Closure on Balaguer

[bilijou]

My first memories of any political campaigning were those of Balaguer in ’86 and ‘90. “En la bemba de Pena Gomez aterrizan los aviones!” was all you could hear. From that point on, Balaguer was portrayed to me as a gentle, wise sort-of savior of the Dominican people. (the East was very pro-Balaguer) He actually looked harmless, like a grandfather. When I started hitting the history textbooks, I learned more about him. His relation with Trujillo is mentioned, though he was disconnected from the regime’s deeds. At no point was the oppression of the “12 years” mentioned in the textbooks. As an apprentice of Trujillo, Balaguer learned to manipulate all information at Dominican’s disposal (like textbooks) to seal control.

When I got older, my father explained his hatred towards Balaguer. Many here know how much damage this man has done to our country. No matter what people say, Balaguer was a continuation of Trujillo. The corruption, fraud and oppression of his 12 years (known as neotrujillismo) prove this. The style of corruption we see today (which is eating us up) is a result of Balaguer. He introduced many of the bad habits among politician which hinder our development. Despite my father’s hatred for Balaguer, at the same time there was a certain sense of admiration for the man. This love/hate view of Balaguer is shared by many Dominicans, which contribute to the lack of closure expressed by many recently.

It is no surprise that the same happens with his mentor. Trujillo is considered a horrible dictator, yet many he is admired by many Dominicans. Many see the Trujillo Era as a “Golden Age” of stability and order unlike today. His propaganda machine’s effects (mass media, the church, etc.) still linger in DR today. A significant portion of the population call for the return of some sort of Trujillismo. An ironfisted government that will make Dominicans proud. The ambiguity of Trujillo’s legacy (the “what should be admired or not”) has distorted our view of democracy.

Closure is the key here…
We didn’t have closure from Trujillo. Trujillismo should’ve been isolated and cut off from our society like the cancer that it was (and still is today). The images of many crying after his death shows how far Trujillismo had gotten in the poorer classes, el campesinado. Some chemotherapy – I mean propaganda – should’ve been applied in case some of the cancerous cells were still alive as they could spread. If this was done, THEN maybe we would’ve had closure. But the time (Cold War) wasn’t right. The cancerous cells, with Balaguer as their leader, remained alive, and indeed, they spread. Today we see members of ALL political parties claiming, and even fighting for a piece of his memory.

I think that if you ask Dominicans for a word to describe Balaguer, it would be “intelligent”. I don’t get it. Is this why he is admired? How can you isolate this trait, his biggest political tool “intelligence”, from what he used it for (despotism)?
Don’t give me the “he was a great writer/intellectual”. How many intellectuals were eliminated for this one great writer?

“ “Es entender la historia entre lo blanco y lo negro, sin entender los matices de la historia, es como creer que todo lo que está y participa de una dictadura está manchado, y hoy sabemos que no es así”.
Hoy no podemos condenar al rey Juan Carlos de España porque se formó durante el período franquista, como no podemos condenar a Balaguer porque se formó bajó el régimen de Trujillo”
– Leonel in the recent homage to Balaguer

Essentially clearing Balaguer from everything he did.
Balaguer was “stained”, not only for his participation in the Trujillo regime (he was THE puppet President) but for his own regime, known for political repression. As long as we have our politicians admiring what this man represent we won’t have true unity under true democracy. This is disgusting.
Am I the only person who thinks that closure is necessary?

Are there any Balagueristas out there who can explain what I’m missing?
I don’t see any justification.

[Chirimoya]

Interesting post, bilijou. I think you put your finger on it - closure, or lack of it. Interesting also that Leonel should use King Juan Carlos as his parallel. JCI is a constitutional monarch with no real powers, unlike Balaguer whose position was far more than ceremonial.

In any case, there have always been questions about JCI's real role in the failed coup d'etat in Spain in the early 1980s. Although he came out smelling of roses, it has been said that he was involved in some way - until he realised which way the wind was blowing and made his famous pro-democracy TV broadcast.

Spain is so over Franco, who died much more recently than Trujillo. Spain transformed itself into a new country almost overnight, more or less by the end of the decade in which Franco died. The DR, in contrast, is still haunted by Trujillo's ghost almost half a decade later.

Balaguer is the main reason, IMO, that the Dominican people are still not over Trujillo - the fear of authority, the stoic acceptance of injustice and inefficiency, the overcentralisation of power, the 'presidentialist' culture, the clientilism, the corruption... they all live on.

[Squat]

Balaguer was a fantastic transition between hardcore dictatorship and nowadays regular "democracy".

That can't be done without a certain curve when starting from such a regime as Trujillo's.

Have a look at our closest neighbour's dictators. The Duvalliers from Haiti. Instead of having a smart man to perform the transition between François Duvallier and a future stable regime, Haiti had Jean-Claude Duvallier, an inept rich kid, more interested in racing his sports car than in taking care of his native land. His lack of capacities are part of the roots of todays Haiti's turmoil.

My point is that Balaguer was indeed a regular human being : yes, there was political murders and big corruption while he was in power, and no, he was not a gentle "grand-father-like" saint. But he made a great job.

Keep in mind Balaguer was also the one who started the reforestation of our nation. He made illegal to cut down trees, and introduced a subsidized propane-gas and stove for average dominicans.

And it sounds very hypocritical to state that today's corruption among dominicans politics is coming only from Balaguer's time. It is plain false ! Corrupted politics is a way of life in America Latina, Balaguer is not the one who invented it ! Please wake up...

I think balaguer is one of the few great leader of the Dominican Republic of all times.

