The US and Democracy
What do you know, the U.S. government claims that it is going to support democracy in Nicaragua. The State Department has said that due to irregularities committed during the November 2011 elections, it is now going to scrutinize Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank loans to Nicaragua. As someone who is a citizen of both countries, my first reaction is that the United States shouldn’t get involved in promoting democracy in Nicaragua. Why?
First, because the United States does not have a model democracy and it should not be going around giving lessons to other countries. A large percentage of the North American population feels that the system isn’t working and that there are no mechanisms to change it. Here are a few of their system’s problems: In the United States, the people don’t actually elect the president, who is voted in by the Electoral College — that’s why in 2000, Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the election. The media oligopoly, representing only the interests of big business, ensures that they control the agenda of the country — the people really have no voice. The two main political parties have a stronghold that makes it practically impossible for any other faction to compete for the presidency. The incumbent political parties in the state legislatures arbitrarily divide up the electoral districts to ensure their indefinite domination of power. The party most interested in “promoting” democracy in Nicaragua is the least democratic and is also known for placing obstacles in the paths of ethnic minorities trying to participate in U.S. elections.
As C. Wright Mills pointed out, American sociologists have shown that the system is controlled by the elite. Marx would have called it a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, though Marx’s concepts of democracy and dictatorship are different from their common meaning today. Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat, for example, does not mean a one-person dictatorship. Joseph Schumpeter called it a system of competitive elitism — a system in which only members of the elite, not the general public, can compete for the highest governmental positions.
Secondly, because promoting democracy is not the agenda of the United States. It serves as a foreign policy weapon that they resort to only when convenient. The United States has destroyed democracies in order to implant dictatorships. They overthrew Allende in order to install Augusto Pinochet. The United States has backed brutal regimes such as that of Anastasio Somoza. This has been true historically and it is still true today. The United States supports the brutal regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and unconditionally supports Israel, which denies Palestinians the right to territory in which to create their own state.
Thirdly, during international conflict, the United States characteristically supports the most reactionary and anti-democratic groups. Democracy is not institutionalized in a country where a small reactionary elite has the economic, political and cultural power. The progressive forces in Nicaragua should not get too excited over the State Department’s announcement because U.S. interests don’t necessarily coincide with those of the Nicaraguan people. Those who rejoice over U.S. intervention should remember Máximo Jerez, who invited William Walker to Nicaragua. In the end he regretted having done so.
Could it be that the circumstances have changed so much that things will be different this time? Of course not. When it comes to the international ruling class, the United States looks after business interests. U.S. foreign policy depends on it. Nicaraguan big business has no problem with that and neither of the two has any qualms about lying in order to achieve their goals.
For instance, in Adolfo Calero Portocarrero’s book, “Crónicas de un contra,” there is a photograph of Jesse Helms with a caption that reads “Democratic Nicaragua’s great friend.” Jesse Helms was one of the most racist U.S. senators. He supported Pinochet and Roberto D’Aubuisson, the latter being implicated in the assassination of Monsignor Romero. Helms made life miserable for Doña Violeta’s administration. His party is the one pressuring Obama to promote democracy in Nicaragua. Are these really democracy’s friends?
The argument is not that the international community can’t contribute to the creation and maintenance of democracy in Nicaragua. There haven’t been any purely national struggles for many years, especially not now with all the new forms of communication. In the past, France, for example, helped the United States gain independence. Many internationalists came to fight alongside Augusto Sandino against the U.S. occupation and then came to fight with the Sandinista National Liberation Front in order to topple Somoza’s tyrannical regime.
The international community can help. Sandino, who believed in fair elections and in the separation of powers, said that it was the duty of Latin American countries to promote democracy among themselves and that the United States should not meddle.
Can the United States contribute to building and sustaining democracy in Nicaragua as well as in other parts of the world? They would have the moral authority to lecture on democracy if they became an exemplary democratic model (Athens is an example), if they respected international law and if they did not follow a policy of using force or backing brutal regimes.
In the case of Nicaragua, they could also help by contributing to our economic development, by purchasing our products and helping financially. It’s not exactly clear what the State Department meant when it said it would subject our loans to closer scrutiny. If the result of this scrutiny means the impoverishment of the country, chances are that democracy will suffer, because an impoverished country is a failed state and therefore less likely to sustain democratic institutions.
