Good History lesson on the Nicaraguan Sandinista Revolution

Submitted by admin on 16 August, 2004 - 09:14.

Venezuela 2004 is not Nicaragua 1990 Despite its awesome firepower and the unquenchable thirst for oil that guides United States foreign policy, the Bush administration is about to suffer a significant defeat on Sunday, August 15 at the hands of the Venezuelan people.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and most political analysts agree that the real opposition in the upcoming recall vote is the US government. That makes the situation similar to events of fourteen years ago in Nicaragua during elections widely described as being a contest between the Sandinista revolution and the US, in all its post cold war glory.

As the Feb 25, 1990 elections approached in Nicaragua there were several factors weighing hard on the government of the Sandinista National Liberation Front. The covert and overt war to topple the revolution inspired by the "I am a contra" president, Ronald Reagan, was by then in the hands of Bush Sr., fresh off his December, 1989 invasion of Panama.

After nearly a decade of defending itself from the US backed "contras" the already weak Nicaraguan economy was all but crippled. Inflation was rampant with the dollar trading at over 45,000 Cordoba's to one US dollar.

Production was dangerously low, supplies depended on friendly countries giving donations and soft credit and shortages of many basic products were growing.

I remember how on payday people would rush to spend their entire paychecks, going from store to store in search of the basics or in their absence anything, before seeing the money devaluated in their hands.

Likewise, by 1990, many of the social-economic programs that the Sandinista government put in place in the early years of the revolution had long since been put on hold or lacked funding for their implementation as the country had no choice but to devote the vast majority of its human and mate rial resources to the defense effort.

After her best teacher was summoned into the army in 1984, an American adult education specialist working in rural Nicaragua wrote in her dairy: In nine words the young recruiter summed up the change occurring in the country: "Now, a soldier is more important than a teacher."

By 1990, the death toll was extremely high and added to the tens of thousands killed in the war that overthrew the brutal dictator Anastacio Somoza in 1979. Few Nicaraguan families were unscathed from over twenty years of fighting.

The pressure of the US backed contras had taken a costly toll on the young revolution attempting to transform the impoverished nation, and the people were being asked to go to the polls with a gun pointed at their heads.

Retrospect shows us that these adverse factors had an overwhelming influence on the outcome of the vote that brought Violeta Chamorro to power and closed the window of opportunity opened by the Central American country's hard-won revolution.

A revealing Wall Street Journal quote cited by Ernesto Cardenal in his book "The Lost Revolution" stated: "In Nicaragua the US won by backing terrorism, not Democracy."

Meanwhile, in Venezuela 2004, the right of President Hugo Chavez to finish out his 6-year electoral mandate of 2001 comes up for a vote in a recall referendum. The stakes are also high but the conditions are quite different from what the Sandinistas faced.

Before Chavez shook up the status quo, the world had grown accustomed to Venezuela's elite lining its pockets as they sacked the country of billions in oil revenues, earning it a ranking as one of the most corrupt nation's on the planet.

Today, Venezuela is in relative peace and the economy is healthy with excellent growth figures, this despite large scale opposition sabotage attempts at the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003.

For the first time in Venezuelan history, oil revenues are visibly linked to important social and economic programs to benefit the majority of the people. These include credit for small farmers and business people, important public works projects and large-scale education, health, cultural and sports programs.

When masses of underprivileged but hopeful Venezuelans combined with a significant portion of the armed forces to rescue President Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution from the 48-hour coup of April 11, 2002, planned and executed by the "democratic" opposition and their US advisers, a strong statement was sent to Washington.

Likewise, in their short-lived de-facto government the coup leaders showed their true "democratic" colors. They immediately suspended the Constitution and closed down the Congress and virtually all of the important state institutions. They formed a junta to rule by decree that not surprisingly was quickly approved of by its patrons in the White House.

But since you can fool the people some of the time but not all of the time, Venezuelans countered with a historic lesson of dignity reminiscent of Latin American icons Simon Bolivar, Augusto Sandino and Jose Marti.

Now the same discredited politicians hope to return to power and once again milk the national cow. On their side they have the powerful private media and the Bush administration.

If successful, there are no secrets as to what they would do. Their actions over several decades and during their 2-day coup speak for themselves.

On the other hand, if the forces of the Bolivarian revolution win the recall referendum battle, as most believe will happen, the war will not beover. The opposition will cry fraud or foul play and the Bush Jr. administration will continue to try and undermine the country as the Bush Sr. government would surely have done if the Sandinistas had won in 1990.

Nonetheless, a victory by a clear majority of Venezuelans united around national sovereignty, Latin American integration and a widely inclusive social-economic project will shine as a beacon of hope throughout the changing continent.

Circles Robinson is a translator-journalist based in Havana who worked in Nicaragua during the 1980s and 1990s. Original source: Cuba News

Comment viewing options

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

Forgot something....

I forgot to include John Kerry with Castro, Chavez, and Ortega in my previous comments.

U.S. involvement VS. Communist Dictatorships.

Had Ronald Reagan not support the Contras in Nicaragua, the Sandinistas would have had their way in exporting Communism to the rest of Central America. Mexico has always been waiting for the oppurtunity to turn against the US and become Communist itself. The strong ties between the Mexican, Cuban, and Venezuelan Goverments back up this statement.

Do I want to have the US Goverment involved in every Latin American country's own future? Absolutely not, but I must say I rather have the almighty stars and stripes reaching in screwing things up their own way than have Communism rule the world. I'll take my chances with the lesser of two evils.

Can you imagine how the world would have turned out had Mr. Reagan lost the cold war?

I bet you "fyl" would not be living in Esteli right now, nor so many of us would be thinking about moving to Nicaragua anytime soon.

Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti, Augusto Sandino are one thing, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are something else.

Comments welcome.

communism never existed

Marx may have written the book but my friend no one has ver put it into play. Russia was controlled by the 1%. The press uses words such ans socialism, communism ect. to describe the power struggle in the world. The one thing most people do not know is that the US has more oil but we will use our last.

You sound like my ex-Orange County neighbors

Or my parents. You say "Mexico has always been waiting for the oppurtunity to turn against the US and become Communist itself". Don't you see something wrong here? If Mexico wants to become Communist then Mexico should get to do that. That is up to Mexico, not the US. This is the same as saying that people don't have the right to be Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist.

Pro- or anti-US, it is not the US's right to police the world. Why is it ok for the US to export its chosen political system to the rest of the world but not ok for someone with a different system to even have that different system. If you compare the living standards in Communist Cuba with Capitalistic Haiti or the Dominican Republic you might notice that different systems work better in different places. If the US is about freedom, how about letting people have some--including, in your eyes, the freedom to do the wrong thing.

I am anxious to know what the problem is with Chavez. His country has a resource that is in demand--oil. He is distributing the profits from that resource in a way that helps the majority of the people. And, that majority seem to like that. To me that sounds like a representative government. It is not a pro-US representative government but that shouldn't be a requirement. In fact, it seems very hard to be a pro-US government and be representative of your own citizens.

Fyl-- I know NicaH20 and he is your Orange Co. neighbor!

It's true, he is from Orange Co!

Bottom line guys (wether you are right, left, center) is that government just like anything else that is supposed to last for a very long time... has to be able to renew itself and somehow manage to come out stronger and better equipped to adress the needs of its constituency.

So far Communism(or communism as we have come to know it-- we have seen flawed types of communism but I like Marx on paper) has not been able to renew its mechanisms to address its shortfalls. So far, as Fyl notes, it has created big government (ergo burocratic, slow changing, clumsy, oligarchies, party controlled governments etc.) We have seen perfect examples of these shortfalls all over the world. Perfect examples of Communism Vs. Capitalism: North Korea Vs. South Korea, East Germany Vs. West Germany. We have the same people, with the same resources and practically starting out the same way and turning into two very different animals.

Now, who gets to make the decision of wether your country should take a left turn or right turn... the constituency and only the constituency of course! Certainly not the US, but neither should the USSR (we don't talk about foreign intervention and puppet regimes in Nic, Cuba, Germany, Korea etc. when it comes to the Russians) so the whole big brother thing doesn't hold any water here.

It all boils down to what I said before... if a country is not economically free, it is not entirely free... it has an overlord, be it the US, USSR/Russia, Politics, Globalization, ism.

I said my peace,

Wes

If Mexico wants...

"If Mexico wants to become Communist then Mexico should get to do that. That is up to Mexico, not the US. This is the same as saying that people don't have the right to be Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist...".

No, that is not a good analogy. It is not at all the same "thing" regarding individual religion as if it were collective politics. If my neighbors turn Buddhist, it matters little if any to me, I simply don´t care, and it has no bearing on my life. If my whole city turns Hindu, that too is only of passing interest to me (it would be weird, but not the most significant thing in my life). But, if my State makes some goofy religion official, and requires my full participation and financial support, and structures all parts of what was once my life around this, that does matter. State-level politics cannot be compared to individual choices in religion. Depending on your view of religion, people chose that; people only partially, indirectly -if at all- get to chose their country´s government. Communism doesn´t rule a country via frequent, fair, elections, so long-term, there is no real choice there at all. What role people or governments outside that country may legitimately play, is another matter.

"Communism doesn´t rule a co

"Communism doesn´t rule a country via frequent, fair, elections, so long-term, there is no real choice there at all."

You are mixing up the selected political system with the selection process. Now, in practice, Communism, Capitalism and a lot of -isms turn into big government whose main job seems to be to make itself bigger and make sure it continues to exist. This, in essence, is what happened in the Soviet Union. And this is what has happened in the U.S.

The enemy of any established "government machine" is "frequent, fair elections". It is hard to justify the lack of term limits and equal media access for all candidates in the U.S. in any way except that these things shift power from the existing government structure to the people. The same goes for those "equal" representatives in Congress because being in Congress longer gives you access to committee positions thus offering you more power than your "equal" but junior representatives.

But, once again, this has nothing to do with what Mexico can or can't do.

Nope

No, the system and the selection process are not mixed up. Rather, they have a uniquely different "connection" in a non-democratic and/or Communist system.

If the vote mattered in a communist system, you basically only vote one time (to ditch some form of future voting and/or democracy, and that is the end of it, more or less permanently - until there is a revolution); this is the uniquely BAD and inherently dangerous end of the theory. You are giving people the option to vote for a system which will deny future voting for any other system. and in many cases, any other thing. It is debatable if that is still their choice; the secondary problem is that doing so means they have cast a vote for future generations; the people of voting age on voting day, who chose to vote, have destined everyone who follows to a world in which they will not be able to vote on anything important. There is nothing comparable to this in other political theories.

In other systems the vote is frequent; might be far from perfect, but fairly frequent. It doesnt matter that all governments tend to grow, and the point is not really one of the U.S. in particular (terms limits are actually very anti-democratic, depending on how you look at it). It is not possible to address what Mexico (or any place) can do or not do, want or not want, unless you presuppose the very thing Communist systems, once in place, will deny: a measure of what people want, namely, some form of populist control (democracy, at some level). And, the original point that individual religion and collective political choice are very different animals is merely an extension of the same sort of principles (I can chose to get baptized or whatever, and later leave the church, or whatever, no problem; once I chose communism -or whatever masquarades as communism- there is no real other future choice open to me, nor is there to those who come to voting age in the generations which follow).

Implementation issues

I assert you are still talking about implementation issues. I further assert that a democracy where you think you vote for leaders but things are pretty much run by the same group of non-elected people for 30+ years is an implementation problem as well.

When you start finding Nixon appointees in the Bush Jr. decisionmaking positions and criminals such as Elliot Abrams getting fatter appointments, it is hard to differentiate between badly implemented -isms of any flavor.

Think you vote...?

But...there is a difference between a failure to implement, and not being thrilled with what it fact does get implemented (especially if it ends up being some of the things you tried to vote away, not vote in favor of). Your implementation problem doesn´t map to reality. "...where you think you vote for...", doesnt make much sense. Either people voted or they didnt; it doesnt matter much if the think they did (or did not). If you vote and lose, well, you voted and lost -- simple as that. If you vote and win (your candidate assumes power), and then that candidate does not do what you thought he would do, or wanted him to do, then that is not an implementation problem for democratic theorists (in all likelihood, the guy is a liar -- simple as that).

Non-elected people are merely an extension of the selection process; if the people one votes for make bad appointments, that too is not a fault with democracy at any level (it all comes back to the people making the decision). If both parties use the same non-elected people, that is there perogative - but when this happens it is usually due to a person with certain skills both parties admire or at least appreciate or tolerate (take the bad with the good) on some level (for example, maybe someone like Alan Greenspan), or a poverty of political thought, or something more sordid, like say idiot Abrams, who you mentioned by name. Ultimately, it sounds like your complaint is with the use of non-elected people chosen by elected people, as opposed to implementation itself.

Not that you sound like you need any more reason to think the system beyond repair (I sympathize with the reasons; I just dont think a better alternative is obvious), but many problems could be reduced greatly if Federal jobs, were real jobs. By that, I mean you were promoted based on performance not months/years served, and could be terminated for any one of a host of legitimate reasons (like say the things that would get you canned at IBM). Right now, it is easier to indict and imprison most Federal employees, than it is to terminate them (when confronted with pending charges, most people sort of resign, because if they are actually indicted they lose their Federal pension, but it takes so long for OIG to do this, that these people keep their pension as well as sit around on paid leave for up to 3 years while the case progresses, and they later sort of "resign"). Even at the State Department, were an employee to engage in felonies -and even if they were later convicted of such- they might not lose their Federal job. Not even Powell-Rice had/has the power to terminate a single person in the Foreign Service, not for any reason. As for Abrams, he might not have even needed that pardon to end up with the job he now has (as sad as this is). But, it is not as though there were massive complaints or petitions by the left when he was appointed. What could they do in a debate, really, since the job security for Federal employees is something which would surely come up, and that fortress was built by the democrats - because people on the Federal payrolls are overwhelmingly democrats, by party affiliation.

How to destroy an economy: Take from the rich, give to the poor.

Mexico does not "openly" become a Communist nation because it can not afford to be enemies with the U.S. not because the U.S. doesn't allow it but if given the back up it needs, it would not take long.

In the mid 80's Castro sent Cubans to Nicaragua who found the country at it's worst ever, yet these Cubans could not understand how or why a Nicaraguan would complain about the country's economy where a person could still buy a new pair of shoes in the store. You see, to a Cuban that was just too good to be true.

Is that the product of a good political system? If Communism is so good, then why don't we have migration from Capitalist countries to Communist countries in stead?

77% of Venezuelas' land is owned by 3% of it's citizens, the country's economy is somewhat good and stable. Have Chavez confiscate the land from the rich and distribute it to the poor (just like the Sandinistas did in Nic.) who by-the-way don't have the knowledge or resources to stay productive and then you'll really have another Nicaragua in Venezuela.

I agree with you that every country should have their own absolute right to choose what political system to implement, for good or bad. But for as long as these countries are dependant of another bigger, stronger nation, that nation will feel that it has the right to intervene for the good of it's investments.

I also agree that the U.S. economy is in decline, and that it's system is no longer as effective as it once was, but it is still the lesser of two evils.

Capitalism= Some are rich, some are poor. Communism= Everybody is equally poor.

I am not pro-US Government, I am for a PROductive type of Government.

Article addresses your concerns

I think http://nicaliving.com/view/node/392 will address your points. I elected no to promote it to the front page as it is specifically about Venezuela, not Nicaragua but there are some serious parallels.

The significant point (which I talked about in another article here) is that if you have landless pesants they move to the cities and become unemployed shantitown dwellers. Social programs to address these city-dwellers become an continual problem and ongoing expense. On the other hand, giving them land may not increase the GNP but it offers a long-term solution for the people.

Historically, of course, the US has opposed this approach. Today the issue is over oil but in 1954 in Guatemala it was over bananas.