These interviews reveal a complex and subtle difference of opinion, as well as elements of an old-fashioned power struggle as the Sandinista party gears up for the 1996 elections. By the end of 1994, what had begun as a political debate within the Sandinista Nat- ional Liberation Front (FSLN) was on the verge of developing into a full-blown split, with front-page reports in the Nicaraguan press of an impending purge of certain members from the Sandinista Nat- ional Directorate (the party execu- tive committee). There are two principal currents of Sandinismo: the "Democratic Left" (Izquierda Democrdtica, ID), associated with former President Daniel Ortega, which has been characterized as having a more "orthodox-left" ori- entation; and the "Movement for the Renovation of Sandinismo" (MRS), associated with former Vice-President Sergio Ramfrez-- who since these interviews has left the party-which is considered more "social-democratic." These interviews reveal that beneath the rhetoric lie both a more complex and subtle difference of opinion, as well as elements of an old-fash- ioned power struggle as the party gears up for the 1996 elections. The debate between the two cur- rents first came to a head in the special congress of the FSLN in May, 1994, when Ortega was reelected party general secretary, and his Democratic Left current won the majority of seats in the Sandinista Assembly (the party legislature) and two-thirds of the seats in the National Directorate. Ramfrez not only failed to win reelection to the Directorate, but his current was reduced to minori- ty status in both party institutions. Pointing to new party quotas for women and youth, the Democratic Left hailed the congress as a victo- ry for democracy and pluralism. The defeated tendency, however, saw the congress as a setback, cit- ing continuing control by the old guard of a self-styled "vanguard" party. Following the congress, Sergio Ramfrez was stripped not only of his position as head of the Sandin- ista delegation in the National Assembly (Nicaragua's national legislature) but also of his seat, which he had been occupying by proxy on Daniel Ortega's behalf. The Sandinista Assembly ordered that Ortega reclaim his seat, and named him head of the Sandinista delegation in the national legisla- ture. The majority of Sandinista deputies defied the Assembly, however, and elected Ramfrez' sec- ond-in-command, Dora Marfa T611ez, instead. The Democratic Left then charged that the MRS was trying to use its control of the delegation to transform it into an independent power base-espe- cially after the latter introduced a constitutional reform bill that had been disowned by the newly elect- ed Sandinista Assembly. On October 25, the conflict spread to the party-owned news- paper, Barricada, with the sacking of its MRS-affiliated editor, Carlos Fernando Chamorro, and the subse- quent resignations of the entire edi- torial board, the president of the board of directors, and over 20 edi- tors and staff members. What party leaders described as the reimposi- tion of party discipline and accountability was characterized by the MRS as a high-handed ges- ture of intolerance on the part of the "authoritarian" and "orthodox-left" current in the party. After the Bar- ricada upheaval, poet and former Sandinista Minister of Culture Ernesto Cardenal resigned from the FSLN, alleging fraud in the post- congress municipal and regional elections of party leaders, and charging Daniel Ortega with "kid- napping" the party to further his own political interests. The following interviews were conducted in early December, 1994, by NACLA executive direc- tor Pierre La Ram6e with Victor Hugo Tinoco and Dora Marfa Tllez, two prominent members of the FSLN who are on opposite sides of the debate. Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 199511 Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 1995 11INTERVIEW / NICARAGUA Victor Hugo Tinoco is a member of the Demo- cratic Left current. He is currently a member of the National Directorate and heads the FSLN's International Affairs Department. He was deputy for- eign minister during the years the Sandinistas held power. What are the major differences between the positions of the Demo- cratic Left and the Movement for the Renovation of Sandinismo (MRS)? There are ideological and elec- toral differences. The former have always existed and go back to the founding of the Sandinista Front in the 1970s. As the Sandinistas suc- ceeded in winning sympathy and capturing the popular imagination, various social and political ele- ments from all sectors and classes linked up with the Front-some with the sole objective of over- throwing Somoza, others with the goal of revolutionary transforma- tion. Fundamentally, I believe that the ideological differences are as fol- lows. One sector, basically that of Sergio [Ramfrez] and Dora [Maria T611ez], holds that the world has fundamentally changed and that revolutionary social movements have to adapt to these changes. They argue that the country is in a profound economic crisis and requires stability. The need for national stability leads these com- paieros to reject the popular strug- gle. The other group in the FSLN, the majority, wants to promote national stability, but without sacri- ficing the popular struggle. That's the basic difference. The difference appears principal- ly in political practice. For instance, with regard to the popular struggle, the majority in the FSLN supported the transportation workers' strike last year while the minority practi- cally rejected it. The minority group-especially in the legisla- ture-has supported the govern- ment's plans to privatize while dis- couraging protest and opposition. The majority, however, has stated its opposition to the privatization