mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/11/85)
There is a famous quote, I forget by whom, to the effect that exiles from a country always believe that there is massive support for them at home, that the masses await only their return in a blaze of gunfire to rise up and throw off the tyrannical government. The reality, of course, is quite different. This should be instructive to some on the net who seem to interpret every sign of discontent in Nicaragua as an opening for the counter-revolutionaries, while ignoring the true complexity of the picture. Of course, this is only added to by what appears to be the general ignorance of Central American history; who can take seriously a writer who claims that there is nothing (*nothing*!) in U.S. history to justify a view of this country as interventionist. An article in the March 23 New York Times pointed out that, while there are certainly Marxist tendencies within the Sandinista leadership, it is in fact a hybrid of Marxists and social democrats. While the state owns five of the top ten industrial companies, U.S., British or Canadian corporations own controlling interests in four of the remaining five. Although the state has taken significant strides in health care and literacy, 60% of the economy remains in private hands. Although there is censorship, the Times noted, "opposition political, labor and press groups ... continue to function in spite of those pressures, and they have substantial public support." Why, in the face of this support, did the Sandinista's receive such a large share of the vote? The Reagan Administration claims the elections were a sham, without ever describing exactly what was wrong. I think one can draw an analogy between the Salvadoran, Nicaraguan and American elections. Although none were perfect, all probably more or less described the will of the people in those countries. People voted for the candidate that they felt offered the best hope for the future, even though they may not have agreed with that candidate on everything, or even most things. Thus, the Sandinista's received 70% of the vote, even though there is discontent in Nicaragua with the economy. Reagan won, even though people expressed disagreement with his policies on defense, foreign policy and the environment. People voted for Duarte in El Salvador, even though many also support the rebels fighting not Duarte, but the genocidal military in that nation. In each case, the election can only be taken as a decision between the choices offered. Had Cruz run in Nicaragua, it is doubtful the outcome would have been much different. One must remember that the Sandinista's led that nation in revolution against a bloody dictatorship and have since made impressive strides in literacy and health. Sure, people resent the censorship and shortages; that doesn't make them support the counter-revolutionaries. And neither the Reagan Administration, nor its supporters on this net, have shown that it does, or that the policy of seeking the overthrow of another government is anything but a dead-end. Mike Kelly