Closure on Balaguer

[Tordok]

Anyone in Balaguer's position would have had serious obstacles in jump-starting a rapid transition to democracy after Trujillo's long iron-fisted rule and the years of unrest (Juntas and weak coalitions) and false starts (Bosch) right after his death. Given the lack of fundamental elements for democracy to take hold in a semi-literate country of mostly peasants with no tradition of democratic society.

Instead of Balaguer's slowly paced transition to open the political process the country could have ended up in a much different situation, take your pick:
- under prolonged U.S. intervention
- under perpetual civil war
- under a Castro-like communist State
- under a Right wing, openly repressive Trujillismo led by the armed forces.

Balaguer was no saint but viewing him as simply another egomaniacal autocrat is not accurate either. It would have been nicer if he manufactured a faster track to open society, but he, like everyone else, was immersed in circumstances bigger than any one individual and as we can still se to this day, Dominican society is not developed enough for a more mature form of democratic rule.

IMO, both Hippo and Leonel are wrong and simply using nostalgia and lore of Balaguer's myth to their advantage. in my view, there is no single father of democracy in the DR. Balaguer's slow reforms and the role of the opposition (by the likes of Pena-Gomez, Bosch, labor unions) as well as the ofrces of private enterprise leadership, foreign diplomatic pressure, et al; all ultimately contributed to shape today's much improved (but still far from complete) process of democratization.

- Tordok

[NALs]

Democracy is the product of the social conditions of a nation.

If the social conditions are not there, neither democracy nor capitalism will flurish.

And contrary to popular belief, democracy does not always leads to a prosperous capitalist system and capitalism does not need democracy in order to exist.

To conclude, if democracy results from the will of the people it almost always flourishes well. If, however, democracy is forced upon by foreign intervention or a small group of people who wish to control a nation then what I call pre-mature democracy evolves.

The "side effects" of premature democracy includes all the ills found in third world politics such as personalismo, clientelism, etc.

-NALs

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Tordok

In my view, there is no single father of democracy in the DR. Balaguer's slow reforms and the role of the opposition (by the likes of Pena-Gomez, Bosch, labor unions) as well as the ofrces of private enterprise leadership, foreign diplomatic pressure, et al; all ultimately contributed to shape today's much improved (but still far from complete) process of democratization.

- Tordok

As I cannot see the DR as a democratic country, I cannot see a father of democracy in amongst the cadre of historical and current leaders.

As Nals said (and everyone gets to say something right sometimes ), democracy is a product of a social system, or a social conditioning that is ready for a democratic system. I do not see all the pieces in place yet in the DR.

In terms of closure, I think closure can only come when there is closure, and here in the DR, nothing has replaced the certainty that the dictators brought. You mess up, you're a dead man! Binary, Yes or No! I don't yet see a leader of 'democratic' stature emerging.

[Rick Snyder]

Tordok as usual your post spoke very well and precisely to the position and outcome that transpired. You failed to address the OP and Nal's did likewise by failing to address the issue of whether there should be closure to the memories of Balaguer.

I as an outsider would very much like hear your opinions on this issue as like Bilijou, you and Nal's are Dominican also that have also lived the life in the US and are therefore very intelligent and I take the opinions of people like yourselves very seriously.

Rick

Edited to add;

I don't think we are talking about "a leader of 'democratic' stature" but rather a person that can and should be placed in that "savior" role. As the DR is not yet to the position of democracy as a lot of people would classify the word. I think it unfair to use democratic when talking about a person from the past.

[Chirimoya]

History is full of examples of countries that emerged from dictatorship and made a successful transition to democracy. Spain has already been mentioned, and ignored by all the posters who said you can't go from dictatorship to democracy overnight. Spain managed it in less than a decade. Here in the DR we're in the fifth post-Trujillo decade and still counting. What is so different about the two cases? BTW I'm not asking that rhetorically - I think the cases are similar but wonder about the differences between the two societies and their economies as well as the post-dictator leadership/government style that caused Spain to flourish and the DR to flounder.

Post-WW2 (West) Germany is another example. Some of the former eastern bloc countries like the Czech Republic are doing OK. Then again there are also a number of disasters, as seen in the Balkans, but the reasons for this are not analogous to the DR's case.

As I said I don't know what all the crucial factors are, but having a truly visionary leader has to be among them.

[bilijou]

It seems most of us are divided over one thing: whether democracy was possible in post-Trujillo. Squat says that is should be done in a “curve”. Tordok says there was a “lack of Fundamental elements for democracy to take hold”. This is echoed by others,

“El historiador Gutiérrez Félix dijo que el líder reformista jugó un papel político muy ajustado a la realidad del momento durante el período de transición de la dictadura a la democracia dominicana.”
“De su lado, monseñor Benito Ángeles, secretario de la Conferencia del Episcopado Dominicano, consideró que el doctor Joaquín Balaguer es un protagonista y promotor de la democracia dominicana que jugó un papel importante en el proceso de transición de la dictadura a la democracia dominicana, que debe ser tomado en cuenta por toda la sociedad.”
-Listin

When did Balaguer act in the name of Democracy?
May I remind you all that this is the man that a little over a decade ago that agreed to cut his administration short (2 years) having committed fraud in the elections. The moment when the “transition into Democracy” was complete (’96) was when he had to let go of power. How can he be the reason for the transition into democracy if he didn’t participate in it?
Would there be democracy in DR if Balaguer were alive? I seriously doubt he would let go of power.

