From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:00 PST
Subject: ABSENCE OF COERCION: Was Nicaragua 
Nf-ID: #N:9211161100.AA04392@tba.msi.corne:-1851922958:000:6976
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Nov 16 03:00:00 1992


Subject: ABSENCE OF COERCION: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)

ABSENCE OF COERCION: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?

[From:
       ========================================================
       I s   N i c a r a g u a   M o r e   D e m o c r a t i c
       ========================================================
            T h a n   t h e   U n i t e d   S t a t e s ?
       ========================================================
                        By Michael Parenti (*)

[From: Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 26, Summer 1986]]


=====================================
A b s e n c e   o f   C o e r c i o n 
=====================================

Instances of coercion and harassment of candidates have not been an
unusual occurrence in U.S. elections. In the United States third-party
candidates especially those of a pronouncedly leftist hue have run
into difficulties of this sort. Harassment may not be confined to the
candidates themselves but may include their supporters and canvassers.
In 1972 in Vermont persons who merely signed Communist Party ballot
petitions found their names publicized by town clerks in an effort to
embarrass them into withdrawing their signatures.  Generally though,
in modern times American elections have not been marked by violence
nor by any serious degree of threat against candidates. The coercions
are largely of the legal kind noted earlier which work well enough
against third parties. In regard to individual voters, however, it
should be noted that not every American citizen has the right to an
uncoerced vote, as testified by the continuing need for a Civil Rights
Voting Act, the renewal of which President Reagan opposed.

Turning to Nicaragua, we find there were serious acts of violence and
murder in the 1984 election -- all committed by the force supported by
the Reagan administration. The contras killed the presidents of two
polling stations and two volunteer workers involved in registration.
In the Jinotega mountains, one polling station worker's throat was cut
by the contras in front of his wife and family. On election day a
member of the electoral police was shot to death by contras in La
Tronica. In all, twelve election workers lost their lives in assaults
by countenrevolutionaries .

The election was less than flawless in its procedures, but the overall
performance was one that the Nicaraguan democracy can be proud of.
There was free and open campaigning in every area of the country
except in some war zones. According to estimates by the Supreme
Electoral Council, there were some 250 public rallies. In general the
election was characterized by untrammeled and vigorous political
debate. If the FSLN was instituting a totalitarian regime, it was
going about it in the wrong way.

About five of the public rallies were marred by incidents of violence
but no serious injuries were reported. During the first months of the
campaign a number of parties also reported that their campaign workers
had been harassed by members of the FSLN, or that their posters had
been destroyed. The Sandinista leadership denounced these incidents
and they seemed to diminish thereafter. In addition, several rallies
held by the Nicaraguan Democratic Coordinating Committee (CDN), a
coalition of conservative business-oriented parties that abstained
from the election, were disrupted by fights between CDN supporters and
Sandinista counterdemonstrators. These rallies were technically
illegal since the CDN had refused to participate in the election and
indeed spent its time during the campaign attacking the electoral
system itself. Once the CDN decided to conduct what seemed like a
sabotage of the electoral effort (in the eyes of FSLN supporters),
clashes with counterdemonstrators were difficult to avoid.

Because of these incidents, Arturo Cruz claimed that he was attacked
by 'mobs' and that free electoral competition did not exist. It should
be recalled that the country is at war and that Cruz openly identified

	[And was a payed agent of the terrorist superpower attacking
		Nicaragua, as documented earlier in this series -- HB]

with the enemy and was not at any time functioning as a legal or
serious candidate. When Cruz, a banker in Wellington, arrived in
Managua five months before the election, the CDN suddenly announced he
would be their unified presidential candidate. Without officially
registering as a candidate, Cruz toured the country for several days,
drawing small crowds As suddenly as he arrived, he left, announcing

   -->  [Use GET (see near top) command with NICA-84 ELECTION for    ]
        [documentation of the consistent patter of contra preelection]
        [terror; of Cruz's never having intended to run, and, in     ]
        [fact, having been on the CIA payroll (and of "small crowds")]

he would not run under the prevailing electoral conditions.
Throughout this period the U.S. media and the U.S. government
described him as the ``major opposition candidate'' and treated his
nonparticipation as evidence that the election was an unfair and
meaningless exercise. In conflict with this view is the one expressed
in the report, cited herein, by U.S. citizens in Nicaragua:

    In general, our perception of the electoral campaign period is
    that the harassment and fistfights were scattered incidents that
    did not affect the generally free atmosphere of the electoral
    process. We found our neighbors and co-workers unafraid to voice
    their opinions, and heard and read virulent criticism of the FSLN.
    We know of no pressure on Nicaraguan to vote for the Sandinista
    Front. In particular, we found no truth in the charge made by _La
    Prensa_ that the cards which entitle families to receive
    subsidized food allotments were controlled in a concerted effort
    to influence Nicaraguans'' votes. We conclude that the electoral
    campaign provided Nicaraguans with abundant information on which
    to base a free decision about their vote.

A similar conclusion was reached by the 460 official observers from
all over the world who were free to check out all aspects of the
voting process and ballot counting. None of the eleven participating
parties filed any charges of fraud.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   -->  [Send the 1-line message GET FAIRNESS NICA-USA ACTIV-L to]
        [LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET for a copy of this file.         ]

   -->  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]
        [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]

        [To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are ]
        [two words  separated by a space), send the 1-line message: ]

   -->  GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

        to: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET [or: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60887 ca.politics:9694