4 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, November 14, 1984 The Michigan Doily The working democrac in Nicaragua 4 By Peter Rosset Much hay has been made recently of the supposedly "farcical" nature of the elections in Nicaragua. For example, in the . editorial "Rejoicing in Democracy" (Daily, Nov. 8), this paper said "The contrast between this nation's elections on Tuesday and Sun- day's farcical elections in Nicaragua should inspire a profound appreciation of the American political system...." As someone who lived the first 27 years of my life in the United States and the past two in Nicaragua, I beg to differ and wish to point out some pertinent facts. BUT FIRST let me explain why I feel this question is of utmost importance. The United States at this very moment is moving rapidly toward war with Nicaragua. We have in recent days violated Nicaragua's territorial waters with warships, and violated her air- space with aircraft. In order to avert public outcry over further U.S. escalations the Reagan Administration has mounted a publicity campaign to discredit Nicaragua's government and to question its legitimacy. Because the issue is so serious - do we want to go to war, do we want college-age men to die in Central America - we must critically examine these claims rather than blindly accept them. Democracy - what is it? That is a question that has been with man for thousands of years. Does it mean elec- toral politics? Does it simply mean pulling levers in a booth? Or does it mean the ability to participate in decisions that affect your own life? For the sake of argument I am going to assume here that it means 'free elec- tions' - but with the caveat inserted that in reality mere elections do not necessarily confer real power on people. In our system, power is usually conferred only by dollars. In our elections we essentially had two choices - Reagan or Mondale. When you recall Mondale reversing his previous position and supporting the invasion of Grenada and when you recall the dozens of ways he tried to prove that he was as "tough" as Reagan, you begin to see that the true political spectrum spanned by our choices was limited indeed. For exam- ple there was no social democratic par- ty, a movement which governs France, Spain, and Greece amongst our allies. And the press? It was "free" only to the two parties with twenty million dollars to spend on advertising. Par- ticipation? Registration was far lower that the 93 percent in Nicaragua, and turnout far lower that Nicaragua's more than 80 percent. NOW LET us examine Nicaragua's elec- tions. Originally ten parties were to participate - three to the left of the Sandinistas and six to the right. Vir- tually all independent observers agree that the primary objective of the not-so- covert C.I.A. destabilization of Nicaragua has been to "convince" the right opposition to boycott the election in order that they might be discredited, and an invasion be justified. The C.I.A. did succeed in getting three tiny opposition parties to boycott - although their com- bined membership by their own figures barely topped 1,000 in a nation of three million. Nevertheless every word ut- tered by the opposition party candidate, Arturo Cruz, has been trumpeted on the front pages of every major U.S. newspaper. That is akin to giving U.S. CommunisthParty candidate Gus Hall access to the New York Times front page on a daily basis. Three other parties (all larger than those boycotting) to the right of the Sandinistas remained in the running Reagan line. That is quite a spectrum when compared to the choice of Republicrat or Demoblican we are given every four years in this country. All seven Nicaraguan parties were given equal government campaign fin- ancing, TV and radio time, and all cen- sorship of non-military matters was prohibited. Imagine parties to the left and right of the U.S. government that virtually advocate its overthrow, being given federal campaign financing equal to the "big two." And compare Nicaragua's elections to those held by our client regime in El Salvador and trumpeted as a triumph of democracy. Nicaragua's elections included the full spectrum from left to right, while El Salvador's only pitted the right against the far right. Nicaragua had free press coverage ranging from the ultra-left Prensa Proletaria to the far right La Prensa, while in El Salvador only two extreme right papers remain after the bombings and assassinations directed against the opposition dailies forced them to close down. So which is more democratic - Nicaragua, despite the covert war being waged against her, or the United States with its campaigns of manufac- tured image and its client dictatorships like El Salvador? And do we really know why our country is about to go to war in Central America? Shouldn't we be asking before they start drafting our friends and ourselves? Rosset is a graduate student in Biological Sciences and is co-editor of a book, "The Nicaragua Reader: Documents of a Revolution Under Fire." Associated Press Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega was elected by a nation presented with a broad range of political choice, rather than by a manipulated electoral process. until one week before the elections. The candidate of one, the Independent Liberal Party, pulled out following a three hour meeting with the U.S. Am- bassador. His vice presidential run- ning mate