There’s a group of Americans (mostly) who meet in Managua, and I received this email from them. Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are of the writer and aren’t endorsed/agreed upon by me. Just thought you might find it interesting.
Outcomes of the elections forum at Casa Ben Linder
Tuesday, November 7th
Â
On Tuesday, Nov. 7th at the Casa Ben Linder in Managua, Nicaragua, over 70 people participated in a forum on the 2006 Nicaraguan elections. Â Among the participants were members of international elections observation delegations organized by Witness for Peace, the Center for Global Education, the School for International Training, and the Carter Center, as well as long-term international residents of Nicaragua.Â
Â
The purpose of the forum was fourfold:
- to share general experiences of elections observations,
- to share evidence of US influence and intervention in Nicaragua’s electoral process,
- to discuss the extent to which the elections could be described as “free, fair, and transparent,” and
- to gather a general summary of points to share with US groups interested in Nicaragua.Â
Â
We first heard from representatives of the various elections observation delegations, who engaged in observation work in various locations in the Pacific region of Nicaragua. Overall, the consensus was that the elections were generally well-run, without major anomalies. The elections were closely observed, with 1,227 accredited International observers and just over 13,000 national observers. Several participants commented that the Nicaraguan people exhibited a great attitude and enthusiasm as they participated in the voting process. Â
Â
Irregularities/problems observed included the late opening of some polling places, unequal application of rules such as cell phone usage inside the polling places, local ballots and national party ballots getting mixed up by the use of confusingly similar-colored ballot boxes, and slow-moving lines. More seriously, one observer witnessed the early closing of the polling place to which he had been assigned, leaving those still in the lines without an opportunity to vote. Â However, all agreed that the irregularities observed were minor and not sufficient to significantly affect the elections results.
Â
Prior to the elections, various scenarios were postulated in which large-scale electoral manipulation or fraud could occur, such as annulling votes or whole polling places or through the politicized distribution of cedulas, the national identification card required to vote in Nicaragua.  None of the participants reported observing evidence of systematic ballot or polling place annulment.  It was noted that in cases of disputes or confusion observed at polling places, they were generally resolved by consensus decisions made among the fiscals, or poll watchers, assigned by the Nicaraguan political parties to watch the polls. A member of the Carter Center delegation noted that there was criticism of the distribution of cedulas by political parties in some regions of Nicaragua, leaving the distribution process open to claims of bias. However, even if this did occur it would not be enough to sway the presidential results, though it could have impacted local elections.  On a systemic level, the pact between the PLC and the FSLN contributed to an unequal playing field for other parties.
Â
No participants observed instances of direct US intervention in the voting process on elections day.  However, in the months leading up to the elections there were threats made by US government officials to cut off aid and trade with Nicaragua and to block the sending of remittances to Nicaraguans if the FSLN won.  The US embassy made it clear, through documented statements and actions, that they preferred Eduardo Montealegre, the ALN candidate. Less tangible is the lasting influence previous US intervention in Nicaragua has on voters’ actions.Â
Â
On a smaller scale, USAID sponsored the printing of elections literature that included a comic book with a biased and pejorative depiction of Nicaraguan history and the Sandinista period.  Another participant noted that Nicaraguan electoral watchdog Etica y Transparencia receives much of its funding from USAID and that Etica y Transparencia observers at the polls had USAID logos prominently displayed on their materials. Also, the US embassy made a public statement on election night expressing concern that the election was not transparent.  This assertion has not been supported by the Carter Center or other elections observers.
Â
To conclude, forum participants gathered a general summary of points to share with people and groups back in the US interested in Nicaragua.
Â
- The elections were generally well-run, without major problems significant enough to call question to the official outcome (the FSLN victory). Â This assertion has been supported by watchdog groups Etica y Transparencia, IPADE, OAS, UE, Central American Observers and the Carter Center.
- There was a huge turnout, general enthusiasm and good attitude among Nicaraguans, making this election a good exercise in democracy.
- The Nicaraguan people have spoken; we and the US government have to respect their right to elect whomever they chose and their sovereignty.
- The US government must work cooperatively with the FSLN and Daniel Ortega as the democratically-elected leader of Nicaragua, and that we as US citizens/members of the international community need to communicate our opinions on this matter to our government.
- In discussing the Nicaraguan election with people in the US, it will be helpful to stick to the facts: that according to respected elections observer groups, the 2006 FSLN victory was free, fair, and transparent. Furthermore, US government officials openly intervened in the electoral process in several well-documented instances.