The Ouster of Fernando Lugo

I am in agreement with all those who claim that the impeachment process by the Paraguayan Senate was too fast and did not allow Lugo the opportunity to properly defend himself in what was supposed to be a fair congressional trial.

It is interesting to note that had Paraguayan democracy been a parliamentary system, the same action would have constituted a vote of non- confidence in the prime minister who would have had to step down immediately. In other words, in a parliamentary system the ouster of Lugo would have constituted a legitimate step. Historically, in countries such as Italy, this case has been the rule rather than the exception.

One of the problems in the Latin American presidential system is that presidents historically have had more power than Congress and have used it and abused it. This is very much in contrast with the American system where presidential powers are more limited.

According to a report published in 2010 by the Organization of American States, half of the 18 Latin American presidents now in office have assumed functions usually designated for members of parliament or the legislative brunch. According to the OAS report, the weakness of Republicanism “is the result of an exacerbated presidential system that makes the Latin American State, a Ceasarist state” at the expense of a functional legislative power. Likewise, rule by decree also continues to be problematic in Latin American countries.
In the Paraguayan case, it was Congress that removed a president that acted using his presidential prerogatives in a very much Latin American style. However, it is also important to point out that Congress, itself, acted almost by decree. Therefore, we have a serious political-cultural problem here.

Indeed, if we look at the process that ended in Lugo’s ouster, it was done following the letter of the law. In fact, Congress has the power to impeach and remove the president for the following reasons; “poor performance of his duties,” “crimes in the exercise of his duties,” or “common crimes.”

Lugo was accused of mishandling an armed confrontation between landless farmers and police officers that caused 17 casualties including 6 policemen and 11 farmers.

However, the speed with which this was done and the inability of the public to hear Lugo’s defense does not sit well with the constitutional spirit, even if the law has been carefully followed.

The Problem with Lugo’s Government

Another dimension of the episode relates to Lugo, himself. Here the story is not new in Latin America. Lugo was elected without a real party base of his own. He won the election because he joined with the Liberal party, another party historically persecuted by the Colorado Party that ruled the country for more than six decades. Federico Franco, now the president, ran on Lugo’s ticket as vice-president. Lugo’s coalition included a plethora of forces including conservatives, and those on the left and moderate left.
Despite the delicate and fragile coalition, Lugo made himself the center of the government decision making process, ignoring the forces that supported his presidency. Members of the Liberal party including his own Vice-President complained about not being consulted on many important decisions such as the appointment and allocation of cabinet members and how to handle farm invasions and the underground guerilla group known as the Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP).

The best historical example that comes to mind when judging Lugo’s behavior is the case of Hipolito Yrigoyen, the first constitutional president of Argentina early in the 20th century. Yrigoyen ruled the country with popular support in the first male suffrage election. As a result he saw his rule as a popular mandate where he did not feel the need to include anybody or consult with anybody with regard to policy. Lugo also ignored members of the cabinet and members of his own party, as well as different sectors of society. Three years into his presidency a clash between striking workers and police unleashed riots that left hundreds of people dead. Like Lugo, Yrigoyen was paralyzed because he placed himself at the center of all politics while ignoring everybody else. He did not realize the antagonistic forces and the conflicts that his own society was experiencing. He not only alienated people who did not think like him but also members of his own party. Yrigoyen was ousted by a military coup two years into his second term. Argentinean democracy was not restored until 53 years later.

Likewise, Lugo had the same attitude as Yrigoyen. He not only alienated the conservative factions but also the left wing factions. Like Yrigoyen, Lugo was self-absorbed and could not see the sharp divisions and conflicts in his society conflicts. As a result, he lost control of the situation and turned indifferent and paralyzed in the face of the deaths of the farmers and policemen.

The Reaction of the Countries in the Region

What has become obvious is that the countries of the region that are now opposing the removal of Lugo have no problem with the dictatorial way in which Bolivarian countries rule. The only criteria they seem to have to judge a violation of democracy is if the president is ousted before his or her term expires. In other words, what needs to happen is that the region needs to work very hard in redefining what constitutes democracy; a violation of democracy; and a coup. Ironically, it is the Commission on Human Rights of the OAS that is more sensitive and sane on this issue. Yet, the Commission has been criticized by several regional leaders that are now critical of Paraguay, on the grounds that it interferes in national sovereignty.

In the meantime, Paraguay has been suspended from Mercosur, a trading block made up of Brazil,  Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Mexico, Brazil and Argentina have withdrawn their ambassadors but have refrained from severing diplomatic ties.

The actions of these countries have created more internal problems in Paraguay as Lugo, who first accepted the Congressional verdict of impeachment, is now trying to create a parallel government openly mobilizing people and confronting the new government.

The countries in the region leading the inquisition against the new president of Paraguay are mostly countries of the radical and moderate left. They become automatically sensitive every time a left wing president is ousted. There is solidarity among them, which they demonstrated at the time of the crisis in Honduras in 2009. Such solidarity seems to be the only criteria they have as they have shown indifference to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s electoral fraud and judicial manipulation and to Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa’s persecution of the press, and to Venezuelan President Chavez’s subjugation of legislative and judicial power and persecution of his opponents.

In other words, democracy in Latin America lacks criteria and definition. Most importantly, there is a vacuum of leadership as the role of the United States declines in the area. No Latin American country has the will to take the lead. Conformity and fear of isolation prevail. Chile and Colombia are too cautious. Brazil has been nothing but a disappointment as it has joined the Bolivarian hysteria against the Inter-American Human Rights Commission while becoming an enabler of Chavez and his allies in the region. With the exception of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights and the Inter-American Court, the OAS leadership, ignored the Democratic Charter instead of confronting Chavez’s anti-democratic tantrums. It goes without saying that the OAS chairman, Jose Miguel Insulza, must go.

It is important to give priority and take the lead in initiating a good and productive discussion about “what is democracy”. The United States is the only country that can do something about it. We can at least try to play a more forceful role in the OAS and not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the animus of the pro-Chavez countries by allowing them to set the tone, as we have done so far.

This is an opportunity to take the lead and encourage other Latin American democracies to join. Countries such as Mexico, Colombia and Chile are waiting for a reliable ally.
To conclude, it is important to have a serious discussion about democracy in the region, and define what is legitimate and what is not. Too many countries have selective ideas and define “Democracy” in their own self-interest.