remained in the race, however, and the party continued to purchase full-page campaign ads during the remaining days of the race. SO WHAT choice were Nicaraguans ac- tually given on November 4? Six and a half parties, ranging from the ultra-left maoist Popular Action Movement which accuses the Sandinistas of kowtowing to the U.S. imperialism, to the oldest and largest right-wing party (minus a small faction that walked out), the Democratic Conservative Party, which vows to roll-back the revolution and expell all foreign "Marxist-Leninists" as part of its pro- Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Hunting for truth in Central America By Magdalena Kiser Vol. XCV, No. 60 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board A call for restraint L AST THURSDAY, just two days after Reagan's re-election, University students and local groups began to voice their fears that the United States would soon invade Nicaragua. Monday, the Nicaraguan government began to voice similar fears and declared a national alert to prepare for a U.S. invasion. The American public, and particularly young Americans, should seriously consider the role the Reagan ad- ministration is pushing for in Central America. For, if it comes down to the use of military force - which the ad- ministration has so far refused to rule out - students at this University will undoubtedly be called upon to fight. Secretary of State George Shultz and other State Department officials are taking Nicaragua's fears too lightly. Shultz has said that the Nicaraguans', talk of an invasion was "based on nothing, and I don't know why they are doing this." But Shultz's statement rings pathetically hollow considering the administration's actions and rhetoric. Last week, administration officials charged that a Soviet freighter carrying MiG-21 jets had docked in Nicaragua - a charge they were later unable to support. In response to this suspicion, the United States has repeatedly flown spy planes over the area to put increased pressure onthe Sandinista government and the Navy is currently shadowing Soviet ships. In addition, U.S. officials are contem- plating a series of military actions to prevent the Nicaraguan government from defeating U.S.-backed rebels trying to undermine the Sandinistas' leftist rule. Instead of discussing the conflict with Niornrann nfficials- Shultz ha rhetoric, saying the United States must "work in every way" to counter a per- ceived buildup of Soviet arms in Nicaragua. Washington's un- willingness to recognize Nicaragua's legitimate security concerns doesn't bode well for the success of any diplomatic solutions. In fact, it is becoming painfully apparent that Reagan's overwhelming re-election victory has given the administration added confidence in pursuing its- aggressive policies in Central America. Administration officials are reverting to a militant view of "Nicaragua as another Cuba" and argue that the United States must check the flow of arms into Central America from the Soviet Union - even if they cannot document any increase in the flow of arms. This defensive strategy represents only a short-term solution that will lead to heightened tensions in Central America. The Contadora process, which the administration rejected, could have offered a long-term remedy. But it seems the ad- ministration wants to take a quicker route - military force. In the past, Congress has urged the administration to understand that working toward democracy in that region can be better accomplished by diplomacy, and not through the direct use of force. Congress should once again restrain the administration from interfering improperly in another nation's civil strife. The United States can most effec- tively influence its neighbors' actions when it sits down at the negotiating table. The administration has shown an impatience with diplomacy that is frightening. Congress should inter- Facts are interesting critters. Like snipe, They can change color as often as Central American counties change governments. "It is a fact," a friend of mine said, "That the Sandinistas do not permit Costa Rican or American journalists to enter the country, and it is a fact that Nicaragua is receiving MIGs from the Soviets." "It is a fact," said another friend, "That the world judges Nicaragua without realizing that Nicaragua had no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union for help because the United States is breathing down the Sandinistas' neck. The C.I.A. is all over Central America." For every Ronald Reagan who blames Cen- tral American problems on communist spread there is a Daniel Ortega who explains the Central American "situation" in terms of capitalistic selfishness. And thus, the un- decided gringo who is trying to "averiguar" what is really going on down here in Central America will believe on Monday that com- munism is an evil fungus that grows well in the tropics and that this fungus is northbound and U.S.