COUNTRIES AT THE CROSSROADS GOVERNANCE BLOG

Nicaragua's Ortega Brings No Revolution to Women's Rights

Photo Credit: Flickr user svengaarn

In May, the UN Committee against Torture called for Nicaragua to reconsider its absolute ban on abortion. The Committee ruled that the ban, which has been in effect since 2006, infringed on the rights of women and girls by prohibiting abortion in cases in which pregnancy threatened the mother’s life as well as in cases of rape. Moreover, as Amnesty International argues, the ban on abortion violates the right of women not to be subject to “torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” The UN Committee against torture is not the first UN body to admonish Nicaragua for this law; as of today, the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the UN Committee on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women have all rebuked Nicaragua for its blanket abortion law and have reminded the country of its obligation to uphold human rights.

The persistence of this particular violation of women’s rights should come as no surprise. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's authoritarian tendencies have presented themselves with increasing frequency since the Contra War of the 1980s. In previous posts, we explored the president’s most recent authoritarian behavior, citing Ortega’s vigorous impingements on press freedom, flagrant manipulation of electoral laws, and wanton disregard for the democratic electoral process. On June 11, the Millennium Challenge Corporation directly punished Nicaragua for its deplorable governance trend by canceling the final $60 million of a $175 million aid agreement. In addition, his malign approach to women's rights is nothing new. While Ortega once supported abortion, he displayed his preference for political expediency by changing his position to ally himself with the Catholic Church during the run up to the 2006 presidential election. Most notorious, however, is Ortega's possible involvement in a sexual abuse scandal involving his stepdaughter. While his stepdaughter ultimately withdrew her case from consideration, she has not withdrawn her accusations. In addition to committing the above transgressions, Ortega has more recently trampled on women's rights by ignoring requests to rescind the absolute ban on abortion, aggressively harassing feminist activists, and largely turning a deaf ear to issues such as discrimination.

The fact that the country’s respect for women’s rights has begun to backslide is particularly disheartening considering the lamentable state of gender equality even before Ortega assumed the presidency in 2007. As the Countries at the Crossroads Report on Nicaragua noted, as of 2006 women were inadequately protected against sexual abuse and were not supported by any notable state commitment to reverse rampant discrimination. In cases of abuse, women were frequently referred to civil society organizations for further help after lodging complaints with the national police. Although constitutional safeguards exist, high levels of both discrimination and harassment against women in the workplace have persisted since this time. More recently, the State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report on Nicaragua stated that while laws criminalizing rape and domestic violence exist, the laws against domestic violence were selectively enforced. Both the country’s Special Prosecutor for Women and the national police reported that violence against women increased in 2008. As is the case in other Latin American countries, a strong “machista” culture is firmly ingrained in Nicaraguan society, which fuels and exacerbates the aforementioned problems.

One of the most alarming examples of the government’s deficient attitude towards women’s rights is its belligerent conduct towards women’s rights organizations. Since 2006, the government has aggressively attacked women’s rights advocates. As Human Rights Watch notes, women’s rights organizations protesting the ban on abortion have been investigated and intimidated by the government, which ramped up its campaign against these organizations in 2008. Last year, 9 women’s rights advocates were criminally investigated, while the offices of the organizations they represented were raided due to questionable allegations regarding funding sources. Reporters without Borders also claimed that Sofia Montenegro, the director of the Autonomous Women’s Movement, had been the victim of a government smear campaign. Despite the looming threat of government persecution, women’s organizations have remained dedicated to their quest to revoke the law. In late May of this year, 500 women protested the abortion law outside of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court. 

 The excessive harassment of feminist activists and NGOs is part of a larger government campaign against freedom of association. Due to the fact that Nicaraguan women often rely on NGO support in cases of domestic abuse and rape, the government’s quest to suppress the activities of these organizations has especially regrettable consequences.

Ortega’s war against feminist organizations provides additional evidence that the Sandinista revolution’s dedication to social change is extremely subordinate to his desire to accrue and maintain power.  On a superficial level, the Sandinista government has in some ways upheld its commitment to the empowerment of women by launching healthcare, anti-poverty, and literacy programs. A recent article lauded the strides made by the Nicaraguan government to address the country’s pronounced gender inequality through its literacy campaign. Nicaraguan women, who make up somewhere between 15 and 52 percent of the country’s illiterate population, have garnered notable benefits from this program. However, as the article notes, seemingly positive government policies such as this one are being carried out against a backdrop of increased violence against Nicaraguan women and could even be considered a veil for the government’s abusive actions.

Due to the restrictive, oppressive climate being generated by the Ortega regime, any sustained progress on women’s rights seems highly unlikely at this time. Ortega has firmly locked Nicaragua in a downward spiral on governance matters. As Ortega continues to wage war against his adversaries, feminist activists and women’s rights organizations will number among his victims, and the comprehensive change Nicaragua needs will remain far from realization. 

20 Years After Tiananmen, a Different Form of Undermining Democracy

Freedom House has just released a new report, Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians, describing the efforts of authoritarian states including China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran to sustain their autocratic models and even advance alternatives to democracy in other countries. The report explores how these leading authoritarian regimes are threatening democratic development by promoting repressive policies and manipulating and distorting democratic discourse. Their efforts to redefine – and ultimately empty out – the concept of democracy have not only been pursued within their borders, but have also been exported abroad.

Among the tools that these regimes have used to further their interests internationally, the promotion of “win-win” economic arrangements and “no-strings-attached aid” stand out. In April, we addressed this issue in a blog post about China’s aid policy towards Africa in particular. At the time, we discussed the dangers of championing China’s unique development model, along with the pernicious effects that China’s offers of unconditional aid can have for governance. Because Beijing’s foreign assistance isn’t conditioned on the adoption of reforms and a general respect for human rights, it opens the door for corruption and neglect of the rule of law. Undermining Democracy includes a more comprehensive analysis of China’s foreign assistance efforts, along with those of other authoritarian regimes, analyzing the modern strategies and methods used to project authoritarian influence.