of education and health. Can you say something about the "electoral" differences which you mentioned? The problem that the FSLN had last year until the congress in July ty. Unity is in crisis now not because of political differences- which have always existed-but because the minority, Sergio Ramfrez' group, has decided to break with democratic procedures, and to act unilaterally in the National Assembly without con- sulting the party. Their actions, dic- tated by an electoral strategy, are the source of the crisis in the party. The members of the MRS would say that the recent coup at Barricada is a The need for national stability leads the compaFieros in the other group to reject the popular struggle. Our group wants to promote national stability, but without sacrificing the popular struggle. That's the basic difference. was that we had these two conflict- ing positions which amounted to a political struggle within the party. We called the special congress pre- cisely because of this-to deter- mine which of these two positions was held by the majority within the party and which would be the party's official position. The majority position, as established by the special congress, supports both stability and the popular struggle. Nevertheless, both the majority and minority positions were repre- sented in the National Directorate and in the Sandinista Assembly. The majority should respect the rights of the minority, but at the same time, the minority-while fighting for its position-should respect the decisions of the majori- ty. We haven't succeeded in achiev- ing such an accommodation because of the electoral dimension of the conflict-the compaileros of the minority have begun to defy the democratic decisions of the majori- clear indication of a hegemonic and intolerant attitude on the part of the Democratic Left. How would you respond? As far as the party press is con- cerned, we had a totally abnormal situation where the minority group controlled the two papers of the FSLN, Barricada and Nuevo Diario. [Strictly speaking, only Barricada is an FSLN publication; Nuevo Diario is autonomous, but its direc- tor is an MRS member.-PL] In Nuevo Diario, you find reflected the point of view of the minority and almost never that of the major- ity. Before the changes at Barrica- da, the paper reflected the point of view of the minority and wasn't giving space to the majority. As a result, the majority had no press in which its position-or the official position taken by the FSLN-was clearly reflected. The change at Barricada was carried out with the simple objective of ensuring that the paper owned by the party reflect 12NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS 12 NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICASINTERVIEW / NICARAGUA the position of the majority-but without excluding the minority point of view. It is admittedly diffi- cult, in the context of political struggle, to resolve the problem and strike a balance in which the point of view of the minority will not be lost, especially with all of the recriminations and attacks. Victor Hugo Tinoco What are the main differences between the two currents vis-a-vis constitutional change-more specifi- cally with regard to the changes being pursued by the Sandinista deputies in the National Assembly? The differences on the constitu- tion are not on the ideological plane, but rather are of an electoral order. This is evident from what is being discussed-the theme of prohibiting relatives of the presi- dent from being candidates, the run-off ballot, etc. These differ- ences are not differences based on principle. In the Sandinista Assem- bly, the FSLN officially approved restrictions on relatives of the pres- ident running for office as a poten- tial reform. At the same time, how- ever, we proposed that we would give up this restriction in exchange for a law to stabilize the situation 0 0 with regard to rural landed proper- ty. The position of the minority, however, which constitutes the majority of Sandinistas in parlia- ment, is to introduce these constitu- tional changes without any negotia- tions. Why? The minority, led by Sergio, senses that Antonio Lacayo [leader of the moderate wing of the governing UNO coalition and son- in-law of President Violeta Cham- orro-PL] is a natural rival for con- trol of the country's political center. Sergio senses that Lacayo is in the same ballpark politically as himself and is trying to exclude him in order to strengthen his own candi- dacy. To accomplish this, the minority is joining forces with UNO conservatives who want to punish Antonio Lacayo because they feel he betrayed them after the 1990 elections when he arrogated all the power to himself. It's a vendetta. So, you get a self-serving position on Sergio's part, combined with a vendetta on UNO's part, resulting in a position of non-nego- tiability. The real adversary of the FSLN is the right. In an election, Antonio Lacayo would attract more votes from the right than from the FSLN. Therefore, we have an interest in his participation, and we see no reason to lock ourselves into a position of restrictions on candi- dates. As for the run-off, we think that it would help the right because they could unite in the second round. I haven't heard a single rational explanation of how the run-off could help us. Are the differences between the two groups irreconcilable? I don't think so. We are now proposing a dialogue to find a way to function as a single unified party. This implies agreeing on the rules of the game with respect to majori- ty rule and minority representation. If we can't agree on how to func- tion as a single group, the other option is for them to form their own group, and for all of us to stop attacking each other. In the final analysis, whatever our political dif- ferences, we are closer to each other than to other political groups. Whether we function as one group or two, the door should be left open to eventually recombining our forces. Dora Maria Tdllez is one of the leaders of the Movement for the Ren- ovation of Sandinismo (MRS), a deputy in the National Assembly, and, until recently, a member of the National Directorate. She is a Sandinista comandante who fought in the struggle against the Somoza dictatorship, most notably as second-in-command of the occupation of the Nation- al Palace in August, 1978, and as the commander of the forces lib- erating Le6n in July, 1979. In the Sandinista government, she served as minister of public health. How would you characterize the dif- ference between your position and that of the Democratic Left? The country wants peace, stabili- ty, employment and dynamic com- munity development. Sandinismo has to come up with a proposal that demonstrates the FSLN can credi- bly meet this challenge, and therein lie our differences. The problem goes beyond what we think of our- selves-if the people perceive us as militaristic and authoritarian, then that is a perception we have to change. The Democratic Left has opted for a proposal that uses the rhetoric of revolution, but that at this moment is fundamentally con- servative and backward-looking. Nothing can be resolved by looking backwards; we can only resolve our problems by going forward. We believe that the Democratic Left has made a fetish of the popu- lar struggle, and that this has been Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 199513 Vol XXVIII, No 5 MARCH/APRIL 1995 13INTERVIEW / NICARAGUA as detrimental to the popular move- ment as neoliber- Our alism has been. in keep We also differ on the question of should n methods. Our me- thods of struggle political have to be in keep- to ing with a democ- ratic and constitu- tional system, and IIoUld IIUt unlerl- mine Nicaragua's hard-won politi- cal stability. Of course, strikes are totally legitimate, and the right to strike-as well as the popular strug- gle-are enshrined as rights in the Constitution. But violence doesn't have any place in Nicaragua and just contributes to instability and to a further separation between San- dinismo and the people. The Democratic Left insists on defining the FSLN as a "vanguard party." The idea of the vanguard made sense when the FSLN was fighting the Somoza dictatorship and needed a strong, solid, central- ized, and closed mechanism to confront the repression. But things have changed. Another difference between us concerns both the process of democratization within the Sandinista party, and the insti- tutionalization of democracy in the wider society. While we have tried to achieve a more profound politi- cal democratization in the party, the Democratic Left has main- tained a vertical, authoritarian and sectarian style, creating a greater distance between Sandinismo and the people. Why has constitutional reform been such a contentious issue between the two currents? We have been pushing for consti- tutional reforms to deepen democ- racy and to ensure that politics will not be reduced to inter-elite rela- tions. The changes we have pro- posed include a restructuring of the executive and the legislature that methods of struggle have ing with a democratic syst ot undermine Nicaragua's stability. Violence just con a further separation betw iandinismo and the people Dora Maria T6Ilez would limit presidential power. We have also proposed greater trans- parency and accountability in gov- ernment and public service, a non- partisan, professional army and police force, and various changes in the electoral model, such as who can be a candidate. There are major differences between the par- ties in Nicaragua, but at least we are looking for a system that will work as a model for the country. Basically, the Democratic Left's opposition to constitutional reform has been the result of an alliance between Antonio Lacayo and Daniel Ortega. The Democratic Left ended up supporting the posi- tion of Lacayo to ensure the possi- bility that he will be a candidate in the 1996 elections. The Democratic Left claims that in to be the interests of maintaining stabili- em, and ty to attract foreign investment, the hard-won MRS is selling out tributes to the Nicaraguan elite and foreign een capital, and that the MRS wants to privatize all public services. What is vour response? We support foreign investment, but to say that we are selling out to foreign capital is a complete false- hood. It is widely recognized that foreign investment-and invest- ment in general-is needed for eco- nomic development and to combat poverty. The Democratic Left is making a serious error in claiming that foreign investment is unneces- sary. How else can the country develop? To promote investment is to promote employment. As for pri- vatizing public services, what we want are constitutional guarantees of free, obligatory and universal education at the primary and sec- ondary levels, with free health care and non-privatization of essential services. We have never said other- wise-anything to the contrary is pure propaganda. How do you stand on the issue of state enterprises being privatized to workers? These are being run as highly centralized organizations in which the workers have very little partici- pation or sense of property. There is little sense that there has been a real transition to worker-managed en- terprises. The idea of union leaders becoming enterprise directors is absolutely inimical to the labor movement. If union leaders are at the same time enterprise directors, who will defend the rights of the workers? The rank-and-file worker has not benefited but, on the con- trary, has ended up with no rights.
