U.S. Wouldn't Tolerate
Our Election in Nicaragua
by Robert W. McChesney
Published on December 16, 2000 in the Madison
Capital Times
Imagine the following
hypothetical scenario: It is the Nicaraguan presidential election of 1990. On
one side are the incumbent Sandinistas, on the other side their opposition,
which is supported materially by the United States.
The Sandinistas lose the popular
vote by 4,000 votes, but, due to an arcane electoral system, they win the
election by a total of 41 votes in one of the provinces. This in a nation of
three million. But there are numerous irregularities, as faulty equipment and
ballots and questionable practices mean that thousands of
votes—disproportionately from the stridently anti-Sandinista districts—are not
included in the tally. The governor of the province where many irregularities
occur is Sandinista candidate Daniel Ortega's brother. The official
specifically in charge of seeing that it is a fair vote is the campaign manager
for the Ortega's campaign in her province, and a die-hard party activist.
Immediately after the election,
the Sandinistas demand that the opposition concede for the good of the nation.
The media chime in, noting that the people are "tired" of the
election "dragging out," and want it resolved immediately. The
Sandinistas resist any and all efforts to count the missing votes—even sending
in a goon squad to break up one effort at doing a hand recount—except for their
insistence that irregularities in the counting of the absentee ballots of
Sandinista soldiers and diehard Sandinista party supporters be ignored.
Otherwise, the vote should remain exactly as it is. They point out that the
Nicaraguan constitution has a firm deadline for resolving elections. After
stalling for a month the deadline rapidly approaches. A regional court rules
that the uncounted votes must be included in the election results.
At this point, the matter
finally ends up in the Nicaraguan Supreme Court where seven of the nine judges
were appointed by the Sandinistas. Three of the justices are closely linked to
the most militant wing of the Sandinista movement, and have spouses or children
gainfully employed by those connected to the extreme wing of the Sandinista
movement. In a 5-4 vote, the opposition's efforts to have the uncounted votes
included is rejected, although two Sandinista appointed judges dissent, noting
that this was nothing short of a refutation of political democracy.
The Sandinistas assume power for
another six year term. The news media harp on the need for the nation to put
aside partisan bickering and unite behind Ortega. "The system works,"
is a common refrain.
Imagine, again, what the
response to this would have been by U.S. politicians and the U.S. news media to
all of this. As one who lived through this era I can state without qualification
it would have been as follows: The news media and all politicians would have
deplored the Sandinista coup d'état in the strongest language imaginable. Then
Secretary of State James Baker and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney would
have pounded their fists on the table and howled their indignation at this
assault of core democratic values. Any effort to defend the Sandinistas on
technical legal grounds would have been dismissed as an outrageous apologia for
tyranny. "The bottom line is whoever gets the most votes should win,"
Chris Matthews, Jeff Greenfield, Brian Williams, Tim Russert and Bill O'Reilly
would have bellowed, "and the Sandinistas couldn't win a fair election so
they rigged it." The U.S. military would have invaded Nicaragua and installed
the opposition party in power.
The most vociferous champions of
invading Nicaragua in the name of free and fair elections would have been
exactly those right-wing Republicans who have championed the George W. Bush
cause over the past six weeks. Yet the facts in Florida are almost exactly
those I posit for Nicaragua, with the actual conduct of the Republicans
mirroring the hypothetical conduct of the democracy-killing Sandinistas. Yet in
the United States, anti-democratic Republican behavior has generated not an
iota of criticism from any Republicans, except for two notable dissenters on
the Supreme Court. The Republicans' lack of principle, their cowardice and
corruption, their contempt for democracy, lie naked before the eye, draped only
in layers of propaganda, lies, and half-truths that might impress Josef
Goebbels.
The media punditocracy and the
political establishment are now in overdrive, telling us we need to come
together and accept George W. Bush as our president. "The wounds that have
come from the passions of partisanship must begin to heal for the good of the
country,'' Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said in a statement that set the
tone for other Republicans.
Not so fast, Mr. Hastert. That
is the prescription for scoundrels and opportunists, or for a slave population,
but not for a free people.
The job for those of us who
cherish free and fair elections, who value democracy, is to remind the morally
challenged George W. Bush that he is not a legitimate president of the United
States. A true leader for a free people would demand that all the votes be
counted before accepting power. Bush and his cronies have stolen the election.
We need to make every day of his presidency a living hell, so that no
individual or political party will ever dare do this again. A living hell!
It is what Tom Paine and Patrick
Henry would have done. It is what Abe Lincoln and Frederick Douglass would have
done. It is what we must do with every fiber of our beings. It is the only
option for those who believe in the American experiment in democracy.