Paraguay does not usually feature prominently on people’s political radar screens, not even in Latin America. Until a fortnight ago, Paraguay was perhaps more famous for being landlocked (it is surrounded by Bolivia to the northwest, Brazil to the northeast and east, and Argentina to the south), poor (only Guyana and Bolivia are poorer in terms of GDP per capita), and corrupt, having the oldest one-party rule in the world.
But two Sundays ago, Paraguayans ended 61 years of authoritarian and generally venal rule by the conservative Colorado Party by electing Fernando Lugo, a leftist, former Roman Catholic bishop, as president.
The defeat of the Colorado Party is historic, given its lengthy dominance following the civil war of 1947, a period notorious for the brutal, right-wing dictatorship of General Alfredo Stroessner, who ruled from 1954 to 1989. The transition to democracy, begun with the ouster of General Stroessner in 1989, is now hopefully about to enter its defining phase.
Fernando Lugo’s election is also hugely significant in the context of Latin America’s ongoing swing to the populist left. He now joins Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Lula da Silva in Brazil, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Raúl Castro in Cuba, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, in a leftist club whose political colours range from Ms Bachelet’s light pink to the bright red of Messrs Castro and Chávez.
Now, the focus is on where exactly Mr Lugo, known as ‘the bishop of the poor,’ fits in this political spectrum. His political philosophy has been strongly influenced by Liberation Theology and he is genuinely popular among the poor. He has promised an end to patronage and corruption and more opportunity for all, but he is no populist demagogue in the Chávez mould. He is said to exude natural warmth and humility and he has stated his affinity with President Lula.
Although he talked of agrarian reform in his electoral campaign, most Paraguay watchers do not expect radical Chávez-style reforms, such as expropriation of private property or nationalization of key industries. And even though there are concerns regarding his stated intention to renegotiate the benefits of a joint hydroelectricity project with Brazil, Mr Lugo is widely expected to be more of a pragmatic leftist like Lula.
The President-elect has declared himself to be a “median line between Chávez and Lula” and claims that Paraguay has to create its “own process.” In also asserting that “in Latin America today there are no common, unified paradigms” and in signalling his interest in maintaining good relations with the United States, Mr Lugo would appear to be seeking to avoid being tarnished with the chavista brush, as he searches for a middle way for himself and his country. As Marcela Sánchez, a Latin American expert writing in the Washington Post puts it, “all indications are that Lugo will be more a Lula than a Hugo.” Indeed, the US even appears to be cautiously prepared to accept and work with Mr Lugo, but much more will depend on the incoming administration than that of George W Bush.
Mr Lugo will, however, have to contend with a Congress still dominated by the Colorado Party. And his own Patriotic Alliance for Change, a diverse coalition of those bound by their opposition to the common enemy, the Colorados, will have a steep learning curve as it enters government with no prior experience.
Nevertheless, for Paraguayans, the defeat of the Colorados and the election of Mr Lugo represent the dawn of a new era and cause for great hope for the future. Ultimately, Fernando Lugo’s election is a triumph for democracy in a country with an imperfect record in that area and in a region in which the consolidation of democracy is still a work in progress. And the consequences are of course unpredictable.
