Five points on Ortega
Barring a major shift in voting, Daniel Ortega has won the Nicaraguan presidential election. On with my usual five point analysis...
What decade am I in? First Alan Garcia and now Ortega. Watching both of these presidents come back from disgrace, I can only imagine Menem and Fujimori are already plotting... (Update: Christian notes Oscar Arias as well).
Less leftist, more corrupt. When asked last week to define an Ortega administration, I did it with those four words. Ortega lost most of his leftist ideology long ago and it serves as just political show these days. In fact, considering his alliances with former Contras and right-wing presidents and his conservative stances on social issues, he'd almost fit right in with the PLC if it wasn't for his historical legacy. On the other hand, corruption scandals and criminal actions have dogged Ortega for decades. His focus will likely be on maintaining power and protecting himself and his allies from corruption allegations. I'd be glad to find out I'm wrong and that Ortega will turn out to be a good president, but I'm not going to bet on it.
The first 100 days matter. If Ortega does want a popular administration, the first hundred days are going to be key. Elected without a real mandate, he needs an instant boost in popularity in order to avoid becoming a lame duck in under 12 months. Expect major increases in government spending and other acts of political show early on.
Not looking to pick a fight. In an interesting twist, Ortega does not seem to want to fight with the US. This may be a disappointment for both his supporters and opponents. Many of Ortega's supporters want him to be the next Chavez. Some of Ortega's opponents both at home and in the US are itching for the opportunity to prove that this is the same person who ran Nicaragua's dictatorship in the 1980's. Ortega has proven to be a more pragmatic politician than that. Don't be surprised to see Ortega walk an ideological tightrope, trying to appear leftist while maintaining some level of trade and development cooperation with the US.
DO NOT CUT US AID. Can I make that clearer? The single worst thing the US can do over the coming months is cut aid or use some other economic pressure without provocation. If Ortega's corruption gets out of control or he does something particularly harmful to US interests, by all means do what we would do to any country. But simply cutting aid because of Ortega's past is both provoking him to take the worst path and giving him an excuse for if/when he fails. Pressuring him before he even takes office will not help US interests and will further hurt our standing in the region. Whether we like it or not, Ortega is the democratically elected president of Nicaragua and deserves a chance to succeed or fail on his own merits. I don't expect much from Ortega, but this is one case where the US can really screw up by interfering when we should just leave the situation alone.
What decade am I in? First Alan Garcia and now Ortega. Watching both of these presidents come back from disgrace, I can only imagine Menem and Fujimori are already plotting... (Update: Christian notes Oscar Arias as well).
Less leftist, more corrupt. When asked last week to define an Ortega administration, I did it with those four words. Ortega lost most of his leftist ideology long ago and it serves as just political show these days. In fact, considering his alliances with former Contras and right-wing presidents and his conservative stances on social issues, he'd almost fit right in with the PLC if it wasn't for his historical legacy. On the other hand, corruption scandals and criminal actions have dogged Ortega for decades. His focus will likely be on maintaining power and protecting himself and his allies from corruption allegations. I'd be glad to find out I'm wrong and that Ortega will turn out to be a good president, but I'm not going to bet on it.
The first 100 days matter. If Ortega does want a popular administration, the first hundred days are going to be key. Elected without a real mandate, he needs an instant boost in popularity in order to avoid becoming a lame duck in under 12 months. Expect major increases in government spending and other acts of political show early on.
Not looking to pick a fight. In an interesting twist, Ortega does not seem to want to fight with the US. This may be a disappointment for both his supporters and opponents. Many of Ortega's supporters want him to be the next Chavez. Some of Ortega's opponents both at home and in the US are itching for the opportunity to prove that this is the same person who ran Nicaragua's dictatorship in the 1980's. Ortega has proven to be a more pragmatic politician than that. Don't be surprised to see Ortega walk an ideological tightrope, trying to appear leftist while maintaining some level of trade and development cooperation with the US.
DO NOT CUT US AID. Can I make that clearer? The single worst thing the US can do over the coming months is cut aid or use some other economic pressure without provocation. If Ortega's corruption gets out of control or he does something particularly harmful to US interests, by all means do what we would do to any country. But simply cutting aid because of Ortega's past is both provoking him to take the worst path and giving him an excuse for if/when he fails. Pressuring him before he even takes office will not help US interests and will further hurt our standing in the region. Whether we like it or not, Ortega is the democratically elected president of Nicaragua and deserves a chance to succeed or fail on his own merits. I don't expect much from Ortega, but this is one case where the US can really screw up by interfering when we should just leave the situation alone.
Labels: elections, latinamerica, Nicaragua |
7 comments:
Boz,
Nice analysis piece on Ortega. Agree with you on all points, particularly the last one. Ortega's not looking for a fight, as you say.
Ironically, after the wars of the 80's, Nicaragua's got more in common with the U.S. than ever, via increased numbers of immigrants, legal and otherwise up there. As well, remesas from the north play an increasing role in the Nica economy, which tightens links even further.
Ortega's got his Sandy (as they used to say) history, but he also went private sector (corrupt) a long time ago, just as you/you say, so he's going to take Chavez with big, big grain of salt and he will try to make nice with the U.S.
The thing is, we've still got people like Eliott Abrams and Otto Reich around, not to mention Congressmen Burton, Rohrbacher, and so on, so there could very well be move to violate your last commandment: don't cut the aid. Hope I'm wrong - because you're right. regards, T
What decade are we in? You leave out next door neighbor Arias, which sets up an interesting situation for Nica-CR relations. Nicaraguan immigrants are estimated to account for up to a quarter of CR's population.
I knew when I was writing it that I forgot someone. Thanks Christian.
Some good points, but (and I get really sick of having to make this point) Nicaragua did not have a dictatorship in the 1980's. Oretega was elected in a free and fair election in 1984.
Russell,
Three points:
1. I was using the word "dictatorship" while describing how Ortega's opponents view his 1980's government.
2. What would you consider the unelected military junta, which Ortega led, that ran Nicaragua from 1980-84? I realize they were transitioning from the Somoza dictatorship, but they were unelected, running the country without a popular mandate, and lacked a system of checks and balances or a chance for opposition to gain control. That's not really democracy.
3. The FSLN was fairly repressive against opposition parties during the 1980's and not everyone considers the elections of 1984 free and fair. A lot of opposition boycotted that election. You can claim some of it was a US scam, but there was repression in Ortega's Nicaragua and it should not be ignored.
All that said, I recognize the controversy and will consider changing it from "dictatorship" to "government", which would probably be the more neutral word used if I was writing this in a published article.
Anyone else want to argue for or against the change?
Boz,
Thanks for elaborating. I'll respond in a post when I have the time and post a comment here when I do.
Russ
Boz,
I posted my reply here.
Have a good weekend,
Russell
Post a Comment