Weekend Elections

Prensa Libre has its final poll for Sunday's presidential elections in Guatemala. According to the poll carried out October 26 to 28, Otto Perez Molina of the Patriotic Party leads 58.5% to 41.5% over Manuel Baldizon of LIDER. When you factor in blank and null votes (5.7%), Perez leads 54.6% to 38.7%.

It's pretty certain that the former general is going to win this weekend. However, Perez won three out of four November polls back in 2007 before he was ultimately defeated by Alvaro Colom. Obviously, this election is different from that one - Perez is more of a well-known commodity, the choice back then was the right vs. center/center-left, mano dura vs. a more comprehensive approach to violence.

While we can't know for sure how the victor is going to govern, I do worry about their plans to pursue more mano dura policies towards gangs and cartels. It's not really my area of expertise, but those policies didn't really work out to well (yet?) in Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico. Each country's murder rate increased after the implementation of mano dura policies.

In Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega is poised to win a first round victory. Boz has some thoughts on the elections as does Tim Rogers. While Ortega and the FSLN get pretty low marks for democracy and the rule of law, the economy is growing, poverty is declining, and the streets of Managua and the rest of the country are much safer than those of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. While I can't say that Ortega has been a force for democracy in the country (and might be bad in the medium- to long-term), I can understand why he is favored to win.

Honestly, I don't "care" who wins this weekend's elections. I don't care if it is Perez or Baldizon, Ortega or Gadea, or the FMLN or ARENA in March. It's more important to me that whoever wins governs in the best interests of the Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, and Salvadoran people.

Ortega Extends Lead in Nicaragua

CID-Gallup has new polls numbers two months ahead of November's Nicaraguan elections. According to its most recent poll, Ortega's support now stands at 46% well above the 40% threshold required for a first round victory. Fabio Gadea of the Partido Liberal Independiente (PLI) places second with 34%. Both candidates are up nearly 2% from CID-Gallup's last poll. 

Here's the support for the remaining contenders. Arnoldo Aleman comes in third with 10%. Enrique Quiñónez (0.6%) of the Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense (ALN) and Roger Guevara (0.4%) of the Alianza por la República (Apre) trail the pack with less than 1%. 

The survey was conducted prior to Guevara's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal where he indicated that Chavez and Ortega would in all likelihood help Iran launch a military strike against the United States. 

The survey was carried out from September 10 to 16 among 1,200 people 16 years and older. The poll has a margin of error of 2.95% with a 95% confidence level.  (h/t Boz)

The Ortega Family in Nicaragua

UnivisionNews1 has a pretty unsympathetic view of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in this video on the political situation in Nicaragua about six weeks before November's election. The video speaks discusses Ortega's family and its role in the country's media, the youth vote, and Ortega's Christian transformation over the last few years.

As it appears right now, Ortega looks set to emerge victorious in November's election. According to the most recent poll that I could find, 40% of those polled between August 18 and 22 indicated that they would vote for Ortega in the upcoming election. Arnoldo Alemán of the PLC remains in second with 19%. 

In order to win on the first ballot, Ortega needs 40% of the valid vote or 35% with a margin of victory of at least 5%. Given the difficulties of accurately polling in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Central America, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if a second round were needed. However, smart money is probably on a first round Ortega victory.

Nicaragua would support Iranian terrorist attacks against the US?

Payvand

Roger Noriega Guevara Mena recently published a press release from his campaign entitled 

Nicaragua and the Anti-American Axis in the Wall Street Journal. Among his wild claims, you'll find the following.

Ahmadinejad has made a habit of stopping off in Nicaragua during his periodic visits to Mr. Chávez. Exactly what ventures he has planned in the country are unknown. But don't count out trouble in this hemisphere if Iran acquires nuclear weapons or seeks to unleash terrorists on American soil. Messrs. Chávez and Ortega would be all too willing to help their Iranian friends.

I'm not sure what he means by "habit" (how many times has Ahmadinejad been to the Americas?), but that's not such a big deal. 

Wouldn't you have expected the editors to press just a bit harder on the author's claim that Ortega and Chavez would support the Iranian use of nuclear weapons and the unleashing of terrorists against Americans on American soil? 

Honestly, the WSJ has to have higher standards to publish something like this even if it is from a Nicaraguan presidential candidate with about 1% support July and August polls.

Ortega maintains slight lead according to new poll

Daniel Ortega maintains a seven point lead over Fabio Gadea in CID-Gallup's most recent poll (Boz). 