A bit of History
This concept, mentioned above, of Dominicans not being ready for Democracy is as old as DR itself. This essay, by Andres L. Mateo, is the closest I could find to explain this. The Dominican political scene has been dominated by the pragmatists and idealists. The essay cites a recurring concept among the Dominican intellectual class: the unfeasibility of a liberal, idealist Dominican government. At the time of Independence, Duarte’s ideas were “nice” but weren’t seen as viable. As it always happens, the pragmatic conservatives (Pedro Santana, Buenaventura Baez) took over and reinforced this idea. The idea that Dominicans can’t live under a liberal democratic government has been prevalent ever since. The fact that Bosch’s government (in the 60’s) wasn’t seen as viable for being too liberal shows how alive this idea was 120 years after independence. Like Duarte, his ideas were "nice" but not viable. Today, polls show that 8 out of 10 Dominicans ask for an iron-fisted government (conservatives).
You might as well say, Dominicans aren’t capable of governing themselves. How can anyone say Democracy wasn’t possible after Dictatorship? The liberal Bosch government wouldn’t be able to handle the transition?

Chris said something interesting, "I think closure can only come when there is closure, and here in the DR, nothing has replaced the certainty that the dictators brought. " The reason Balaguer is admired for his intelligence is because he knew how to play the liberal/idealist vs. the conservative/pragmatist dichotomy to his advantage. He (together with Trujillo) made it seem as if "certainty" cannot be achieved under a liberal democracy.

The Future

Virtudes Álvarez opinó que “declarar a Balaguer patrimionio histórico del pueblo dominicano es una evidencia de cómo el conservadurismo ha ido avanzando a lo interno del PLD”, y que el partido en el Gobierno, con el presidente Leonel Fernández a la cabeza, es “la nueva derecha del país”.
-Listin

Leonel is positioning himself and his party as the “new right” in DR. The new pragmatic, conservatives. Most of the old balagueristas are already in his party. He is seeming more and more like the old man every day, increasingly conservative. As I stated in the OP, the cancer has spread, it needs to die. We need closure for democracy.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by bilijou

Leonel is positioning himself and his party as the “new right” in DR. The new pragmatic, conservatives. Most of the old balagueristas are already in his party. He is seeming more and more like the old man every day, increasingly conservative. As I stated in the OP, the cancer has spread, it needs to die. We need closure for democracy.

This last paragraph of yours is a little chilling.

.... If one accepts that some kind of societal 'closure' or 'purging' of old values is needed before this country can make a successful transition to some kind of democracy....

... and then one extrapolates the idea that Leonel is in a sense moving backwards on this one issue under discussion, i.e, making progress to some kind of democracy....

... Then one also has to accept that the DR society is in a place where they are the victims of wheel spinning.

But, we actually knew all that and I don't know why I'm saying it again. A democratic society educates its people.

It is the old conundrum. Change comes through evolution, or revolution. It seems to me that we are proving that an evolutionary process here in the DR is a 'spinning the wheels' process. Viva La Revolucíon? Or What?

[NALs]

Originally Posted by Chirimoya

History is full of examples of countries that emerged from dictatorship and made a successful transition to democracy. Spain has already been mentioned, and ignored by all the posters who said you can't go from dictatorship to democracy overnight. Spain managed it in less than a decade. Here in the DR we're in the fifth post-Trujillo decade and still counting. What is so different about the two cases? BTW I'm not asking that rhetorically - I think the cases are similar but wonder about the differences between the two societies and their economies as well as the post-dictator leadership/government style that caused Spain to flourish and the DR to flounder.

From an economic point of view, the difference between Franco's Spain and Trujillo's Dominicana was that when Franco lost power, he lost his power due to a civil war initiated by the people of Spain wishing to be freed from the iron fist.

Trujillo's Dominicana on the other hand was abruptly thrown into a power vaccum on that 30th of May of 1961 with the abrupt assassination (ie. decapitation) of Trujillo and his regime. The power vaccum that followed was attempted to be eliminated by his son who had absolutely no legitimacy in the eyes of most people and thus, many ignored his orders and he had no choice but to flee the country - after cleaning the coffers, of course.

What followed was nothing more than a foreign power (U.S.) molding the tiny republic from something it created in the 1920s (the Trujillo dictatorship) to something else that would continue to ensure and protect American investments in the republic. Hence, the U.S. government was the sole shaper of what was to become the Dominican Republic post-Trujillo and that nation could had cared less what occured as long as US interests were respected. This lead to support of Balaguer (a staunch protectionist of American investment - at times with an iron fist not much different from Trujillo's). Additionally, this also lead to the unjustifiable elimination of Juan Bosch from power under the pretext of he being a Communist. Of course, years later we learn that all he wanted was to break the large landholdings and create a new land reform which would had benefited the landless peasants in a country where 70 to 80% of the land was owned by the state and a small number of wealthy families (the few who were not harassed by the Trujillo regime). Not to mention that his plans actually had the little guy in mind, a big no no in a country carpeted by much valued sugarcane, of which 80 to 90% went to the U.S. in one shape or another (ie. molasses, sugar, etc).

