, I realized that established may not be what I want to say. The Civil War was a fascination when I was a kid. I studied it a lot and visited many battlefields and museums. My "don't like negros" parents pretty much thought slavery was ok and the South should have won in support of that goal.

I formed my own opinion which was that probably the South should have won or, more accurately, the Southern states should have been allowed to form their own country. Not because I supported slavery but because what was good for the industrialized North was very different from what was good for the rural South.

My feeling is that slavery in the South would have ended anyway. Even 100 years after the end of the Civil War, "separate but equal" (where equal sure didn't really mean that) was still the norm in the South. Maybe, without a North-imposed change, it would have taken less time for this transition.

Why did I say all that? Because while everyone will say "the North was the victor in the Civil War", did the people (of the North and of the South) really win? Would it have been so bad to have the USA and the CSA? And, to be it back to Nicaragua, wasn't this similar to the idea of autonomy for RAAN and RAAS?

but we are not

Submitted by Pinolero2 on 21 April, 2008 - 17:24.

talking % of potential voter or % of population phil,we are talking actual % of total votes. total not potential...

FAP

But, that's my point

Submitted by fyl on 21 April, 2008 - 19:36.

More people, percentage-wise, managed to vote for Daniel Ortega than Ronald Reagan or Bush II or ... More people were willing to actually voice that position. You are suggesting that those that didn't bother to vote should be ignored. I assert that people that didn't bother to vote actually are the whole issue.

In Nicaragua, Ortega was more popular than "none of the above". That isn't the case of recent presidential candidates in the U.S. I am not trying to be pro-Ortega (or even anti-Bush) with that statement. Back in the 1960s when literacy tests and such prevented some people from voting in the U.S. you had a different issue. Today, the only excuse is that you don't think it is worth your time.

you could call that a positive or a negative . . .

Submitted by arlington on 21 April, 2008 - 16:06.

you could call that a positive or a negative . . . that the system allows for such a narrow range of political thought - centre right/ right right. 50% plus one percent would still mean half the country didn't want that individual. Not exactly a screaming endorsement of democacy but, better than the vote of one supreme count justice deciding an election.

Canadian Prime Ministers routinely do not get near 50%. I wouldn't say they've been without scandal but, it does mean they have to work toward consensus more than blunt force mandate. Currently there are four parties in Parliament and the two front runners know they can't do better than 30 or 40 percent. Instead of going to the polls they have to work together. Canadian by and far prefer minority governments to majority. Majority rule usually gets us into trouble like NAFTA or our National tax GST.

does B*** know?

Submitted by webtrainer on 21 April, 2008 - 14:38.

I believe that's where el Arbusto and his cronies will be going to flee war crimes prosecution.

on edit: supposedly this is just a rumor . . . but a bolthole is a bolthole

Doors of hope fly open when doors of promise shut. -Thomas D'Arcy McGee