With respect to forging the country’s political institutions, they ought not to interfere. Nicaragua’s democratic institutions should be built by Nicaraguans and reflect their reality.
*The author is a sociologist.
First, because the United States does not have a model democracy and it should not be going around giving lessons to other countries. A large percentage of the North American population feels that the system isn’t working and that there are no mechanisms to change it. Here are a few of their system’s problems: In the United States, the people don’t actually elect the president, who is voted in by the Electoral College — that’s why in 2000, Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the election. The media oligopoly, representing only the interests of big business, ensures that they control the agenda of the country — the people really have no voice. The two main political parties have a stronghold that makes it practically impossible for any other faction to compete for the presidency. The incumbent political parties in the state legislatures arbitrarily divide up the electoral districts to ensure their indefinite domination of power. The party most interested in “promoting” democracy in Nicaragua is the least democratic and is also known for placing obstacles in the paths of ethnic minorities trying to participate in U.S. elections.
As C. Wright Mills pointed out, American sociologists have shown that the system is controlled by the elite. Marx would have called it a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, though Marx’s concepts of democracy and dictatorship are different from their common meaning today. Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat, for example, does not mean a one-person dictatorship. Joseph Schumpeter called it a system of competitive elitism — a system in which only members of the elite, not the general public, can compete for the highest governmental positions.
Secondly, because promoting democracy is not the agenda of the United States. It serves as a foreign policy weapon that they resort to only when convenient. The United States has destroyed democracies in order to implant dictatorships. They overthrew Allende in order to install Augusto Pinochet. The United States has backed brutal regimes such as that of Anastasio Somoza. This has been true historically and it is still true today. The United States supports the brutal regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and unconditionally supports Israel, which denies Palestinians the right to territory in which to create their own state.
Thirdly, during international conflict, the United States characteristically supports the most reactionary and anti-democratic groups. Democracy is not institutionalized in a country where a small reactionary elite has the economic, political and cultural power. The progressive forces in Nicaragua should not get too excited over the State Department’s announcement because U.S. interests don’t necessarily coincide with those of the Nicaraguan people. Those who rejoice over U.S. intervention should remember Máximo Jerez, who invited William Walker to Nicaragua. In the end he regretted having done so.
Could it be that the circumstances have changed so much that things will be different this time? Of course not. When it comes to the international ruling class, the United States looks after business interests. U.S. foreign policy depends on it. Nicaraguan big business has no problem with that and neither of the two has any qualms about lying in order to achieve their goals.
For instance, in Adolfo Calero Portocarrero’s book, “Crónicas de un contra,” there is a photograph of Jesse Helms with a caption that reads “Democratic Nicaragua’s great friend.” Jesse Helms was one of the most racist U.S. senators. He supported Pinochet and Roberto D’Aubuisson, the latter being implicated in the assassination of Monsignor Romero. Helms made life miserable for Doña Violeta’s administration. His party is the one pressuring Obama to promote democracy in Nicaragua. Are these really democracy’s friends?
The argument is not that the international community can’t contribute to the creation and maintenance of democracy in Nicaragua. There haven’t been any purely national struggles for many years, especially not now with all the new forms of communication. In the past, France, for example, helped the United States gain independence. Many internationalists came to fight alongside Augusto Sandino against the U.S. occupation and then came to fight with the Sandinista National Liberation Front in order to topple Somoza’s tyrannical regime.
The international community can help. Sandino, who believed in fair elections and in the separation of powers, said that it was the duty of Latin American countries to promote democracy among themselves and that the United States should not meddle.
Can the United States contribute to building and sustaining democracy in Nicaragua as well as in other parts of the world? They would have the moral authority to lecture on democracy if they became an exemplary democratic model (Athens is an example), if they respected international law and if they did not follow a policy of using force or backing brutal regimes.
In the case of Nicaragua, they could also help by contributing to our economic development, by purchasing our products and helping financially. It’s not exactly clear what the State Department meant when it said it would subject our loans to closer scrutiny. If the result of this scrutiny means the impoverishment of the country, chances are that democracy will suffer, because an impoverished country is a failed state and therefore less likely to sustain democratic institutions.
With respect to forging the country’s political institutions, they ought not to interfere. Nicaragua’s democratic institutions should be built by Nicaraguans and reflect their reality.
*The author is a sociologist.