From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: 1984 Elections in Nicaraugua
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:52:16 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Aug26.135000.22183@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.181447.25368@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>
>>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.

Of all the things you listed above, the only one I remember is the banning
of strikes.  Chamorros paper wasn't shut down for a few years.
>
>>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.

I remember reading complaints from the business people primarily about
the economic policies.
>
>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.

I still don't accept this.  A variety of abuses of power occurred during
Sandinista rule.  Even for the flawed 1984 election, I have not seen any
proof that it was rigged, which is much different.  The switch to
democracy from totalitarianism is difficult as current examples in
Eastern Europe show.  There were abuses, and there was some hounding
of opponents, but Nocaraugua was not a Stalinist country.  Why did all
the social democratic countries of Europe continue to try to support
Nicaraugua during the 80's if it was so totalitarian?  The answer is
that it wasn't.  It was simply an imperfect government (one more used
to war than governing) in a difficult situation without experience.
>
>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.

Is there a source where I can see these laws? 
>
>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.

Many countries wait a number of years after the a totalitarian government
is overthrown if they are trying to set up a countries first election.
Many countries cancel elections during a war.  The U.S. almost did during
the Civil War.  
>
>>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.

As I said above, this time period is on the lonmg side, but too atypical
of countries new to democracy.  3 to 4 years is very common.  When the
opposition is strongly constituted of the overthrown government, the
delay is justified to permit other peaceful opposition to coalesce.  The
contra war prevented this from ever happening.
>
>>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.

40% of the people voted for the Sandinistas in 1990.  Does this sound 
like a government that had so thoroughly repressed its people?  Thats
about what the Democrats have been getting in the U.S. in recent
elections.  The people voted for UNO because they knew it was the only
way to end the war and fix the economy.  Many were coerced by U.S.
foreign policy.
>
>>>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.

Were they supporting an existing and powerful revolutionary group?
>
>>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.

No, I said aiding and abetting.  You don't have to be shooting a gun or
blowing up a bomb to be actively supporting violent overthrow.
>
>>>>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.

What actions were these supporters taking?  There was no violent action
against the U.S. by the British immediately after the war.
>
>>>>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.

I didn't miss your point.  The issue in contention here is what level
of abuses occurred by the Sandinistas prior to contra activity.  Contra
activity started soon after the revolution though it didn't pick up
until the U.S. started supporting them.  The Sandinistas probably
assumed that we would.  Given the history of U.S. foreign policy
in Central America, this was a justified position.  Carter initially
provided some aid to the Sandinistas, but Reagan was soon elected.
>
>>>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?

The elder Somoza massacred opposition decades earlier, soon after he was
installed.
>
>>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.

Then why did they accept the offer to participate in the democratic
process as described above?  It could have only lead to power by a vote.
>
>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.

This makes no sense.  The people of these countries ahve been subjected
to violence for decades.  Death squads are not the result of the FMLN,
they aren't even the primary cause, though they contribute.  The complete
monopoly of economic resources, the enforced lack of economic mobility is
the cause.
>
>    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----------------------+


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc