From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 1984 Elections in Nicaraugua
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181447.25368@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:

>>Not a good analogy.

>Somehow I didn't think you would think so. No analogy is perfect but it
>is demonstrative.

You miss my point. What your analogy does do is demonstrate that there
is no need for the Sandinsitas to do what they did if their intent was
to establish a democratic government.

>>First of all, the colonies had been having elections for over a hundred
>>years. Many members of the Continental Congress had been supporters
>>of the Crown and opposed to independance.

>Elections prior to independence aren't the issue.  They were at the
>pleasure of the crown and could be cancelled or prevented, as happened
>to Franklin's autonomy proposals in the 1750's.

Which formed the moral basis for the revolution. However, there had been
lots of free elections in the colonies. By and large, they governed themselves
in many large parts of the country.

>You have posted evidence that this happened in 1984 when the contra war
>was going full swing, but in 1979?  

Sure. There are mass graves full of Sandinista opponents killed by
Sandinista Security Police at that time. The Sandinistas rounded up
thousands of opponents and jailed them and their families. Tribunals
which fell far short of international standards of fairness where
established. Public decrees went into effect which made strikes illegal,
made the formation of opposition parties illegal, and established press
cencorship.

>Note that the Sandinistas initially
>had broad support, including from centrist business.  

Quite correct. That is why the Sandinistas won.

>Much of this
>support evaporated because of economic policy, but this happened later.

Largely it evaporated because of the human rights abuses mentioned above
and the inept policies which eventually destroyed the economy.

>The tories might have thought there was a moral base for an insurgency
>since the status quo was violently overthrown.  

No this does not form a moral basis. Those people could still agitate
for a return to the crown and voted for people who felt that way. Since
they had their rights, they should use them and not violence to address
their concerns.

In Nicaragua, the Sandinsitas didn't permit those same civil rights to
it was the right, even duty, for the people to overthrow the Sandinistas.

>Are insurgents, who
>are trying to overthrow a system (isn't that the definition of treason?),
>allowed to run?

So long as they they restrict their activities to lawful ones, sure.
This is because the people ultimately get to decide.

>>In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas had no intention of allowing opponents
>>win. There is therefore a moral basis for violent opposition.

>Do you have an AI report that proves this?  

An examination of the laws passed by them in the first few years would
make this a reasonable conclusion. I would refer you to (from memory)
Public Order 51, 53, and 54. These orders passed very early in Sandinsita
rule made most forms of opposition illegal. They where later replaced
with the Public Order Law which made a host opposition actions illegal.

>In the immediate aftermath
>of the revolution, there was widespread support for the Sandinistas.

Which soon evaporated.

>An election was scheduled for 5 years after the revolution.  

Originally that was to have been to draw up a constitution. The
Sandinsitas changed that late so they could write the constitution.

But this itself is another problem. Why did they need to wait five 
whole years before they could have an election? The US had elections
(under far more primitive conditions) before, during, and immediately
after the revolution.

>If the moral basis for violent action comes from bad (or no) elections,
>then that moral basis COULDN'T exist till after the 1984 elections.

The moral basis comes from the suppression of human rights by the
Sandinistas. One of those rights was the five years they where
forced to wait for an election.

>Note that they did eventually lose an election.  There was pressure
>at that time (another issue), but was that pressure any greater than
>in 1984?  

No, Sandinista abuses in 90 where far below the level of 84.

>Why would they prevent a loss in 1984 and permit it in 1990
>if they had no intention of allowing opponents to win?

International pressure and the Contras. 

>>First amendment.

>Does the first amendment protect treasonous activity?

I have read lots and lots of papers and books calling for the violent
overthrow of the Consitiution. None of the authors or publishers where
convicted to my knowledge.

You can write about it, you just can't doit.

>>>What effect would this have had on the election?  Would George Washington
>>>and Congress have permitted the newspaper to operate?  

>>So long as it wasn't actively engaged in violent activity, why not?

>What is the definition of aiding and abetting?

I disn't say anything about aiding and abetting. As far as I am concerned,
they can advocate revolution but not engage in revolution.

>>>What would/should
>>>they have done about the insurgents?  

>>Arrest them.

>And if they arrested contras and their active supporters, would that be
>a valid action for a government to take?

Since the Contras have a moral basis (suppression of civil rights) they
should be treated as war criminals when cought. 

>>>Should they let the insurgents
>>>candidate run for president?  

>>Why not? there where supporters of the Crown in the Continental Congress.
>>Remember, the revolution was going for over a year before the Declaration
>>of Independance.

>Did these supporters of the Crown fight against the Revolutionary Army?

Nope. They used their civil rights in a democratic manner to attempt
to achieve their goals. 

>Are those guilty of treason allowed to run for office?

Not under our Constitution.

>>>If they close the newspaper and stifle
>>>opposition that supports the insurgency, and maybe a few others in the
>>>process, who is to blame for the less-than-perfect elections?

>>I would say we are.

>Bingo.

You miss my point. If the US govenrment suppresses the press then it
is responsible. By the same token, the Sandinistas where responsible
for their suppression of a free press.

In your hypothetical situation we can't blame suppression on the
insurgents anymore than the Sandinistas can blame their suppression
on the Contras. This is especially true since the suppressions
where going on for years before there where any Contras.

>>But I must wonder, why is it only the Sandinsitas who get this
>>treatment? Are you explaining the actions of the Salvadoran
>>government? After all, the same thing applies there.

>The issue here is Nicaraugua.  

OK then how about Somoza? If Sandinista repression was justified by
the Contras then isn't Somoza's repression justified by the Sandinsitas?

>I also remember
>mass murders of leftist Salvadorans during a news conference after they
>had agreed to work within the so-called democratic process, so I would
>claim they had a moral basis for their actions

And you are absolutely correct. Those repressions DO gove a moral basis
for the violent overthrow of the Salvadoran Govenrment. The flaw here is
that the FMLN has no interest in democracy.

But don't you see? If I use your arguement then they don't have a
moral basis and the Salvadoran government in in the clear for its
actions. Using your arguement it is the FMLN, not the govenrment
who is responsible for the death squads.

    Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines