"Reconciling human dignity and economic necessities"

Victor Hugo Tinoco of the Sandinista National Directorate and leader of their Parliamentary group was in Britain recently to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign. Mike Phipps spoke to him.

Alejandro Bendana once said "it took Marxist-oriented revolutionaries to make liberal pluralist democracy a reality in Central America." Given that so much of the Sandinistas' economic and social achievement has now been overturned, is this what remains of the Sandinista legacy today?

The Revolution left a basic inheritance. Firstly, democracy. The Sandinistas aimed to overthrow Somoza's 50 year dictatorship. So democracy is very important to Nicaragua and the role of the FSLN in achieving this was essential.

Secondly, we transformed the army. We now have a professional and independent army, willing to respect any electoral result, whether a victory of the left or right. This is saying a lot in Latin America where it is uncommon to see the army happy about a left victory. We should remember the army in Nicaragua was a family army, owned by the Somozas. The transformation of the army was very important in our history and this creates advantages for democracy. Elsewhere the army can upset any election result.

Thirdly, the distribution of land and property to co-operatives and individual campesinos. The Revolution distributed property to about 400,000 families so 1.5 million people, or 50% of the population benefited in some way. Even after our election defeat in 1990 the process of distribution continued. When the government began to privatise everything, the FSLN strategy was to privatise at least some state-owned property in favour of workers, campesinos and retired soldiers. This is threatened by the neo-liberal model which is now trying to dismantle this, but after nine years of right-wing government, about 70% of what was distributed by the Revolution is still in the hands of the people.

What do you say to critics who argue that the Sandinista leadership has gone too far in making alliances with agri-business sectors, and in doing so has neglected its traditional base?

Capitalists in Nicaragua are not as strong as capitalists in the developed countries. In 1996 we ran on a programme which tried to rally not just the progressive sectors but also those associated with production. Our slogan was "a government for everybody" - that is, one that would not just govern on behalf of the revolutionary sectors. Most of the big capitalists in Nicaragua didn't buy this proposal, so we didn't get better results. But it would have been difficult to have been more to the left and still rallied middle sectors. An important part of the population feared we would be too radical. This is a dilemma for the left everywhere: how to combine the best and the most viable programme.

The political terrain in Latin America and beyond has changed enormously in the last twenty years. Today the enemy is not military dictatorship, but the devastating effects of neo-liberalism on people's lives. What kind of a movement is necessary to fight this and what prospects do you see for this?

Latin American revolutionaries and left parties have been meeting in the Sao Paulo Forum where they have made a good analysis and developed a platform for the left. They are trying to produce solutions for poor people based on current realities. Left parties should have a clear message for neo-liberalism. We are in favour of macro-economic stability as a governing party. But we will fight to change the social effects of these policies. We need a stable deficit and no hyper-inflation, but also the right of poor people to solve the problems of food, health, education and housing. We have to reconcile the economic goals with these human objectives.

The advantage for the left is that the policies of the international financial institutions have already failed, however much they criticise our policies. So we're not looking for an alternative to a successful policy but to a disaster. We need to change the emphasis from macro to microeconomics. There is no hidden magic solution - the problem is one of reconciling human dignity and economic necessities.

There is a conflict between this and structural adjustment, but the latter has failed. The proposal of debt relief for highly indebted countries is totally against the IMF's views of five years ago, but this has to change and we welcome the international pressure on this. In Nicaragua there is no solution to the debt problem within the current parameters of the IMF - there will simply be more debt, poverty and instability. Bigger countries may have the economic capacity to create their own alternatives, but for small dependent countries like Nicaragua, where 40% of the value of our exports go on debt servicing, then the only solution is debt relief.

previous article ·  Nov '98 index of LLB ·  write to LLB ·  LLB home page ·  next article