What was most surprising about Nicaragua’s election last Sunday was not that President Daniel Ortega was re-elected after a highly questionable electoral process, but that his victory got a seemingly unconditional blessing from 34-country Organization of American States chief Jose Miguel Insulza.
On Monday, after Ortega was proclaimed the winner with nearly 64 per cent of the vote, Insulza was quoted by an OAS election observation mission statement as saying that “in Nicaragua yesterday, democracy and peace took a step forward.”
Really? I asked Insulza in a telephone interview after reading the statement in several Latin American newspapers. Do you honestly think that?
Most independent observers agree, for starters, that Ortega’s re-election is unconstitutional.
The Nicaraguan Constitution’s Article 147 specifically bans sitting presidents from seeking re-election. In addition, the constitution bans any president who already served on two occasions to seek office for a third term, which would have also prevented Ortega from running, since he has already served on two occasions.
But, in a near surreal manoeuvre, after failing to win enough votes in Congress to overturn the constitutional mandate, Ortega took advantage of a solidly loyal Supreme Court in 2009 to win a ruling declaring the constitutional ban unconstitutional.
Since then, he has taken a series of steps that made the entire process “illegal and unconstitutional,” according to Carlos Fernando Chamorro, the former pro-Sandinista journalist who now edits the respected independent newsletter Confidencial.
Among other irregularities, the election was supervised by a pro-Ortega Supreme Electoral Council whose members’ terms had already expired, and which had previously presided over fraudulent 2008 municipal elections, Chamorro wrote.
Also, several independent election monitors have verified government “interference” in the issuing of voting credentials, which left tens of thousands of people unable to vote. And there were “flagrant violations” of laws that prohibit the use of government funds for electoral campaigns, Chamorro added.
Asked about the OAS statement quoting him as saying that democracy has taken a step forward, Insulza told me right away, “That was an error.”
Insulza said the OAS electoral observation mission had included that quote in a press release about a phone call he had made to Ortega after the election. Insulza later asked that the quote be removed from the statement, and it’s no longer part of the press release posted at the OAS website, he said.
“I asked that it be taken out,” Insulza told me. “I considered it to be a mistake, because the OAS Secretary General is not supposed to issue an opinion about an electoral process until the OAS electoral observation mission has issued its report,” he said.
Okay, but did you say it, or didn’t you, in your conversation with Ortega, I asked. “It was an interpretation of something that was said during my conversation with Ortega,” Insulza responded.
Insulza added that whatever was said took place in the context of a conversation in which the two were expressing satisfaction about the fact that the elections had been peaceful, despite previous fears of violence.
As for his general sense of the Nicaraguan election, Insulza told me that it was a “demonstration of civility” by the Nicaraguan people, and that “the result was clear.”
A full report on the election by the OAS electoral observation mission, including complaints by international observers of difficulties to get access to the polling places, is scheduled to be released within the next two weeks, he said.
My opinion: The OAS electoral observation mission made a bad mistake by not offering a more comprehensive view in its first statements about the Nicaraguan election. Comparatively, the mission of European Union observers said after the vote that the elections were supervised by “electoral authorities with very little independence and equanimity.”
Now, the original OAS mission’s press communiqué, which Insulza is now partially recanting, is being promoted by Ortega and his international allies as alleged evidence of an immaculate election victory. That will make it even easier for Ortega to grab even greater powers and remain in power indefinitely.
We can only hope that the OAS final report on the election will reflect its true nature: a relatively normal election day, with a clear result, but preceded by a highly tainted electoral process that makes Ortega look like a new version of Nicaragua’s infamous late strongman Anastasio Somoza.
The final OAS report will be hard to take seriously unless it concludes that — contrary to what it said in its previous communiqué — democracy and peace have suffered a setback in Nicaragua.
© The Miami Herald, 2011. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Media Services.