The numbers are wildly different from a June poll (from a different polling agency) that had Ortega at 57% and Gadea at 14%. My favorite line and probably saddest one from La Prensa's article has to be

[Ortega] competes for the sixth time in search of a third term in contravention of two constitutional prohibitions that prevent him from participating in the race.

Sandra Torres in Guatemala, on the other hand, will have to wait a few more minutes before she finds out whether the constitution applies to her.

A Non-aligned foreign policy in Nicaragua?

During the Cold War, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas stated that they intended to follow a non-aligned foreign policy. For some, a non-aligned foreign policy meant a policy of "equidistance" from both the Soviet and American empires. For others, a non-aligned foreign policy (consistent with the natural alliance tendency) viewed the world 

more along the lines of class analysis, in which the world is divided into imperialist, colonial and reactionary countries on one side and neo colonial, colonized and progressive countries on the other. From this perspective a natural alliance is seen between positions of the countries of the Non Aligned Movement and those of the socialist countries. This natural alliance is precisely that natural and therefore arises spontaneously and requires no formal structure. It sees the imperialism of the U.S. and its major allies such as Great Britain as the greatest threat to the development of the Third World. (Envio 1983)

While theoretically separate, the two visions were blurred in early revolutionary Nicaragua. The Sandinistas of 1979 and the early 1980s pursued both policies simultaneously. They requested and received aid from countries across the world (US, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and a variety of Latin American and European allies). The Sanindistas did not want to cut off relations with the United States. If anything they wanted more aid from the US to make up for being an "enemy of humanity." They increased trade with both democratic and non-democratic nations. They were neither in the Soviet nor the American camp.

At the same time, the Sandinistas were clearly more comfortable in the Soviet camp, improving the country's relations with Cuba, the Soviet Union and East bloc nations, Vietnam and revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements around the world. They criticize the imperialism of the United States, but not that of the Soviet Union. Inevitably, the non-aligned policy of equidistance from the US and Soviets gave way (if it ever really existed) to a non-aligned policy more consistent with the natural tendency.

In many ways, today, we see the same approach to Sandinista, or more accurately Ortega, foreign policy. Ortega's Nicaragua is a member of DR-CAFTA, a free trade agreement with the Dominican Republic, other Central American states, and the United States. Nicaragua is also a member of the Venezuelan and Cuban-led Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (click here for an Americas Quarterly report on ALBA). While the stakes are not nearly as high as the Cold War, Ortega is again playing both sides.

There are a few potential scenarios which might affect Nicaragua's simultaneous participation in DR-CAFTA and ALBA. First, their might be a new occupant in the White House following the US presidential election in 2012. If the next US president takes a more hard-line approach to its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere (one that does not look kindly on Nicaragua's support for Chavez, Castro, Gadhafi, or Ahmadinejad), Ortega might be forced to choose. A second scenario might come from a deterioration in the relationship between the US and Venezuela. Recently, the US levied sanctions against Venezuela's state-run oil company, PDVSA. While the sanctions are relatively weak, it's not hard to imagine events spiraling out of control.

Finally, another scenario that could force Ortega to choose comes from his likely victory in next year's presidential election. A recent Nicaraguan poll, this one by New Century, has Daniel Ortega comfortably in the lead with 50% of the respondents in favor of reelecting Ortega. Ortega's support is up slightly from April's survey. While things could always change, there's a very good chance that Ortega will win another five-year term even though that constitution sure seems to have barred him from running.

Should Ortega need to manipulate the vote like he has been accused of in the past or have to send out his enforcers to break up anti-Ortega protests movements, one can see the US government take a stronger stance towards the Nicaraguan government. And like the Cold War, Nicaraguan will no longer be able to pursue a foreign policy that seeks to take advantage of what both the United States and Venezuela have to offer. And Nicaragua and Ortega will, in all likelihood, look south and choose a policy more consistent with the natural tendency vision of a non-aligned foreign policy.

Ortega Leads in Nicaragua

According to a recent survey, 48% of all Nicaraguans polled indictated that they are willing to vote for Daniel Ortega in November. Without reading the exact question, it doesn't exactly say that they intend to vote for Ortega, only that the would be willing to vote for him. From that perspective, 48% would look like the upper bound of his electoral support.

While the election is still months away, none of the other candidates come close to challenging him.

Fabio Gadea Mantilla of the Independent Liberal Party (PLI) has approximately 13% support.