As Undermining Democracy explains, China’s is systematically developing its own brand of “soft power.”  After becoming aware of the necessity of increasing its clout in an increasingly interdependent international system, China began to ramp up efforts to promote its own model of political and economic development in its international relations. Due to China’s impressive economic development, the model is often touted as a superior alternative to Western prescriptions.

As it happens, Undermining Democracy has been released on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. An article in the Financial Times last week traced China’s political trajectory since the crackdown, explaining how China’s Communist Party weathered both extensive criticism and countless predictions of its demise to propel its country to a leading role in the world sphere. As it notes, Chinese officials have ceased to adopt an outwardly apologetic stance towards their more repressive political policies, instead becoming increasingly confident in their model’s superiority over its Western counterpart. Most importantly, it argues that China’s remarkable ability to persevere and prosper can be attributed to its willingness to adapt and modernize. In other words, whereas mere repression might not have been enough to counteract the pre- and post-Tiananmen calls for change, China has survived and flourished due to its policy of economic opening. While these reforms have boosted growth and ameliorated some citizen complaints, more fundamental reforms of accountability and transparency have been absent.

China’s economic success has created a major dilemma for advocates of good governance. This success has obvious appeal as a formula for economic prosperity for struggling developing countries.  Nevertheless, there are some important points to consider. First, by championing the undemocratic Chinese model, the benefits in terms of basic ethics and justice of democratic rule in comparison to China’s oppressive political regime are ignored. The coercive nature of China’s political regime cannot be underemphasized. China is a highly repressive state, which is evidenced by the regime’s dismal human rights record. China has, every year, by far the highest number of executions of any country and has consistently and arbitrarily applied state power to restrict basic freedoms including freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Secondly, it is important to realize that the Chinese model of adaptation is not the norm. As the Financial Times article notes, China was successfully able to learn from the Soviet Union’s mistakes and to become aware of the need to “adapt and change or atrophy and die.” If any lessons are to be learned from the past, however, China’s adaption method is the exception: authoritarians are often drawn to the repressive part of the model while ignoring the technocratic, adaptive element. Some but certainly not all developing countries will be able to follow China’s trajectory. For example, in the past few months, Hugo Chavez has frequently praised the comparative advantages of the Chinese model over the Washington Consensus at the same time that he has ramped up his efforts to curb trade union autonomy and freedom of the press in the country.  In addition, Kremlin officials have frequently evoked the Chinese success story to justify Russia’s autocratic policies. In addition to providing these leaders with validation for their despotic ventures, the opportunities the model provides for corrupt practices are extensive, as is evidenced by China’s ranking of 72 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Moreover, it is not just the model in conceptual terms that is a threat to the democratic order, but also China’s means of promoting it. Most notably, China has sought to facilitate the model’s advancement by offering “win-win” economic arrangements to foreign countries and coupling its aid provision with a promise of “non-interference” in domestic affairs. Apart from the African countries listed in our previous post, China has provided unconditional assistance to numerous Latin American countries and several Asian countries, most notably Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, many of which have questionable or downright execrable human rights records. As we noted in our previous post, the negative consequences of providing unconditional aid are a real threat to democratic governance.  As Undermining Democracy argues, these arrangements also threaten democratic development on a greater scale. By framing these new economic relationships in “win-win” terms, China seeks to tarnish the legitimacy of the Western development model, and more particularly the traditional Western requirement that aid be conditional upon reform and respect for human rights standards.

Other contemporary authoritarian regimes have used foreign assistance of one sort or another to exert influence. Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, for instance, have used their oil wealth to court developing nations, leading them to ignore governance reform.  While these active efforts are providing new competition to reform-based assistance, the authoritarians’ approach is not perfect. As Undermining Democracy notes, China’s increasingly powerful position – and even more so the other states – has its own inherent flaws. The global economic crisis, along with other factors, could hamper its efforts to propel the new model; alternatively, discontent at home could herald a loosening of the authoritarian reins. In any case, 20 years after Tiananmen, the Chinese authorities have modernized their authoritarianism and, for the time being at least, offer a serious challenge to the notion that economic growth in China would inevitably lead to political liberalization and sounder governance. 

Millennium Challenge Account Decision

On December 12, the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Board of Directors announced countries selected as eligible for funding from the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), multi-billion dollar assistance program established to target development funds to countries that rule justly, invest in their own citizens, and foster economic freedom. Malawi was the sole country added to the group eligible to apply for an MCA compact.  Mauritania was selected to participate in a threshold program.

A press release put out by the MCC explains their selection decisions.

A range of countries are already participating in the program and were reselected by the MCC’s Board as eligible for 2008 fiscal year compact funding. These countries are:  Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Jordan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, and Vanuatu.

Meanwhile, on the subject of influential foreign assistance, a front page article in the Financial Times looks at a World Bank effort to work with the Chinese government on aid programs to Africa.

The piece by Richard McGregor notes that

Multilateral lenders including the African Development Bank have been trying to persuade the Chinese to raise standards of transparency in their lending, amid concerns that a fresh build-up of loans could destabilize economies only recently relieved of long-standing debt.

China’s thirst for energy resources is deeply intertwined with its evolving use of soft power through investments in sub-Saharan Africa.

China has so far closely aligned its development assistance to Africa with its quest for resources on the continent to fuel its booming economy.

For a deeper look at this subject, a book by Joshua Kurlantzick – “Charm Offensive” – provides insight to how China is exerting its influence in the contemporary context.