This post is also available in: Português Español
Q: Paraguay’s Senate on Friday voted 39-4, with two abstentions, to impeach President Fernando Lugo, who immediately moved out of the presidential residence. On Sunday, however, Lugo announced he will not recognize his former vice president, Federico Franco, as Paraguay’s new leader. Who is the legitimate president of Paraguay? Why are some countries recognizing Franco as the new president and others not? What compelled Congress to take action now, just nine months before scheduled elections, and is it a good thing for the nation? Will Paraguay’s economy suffer as a consequence of the political turmoil?
A: Sebastián Acha, national representative in Paraguay’s Chamber of Deputies and a member of the Inter-American Dialogue: “Despite trying to prevent a crisis caused by the massacre of 11 landless peasants and seven police officers during an eviction from private property in a rural area, political parties were forced to deal with a spiral of violence generated in the country as a consequence of the dangerous passivity of President Lugo in relation to violent groups. This last event culminated in the removal of two commissioners-general, specialists in anti-guerrilla warfare, who were investigating the ‘Ejercito del Pueblo Paraguayo,’ an armed group that operates in the area where said killings occurred. In addition to this, Lugo’s administration decided to break ties with the Liberal Party, a main supporter of its government. These were only the most recent actions that compelled Congress to vote for the impeachment against the president, which resulted in his removal from office by 39 votes against 4 in the Senate. Immediately after, the president accepted his dismissal and left the presidential palace. The impeachment process gathered momentum after the public threat of leaders of the coalition government and the general secretary of the Tekojoja Party who declared that no problems would be resolved in parliament, rather ‘on the streets.’ The pace of the process was essential to prevent major disturbances among about 3,000 people protesting before Congress. The commanders of the army and national police immediately contacted the legitimate new president, Federico Franco, to be made available. This helped full normalcy to return to public life and institutions right away. Up until Monday, the countries that are not recognizing the new government are from the region and based mainly on ideological criteria. These are Venezuela, Cuba, Peru, El Salvador, Argentina and Nicaragua. Other countries such as Spain, France, Germany, England, Canada and others either recognize the new government or decided not to intervene in our internal matters. Economic activity has remained normal, and both traders and industrialists have expressed their agreement with the impeachment process and are optimistic about future prospects.”
A: Joy Olson, executive director of the Washington Office on Latin America: “President Lugo’s kangaroo impeachment represents a big problem for the region. Latin America has progressed to the point at which traditional, cold war-style military coups are no longer acceptable. The concern, though, is that we’re seeing a new model of ‘coup’ emerging. Like the Honduran coup, an elected Congress is attempting to put a veneer of legality on a process that is not fair. The fast-track ouster of unpopular presidents without real due process undermines democracy. There are certainly a lot of other things undermining democracy in the region as well, including attacks on the Inter-American human rights system and freedom of the press and the undermining of judicial processes. Too much is being tolerated. There needs to be an international response to this impeachment that yields consequences. The path of least resistance is to recognize Franco, but countries in the region do so at their own peril. If you can get ousted for not being popular, who’s next?.”
A: Adrienne Pine, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, American University: “On Al Jazeera’s ‘Inside Story’ Monday evening, Paraguayan Senator Miguel Carrizosa Galiano argued that ousting President Lugo nine months before elections was justified because leaders in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador had extended their terms. This is the height of logical reasoning from what Argentine scholar Atilio Borón has called ‘the most corrupt senate of the Americas.’ There is no question that the aptly-named Franco regime is illegitimate; the coup that ousted President Lugo for ‘poor performance’ clearly violated Article 17 of the Paraguayan constitution, which guarantees the right to due process. But the question of democratic legitimacy goes beyond whether a kangaroo court held by representatives from the Stroessner dictatorship’s Colorado Party followed the letter of the law. As in Honduras-which provided the model for this new kind of ‘constitutional’ coup in 2009-the problem is that the spirit of the law itself is radically anti-democratic. Also as in Honduras, ousting the president months before elections blocks promised agrarian reform and guarantees the militarized right wing control over those elections. A coup usurping a democratically elected leader is never a good thing for the people who elected that leader, who pay with their land and with their lives. The beneficiaries of this coup include the same 2 percent of Paraguayans who own 85 percent of the land; Monsanto and Cargill (who use much of that land for widely opposed transgenic cotton and soy production); Stroessner’s heirs in the Paraguayan Parliament; and the United States, which-as was the case in Honduras-seeks to expand its military presence in Paraguay.”
A: John F. Maisto, member of the Advisor board and former U.S. Ambassador to the OAS, Venezuela and Nicaragua: “Paraguay’s imbroglio that resulted in President Lugo’s impeachment with months left in his term is a political conflict only the Paraguayans can resolve, though they may need some international assistance to arrive at a solution that is constitutional, legal and peaceful. It is difficult for non-Paraguayans to ascertain who is right, emotions aside, because constitutional and other legal experts can be found to argue either side. Besides, the conflict is really political and will require some sort of political solution likely cloaked in constitutionality and/or legality. Situations like this cry out for the participation of a non-partisan, trusted, regional entity, hopefully, the Organization of American States. For starters, the OAS-provided the Paraguay players agree-can send a fact-finding mission; this permits space and time to the protagonists. Two other pieces of the political drama are important: the role of Mercosur, and the application or non-application of its democracy provision, and the role of Unasur, with Venezuela in a lead position. How each will interact with the OAS-or not-adds another layer. ALBA will continue to play its hand in predictable partisan fashion. Overshadowing all of this, of course, is Brazil, and the commanding role that Brazil has traditionally exerted in Paraguay-and plays in South America. The appropriate role for the United States is support for helpful OAS participation, democratically-based self-determination and sensible application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”