Former president Arnoldo Aleman of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party (PLC) captures 6%.

The ex-contra Enrique Quiñonez Tuckler of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN) maintains 1.2% support.

Finally, the former Minister of Education Miguel Ángel García of the Alliance for the Republic (APRE) comes in with less than 1%.

The poll was carried out by Consultores M & R between March 31st and April 3rd and has a margin of error of 2.5%

Here are two other recent Nicaragua articles that might interest you as well.

Central American free-trade pact a major success in Nicaragua - I don't know how true it is but only relying upon pro-free trade pact US and Nicaraguan officials gives me pause.

Nicaragua: An FSLN victory in November will permit deeper change by William Grigsby Vado.

The Odd Couple is Back in Nicaragua

Daniel Ortega has now officially registered to run for another term. He will be joined on the Sandinista ticket by former army chief, Gen. Omar Halleslevens. Ortega leads all candidates with 36% support and is followed by former President Arnoldo Aleman with 23% and radio station magnate Fabio Gadea with 17%. It looks like Ortega's share of the vote will once again end up where it always does and if the opposition splits the remaining vote, Ortega might possibly win a first round victory. As a  result, Andres Oppenheimer says that that Nicaragua is "headed for one man rule once again."

Aleman and Francisco Aguirre Sacasa were recently selected to lead the binomial ticket supported by a coalition of the Liberal Constitucionalista, Conservador and Indígena Multiétnico parties. Aleman was released after serving two years of a twenty-year sentence after appealing his corruption charges.

Maybe Gadea or another challenger can build momentum between now and November, but in a more likely contest between Aleman and Ortega, wouldn't you have to go with Ortega?

Now on to Oppenheimer's annoying style. First he pulls a Mary Anastasia O'Grady and starts his post with

Venezuelan-backed President Daniel Ortega has only 36 percent of the vote in the polls, and is facing growing accusations of abuse of power and corruption. But in a three-day visit here, I didn’t find anybody who doubts that he will easily win the Nov. 6 elections.

The WSJ's O'Grady usually threw in Chavez where ever possible in stories that were unrelated to Venezuela. Just look at her most recent story - Why Obama Went to Brazil: There's a chance to build a new foreign policy alliance that disdains dictators like Hugo Chávez. After reading it, I'm not sure how she keeps a job with the prestigious WSJ.

Can't it ever just be about Nicaragua (or Brazil)? There are enough reasons to be critical of Ortega that you do not have to try to scare readers by saying that Venezuela and Chavez back Ortega.

Second, yes it's problematic that Ortega can win the presidency in the first round even if he only captures 35% of the vote (with a 5% margin separating him from the second place finisher). I would prefer the threshold at 45% (with a 10%) margin or a pure majority runoff myself. But some presidential systems do utilize electoral rules that don't pass the smell test. We don't even require our president to win a plurality of the vote. Now, how democratic is that?

Instead, you could write something to the effect that "unlike other Latin American electoral systems that virtually ensure a runoff between the top two candidates, the Nicaraguan system is designed to make a first round victory much more likely."

Oppenheimer's not the only one leery of another Ortega term. Both ex-militaries and the Church have recently spoken out against his likely victory. Ortgea doesn't seem very good for democracy, but as the Miami Herald even mentions, the economy is growing better than the Central American average and poverty seem to be declining.

In addition, Nicaragua has so far been able to keep the maras at bay and is a country much safer than neighboring Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. While imperfect, there's not the level of repression directed against social movements as there is in Guatemala and Honduras. I'd love for Ortega and the remaining FSLN to more fully develop the country's democratic political system obviously, but it's a pretty complicated country that requires a little nuance to understand. And nuance is not something our media is known for here in the US.

What to do with Ortega?

In US to Nicaragua's opposition: We can dance, but you lead, Tim Rogers quotes Robert Callahan, U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua, as saying

“Democracy needs to emanate from the bosom of the people; It can’t come from another country or international [organization]. It can’t be imposed or created by magic,” Mr. Callahan told a group of 150 business leaders gathered at a luncheon event organized by the Nicaraguan-American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM).

That would be fine if it were US policy consistently applied abroad. Since it isn't, however, one is really just left asking why the US isn't speaking out more strongly against Ortega's weakening of democratic intuitions in Nicaragua. Do they just not have an opposition group or candidate that we feel comfortable backing? Is Ortega bad for democracy and for many of the people of Nicaragua, just not bad enough in the mold of Chavez or the Castros to make much of a fuss over?