Nicaragua: the unpopular «socialist revolution4 reading minutes

News Mondays - Diego Taboada

For several months now, Nicaragua has been in the spotlight due to popular protests against the dictatorship of Daniel Ortega and his wife, Rosario Murillo - who has gradually risen to the vice-presidency of the government. These movements have brought to light the actions of an authoritarian regime which does not hesitate to violently repress any attempt at protest: almost three hundred deaths have been deplored, despite the president's cynical appeals for peace.

Despite strikes and international pressure, the couple are determined to stay in power. The celebration of the thirty-ninth anniversary of the overthrow of the Somoza regime by the Sandinista National Liberation Front came at just the right time. Ortega took advantage of the public gathering with his supporters to consolidate his position and accuse the Church, which still plays an important role in the country, of conspiracy and support for the opposition «putschists». The bishops have tried to mediate between the parties to find a peaceful way out of the crisis. But this scenario does not suit a president who has no intention of resigning or calling early elections.

The situation in which Nicaragua finds itself may seem paradoxical if we consider the original project of the Sandinista revolutionaries, of which Ortega was a member, when they took power first by force and then through the ballot box. They claimed to be fighting against the corrupt despotism of Latin American regimes, following the example of their Castro-Guévarist brothers. Some observers have pointed out the irony: Ortega has become the dictator he swore to fight, and is now being challenged by the very people he claimed to defend and represent. Quite a symbol.

The situation in Nicaragua is not unlike that in Venezuela. Indeed, the parallels are glaring. An authoritarian, nepotistic and corrupt regime, in which dissent rumbles and repression is bloody. A similar discourse, accusing the opposition of being «subversive», and illegitimate because at the service of US imperialist interests, with both regimes turning a blind eye to the catastrophic situation facing the population. Of course, it would be inconceivable for a government «of the people» to be challenged. But this classic socialist rhetoric has its limits and doesn't stand up to the test of facts, although the echo continues to touch some people around the world.

Indeed, these left-wing dictatorships enjoy far greater tolerance than other types of regime. Some - those who don't live there, of course - are ardent defenders of them, seeing them as morally superior, serving the poor and seeking social justice. In their view, the latent failure of these regimes lies less in an intrinsic problem than in the context and influence of external elements that have disrupted the smooth running of the revolution.

Nevertheless, it's hard to continue believing in the virtues of this form of power and turning a blind eye to the disastrous consequences it has on the country and its people. The attitude of the population is an infallible indicator. When they take to the streets, it's rarely because they feel obliged to do so by the imperialists. A popular revolution that loses the support of its people loses its raison d'être. This fact has seemed inescapable in every socialist experiment throughout history. We must now recognize that a dictatorship - left or right - is never positive, and must be fought.

Nicaragua is just one example of the failure of dictatorship. Let's hope that the suffering of Nicaragua's people and their desire for freedom, democracy and prosperity will help to shatter the myth of the socialist idyll, and demonstrate once again that the «dictatorship of the proletariat» has failed.» South American style has a lot of «dictatorship» and very little «proletariat».