[Chirimoya]

...and he probably would have made the trains run on time, had there been any...

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by Chirimoya

...and he probably would have made the trains run on time, had there been any...

There will always be people who will compromise democracy to see those trains run on time.

[bilijou]

Chirimoya,

I also found it interesting the comparison with JCI. First of all, though they were in the same side, the monarchists and the fascists were separate groups. Unlike Balaguer, who was part of the Trujillo intellect, and who CHOSE to be his apprentice (JCI was born into it). JCI helped the transition to democracy, was Balaguer democracy?


Squat,

A “fantastic” transition into democracy you say?

You’re not the only one that says this. After his death Hipolito did several ceremonies in the parks Balaguer created. He called for the inscriptions on all the parks to say “Joaquin Balaguer, Padre de la Democracia”.

“Father of Democracy” would imply he was elected freely. Everybody knows he was a puppet President. Everybody knows that at most, he only won one of his seven times in office, the rest were fixed.
“Father of Democracy” would imply he would allow Democracy to flourish. Instead, he assassinated journalists, students and the political opposition. On many of the elections, the opposition abstained from participating in elections. The deterioration of the concept of Democracy is evident when Bosch released “Dictadura con respaldo popular”.
“Father of Democracy” would uphold an incorruptibility of Democracy. Balaguer was the first to give out money, buying votes. The propane gas subsidies that you mention were part of this buying of votes. Now that government funds are drained with these subsidies, it is a headache to get rid of them. How are subsidies any help?

Ah… his environmental policies. Passing laws to prevent trees from being cut down justifies everything he did?

My question to you is: what did Balaguer do that anybody else couldn’t?

[Squat]

Bilijou, I understand your views...

-However, how do you want to have a nation that is just out of 30+ years of dictatorship, metamorphoses itself in a democratic paradise overnight ???

I am not saying Balaguer was perfect, but I maintain that he has been a great leader, better than most, and play a very positive role for the nation.

[bilijou]

Squat,

I don’t mean to be aggressive about this, but I really want to understand why he is seen as a great leader. You have mentioned twice that Dominicans weren’t ready for Democracy:

Originally Posted by Squat

Balaguer was a fantastic transition between hardcore dictatorship and nowadays regular "democracy". That can't be done without a certain curve when starting from such a regime as Trujillo's.
[…]how do you want to have a nation that is just out of 30+ years of dictatorship, metamorphoses itself in a democratic paradise overnight ???

Why not? Was it necessary to go through moderate dictatorship (“a curve” as you call it) before reaching democracy?

Trujillo’s dictatorship was very concentrated on Trujillo ONLY, not any movement. The symbolism in the regime was his around Trujillo’s character. As one of the richest men in the world, Trujillo had uncontested power. He sealed control over the country without having to share, unlike Balaguer. Balaguer’s “curve”/moderate dictatorship was made possible by anchoring his power in the military and the ruling elite classes, effectively dispersing the cancer. It was a corrupt free-for-all, especially when it came to dealing with the state run companies Trujillo left over. What if we would've avoided the diffussion of the trujillismo-balaguerismo ways?

All the signs show that Dominicans were ready for Democracy by the time Bosch came into power. Why did they have to experience a coup d’etat, political repression and then low turnouts at the polls?
Is this what you need before really experiencing democracy?
Didn’t we have enough sour (with Trujillo) to taste the sweet?

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by Squat

Bilijou, I understand your views...

-However, how do you want to have a nation that is just out of 30+ years of dictatorship, metamorphoses itself in a democratic paradise overnight ???

I am not saying Balaguer was perfect, but I maintain that he has been a great leader, better than most, and play a very positive role for the nation.

Being realistic no one should expect a democratic paradise overnight. The least one should hope for and expect is fair and open elections and respect for human rights. Nothing justifies getting a knock in the middle of the night just because you are a critic of the government.

Balaguer learned very well from the Trujillo era. He thought of himself as a father figure and the country his children.

[Rick Snyder]

As this thread was started with the overture of bringing closure to people like Balaguer and Trujillo some posts continue to show that they are the ones that don’t wish to bring closure. They also fail to show why he should continue to be moralized when most of his actions fail to meet the test of morality.

I can understand a country and its people wishing and needing a person to serve as its Saint, God or Savior but to use a person that a lot of the population can remember due to their affiliation with that person when the fact that the person in question can be remembered as not fulfilling the desired role only demonstrates hypocrisy.

When the use of the word “democracy” is used in conjunction with a person that person must show a history of democratic values to withstand its usage. From all the history of this island that I have read the only person recently deceased that might fit that bill would be Bosch but he wasn’t in power long enough to determine if he was a “great” one.

It is safe to use people like Duarte, Mella and Sánchez because nobody remembers them except by what they read. As they are written as saviors of this country and nobody can contest that then that is the way they are remembered.

Looking at modern day history of this island I would think the Leonel Fernández would or should come to mind as a savior of this island. His name could safely be used in conjunction with the word democracy also. The fact that the country is better off then before gives credence to his being a “savior”.

Of course there are those who do or will wish for Hippo to be added to those journals of saviors and only time will tell if he makes that journal because I think he falls into the same class as Balaguer and Trujillo.

So out of the 8 people I mentioned in my post how many have served as positive role models for the Dominican Republic and its people? If they haven’t served as positive role models they shouldn’t be used now as a crutch to lean on as a rallying point for the future of the Dominican Republic. If they were not democratic their names shouldn’t be used in conjunction with the word democracy and everything that it stands for.

You should be very careful in who you pick to worship as your savior.

Rick