-bent, but will believe on Tuesday that the Sandinistas were forced to turn to the Soviets for help when faced with "subtle" forms of U.S. espionage and economic inter- vention. And exhausted from hearing about conflicting "facts", the weary gringo might easily conclude that like snipe, facts really don't exist in the Central American jungle. But they do. It is a fact that most people are family- oriented, andtthat most of these families eat a lot of rice and beans. It is a fact that the concept of time is dif- ferent here. "Ahorita" is an everyday word that means "now", "in ten minutes", or "never." When is the bus coming? "Ahorita." The bus may come in five minutes. The bus may come in an hour. The bus may not come. And because of ahorita sometimes important work just does not get done in the tropics. Fact: Most people can tell you about Michael Jackson, because even poor families own TVs. Only some people can discuss In- ternational Monetary Fund payments. Not everyone buys newspapers. More facts: There is no clean water in some parts. There are big bugs, and ameobas. There are oxen that graze slowly. There are people who run to hang out in door- ways to watch the train, bus, or car pass because vehicle-watching is a form of enter- tainment. There are sturdy Catholic chur- ches and trustworthy Padres who preach in them. In short, it is a fact that there is life here in the jungle. Life is what happens here in Central America between headlines about creeping communism and in spite of news of an American invasion on October 15. There are facts here. People live tranquilo and they eat rice and beans. Life goes on. But sometimes tranquilo is interrupted by death squads. Sometimes horribly mutilated bodies are discovered by small children. Latins live tranquilo and life goes on in the jungle, but there are also horrendous facts here: malnutrition, starvation, alcoholism, IMF payments, prejudice against Indian populations, torture. And with all of this in mind, perhaps the most horrendous fact of all is that while these real problems beg solutions, there are a lot of people from all over the world running around Central America snipe hunting. After all, tranquilo can be dull at times. It is far more interesting to root up evidence that the communists are coming or that the United States is capitalistically creeping into every pineapple field than it is to deal in facts. Snipe hunting is more fun than sitting down to discuss problems with people you distrust. Fact: There are people in Central America who need clothing, nutritious food, shelter, and the right to find their missing families and friends. Nonsense: Nothing can be done until every Red is dead. More nonsense: Nothing can be done until the United States gets its paws out of the Cen- tral American pie. A lot of folks are down here and no one is in any great hurry to leave. Whether Latino, Red, or Red, White, and Blue, we all have facts to share. We might even have solutions. When people from dif- ferent parts of the world, who are never- theless concerned about the same problems, sit down to discuss - and argue - about solutions, then progress is possible. But fact-facing is less entertaining than snipe-hunting because facts are really not like snipe. Changeable snipe are interesting because they belong to the world of the pretend. Facts are really not like snipe. Facts are boring because they are real and because they stay the same. Facts: hungry people, dirty water, mutilated bodies, sick kids. Central America. Kiser attended the University and is now a member of the Peace Corps in Costa Rica. LETTERS TO THE DAILY The need to understand democracy To the Daily: The editorial, "Rejoicing in Democracy" (Daily, November 8), provides a singularly shallow and uninformed comparison of the recent elections in Nicaragua and the United States. It is unfor- tunate that the Daily, along with the rest of the American press, has accepted the State Depar- tment's propaganda regarding this election as truth. On Novem- ber 7, 1984, the Washington Post reported on a secret memo which discussed efforts by the State Department to manipulate public opinion about the Nicaraguan election. The article said that the briefing paper "outlines a plan to convince Americans and the rest swallowing the party line on this issue. Opposition parties, with positions ranging from pro- business Christian conservatism to radical Marxism, were not only allowed to run in the elec- tions, but were given equal ac- cess to television and radio ad- vertising and money with which to carry out their campaigns. People who have visited Nicaragua recently attest that vitriolic attacks on the Sandinista platform and performance ap- pear daily on the pages of the op- position newspaper, La Prensa. No BLOOM COUNTY political criticism was censored. Impartial observers of the elec- toral procedures, such as Willie Brandt, former Chancellor of West Germany, an American delegation of lawyers, and other European diplomats concluded that the election rules themselves were among the best in Latin America and that there were no serious irregularities on the day of the election. What does true democracy consist of? What do the American people have to rejoice about con- cerning their recent election? Forty-seven percent of eligible voters stayed home, and even among those who bothered to go out and vote, many were ignorant of the candidates' stances on the issues, and still others voted for candidates with whom they disagreed on major issues. Con- trast this to a turnout of over 80 percent in Nicaragua, and on a populace that is passionately involved in everyday politics. I am tired of hearing Americans speak so righteously of democracy with so little apparent understanding of the term. -Thea Lee November 9 by Berke Breathed 4 I c//m AN /NeFFCINT ANP_ LW/$HTtY Eva17ONAY I I i A