In other words, the DR failed to develop into a very successful democracy because the majority of the people were outside the moneyed economy at the time the Trujillo regime was eliminated. Post-Trujillo those who had access to the moneyed economy gained control, the new system worked to their advantaged and those who were outside the moneyed economy remained outside until the 1970s and 80s onward, when massive emigration gave access to hard currency to many formely impoverished and hopeless families.

Dictatorship, despite being very cruel and heavily violating human rights, are an effective tool of developing a nation economically, as long as the leadership of such dictatorship wishes to develop the nation. As a nation becomes wealthier, the people demand more freedom. Because greater general wealth leads to better education, better understanding of how things work, and most important of all, knowledge of the difference in lifestyle between educated people in dictatorship ruled nation vs. those in democracies causes people to react against repression. Because such reactions are created by people who have collective economic power (ie. the middle class) who are often people not as traditionally bound as the elites and not as powerless as the peasants, the regime would have to either comply with the demand of the middle class or face a collapse of the economy and consequently the dictatorship as well.

This is playing very well in China right now, with the most prosperous regions of China demanding and becoming more democratized by the will of the people, correction by the will of the up and coming middle class people. Those people would not dare challenge the state if they were to remain poor peasants and they would object to change if they were elites, but since they are new middle class not afraid to use their collective economic power to challenge the state while not bound to tradition, and thus receptive to change, the dictatorial state has no choice but to grant the desires of the most mobilized individuals in such society.

Compare that to how the DR was thrown into the suppose "democracy" and it becomes clear why it did not went as planed. In fact, such comparisons can be done between all successful democracies and not so successful democracies and the clearness appears as to why one was successful and the other was not.

Originally Posted by Chirimoya

As I said I don't know what all the crucial factors are, but having a truly visionary leader has to be among them.

Certainly, a visionary leader is essential.

However, by social conditions I mean having the way of thought that would make the most of a democratic system.

For example, the biggest problem in the developing world is the "struggle" between traditional society and modernity.

In a modern society (ie. Western), individuality, respect to the authority of the state, etc are essential.

In a traditional society (ie. non-western), very often collective action is preferred over individuality, respect to an authority figure is preferred to respect to the state, etc. An authority figure could be elders or a leader.

Under a modern society a leader is someone who has a plan to help perpetrate the will of the people by asking them what they want to accomplish. In a traditional society a leader is someone who tells them what to do and makes his authority very clear through strong tactics.

Thus, in a traditional society the leader could be consider to be simultaneously a spiritual healer, a God, a wiseman, a judge, and a father like figure.

When such traditional society is disrupted by foreign powers and imposes on them an alien system of governance that they are not ready to take the most advantage from, then we get the modern third world state.

"Democracy" is brought from abroad to the traditional society, however because in a traditional society leadership is invested in the perceived strenght or sanctity of an individual, politics revolves around the charisma of a political figure rather than competing political ideologies. It's quite obvious that this is the start of a faulty democratic system where votes are gained through the charisma of an individual vs. a particular ideology. Government job positions are used as tools to reward those who support that particular individual rather than as instruments to improve the society. Because this leads to an overblown beuracracy, inefficiencies develop. Thus, you will witness a law being passed demanding that all motorists need to change their license plates, but there is only one office where such thing could be done, only two people working at such office, and 500 motorist with the need to change their license plates. Obviously, it would be impossible to do such thing in a decent amount of time so the way motorist could skip the hurdle of beuracracy is through kickbacks or bribing in order to speed up the process.

So on and so forth the spiral into a failed democracy starts all because a society was not ready for an alien system of governance.

-NALs

[NALs]

Originally Posted by Chris

A democratic society educates its people.

That is correct.

However, that is only true in successful democratic societies.

In societies where democracy was imposed without the elites or the foreign power accepting such change bargaining with their masses, then you get a democracy that is nothing more than an olygarchy in disguise.

Thus, educating the people will not be a priority because democracy does not really exist in it's successful entirety.

If democracy did exist in its entirety, then education would become a priority since a democracy always gives the people what it wants. But, those people must be ready to accept that democracy and that is where the problem lies.

The DR was thrown into democracy without the masses being prepared for such change (ie. bargaining) and this lead to those who were prepared (elites, foreigners, etc) gaining tremendous advantages over those who were not able to prepare for the new system.

And as all humans, once power and wealth is gained by a group of people, it becomes extremely difficult for them to give that away.

-NALs

[Chirimoya]

Originally Posted by NALs

...when Franco lost power, he lost his power due to a civil war initiated by the people of Spain wishing to be freed from the iron fist.

errrm... you lost me there. I suggest you re-check your historical facts.