Paraguay
Yesterday, the Paraguayan Senate removed democratically-elected leftist president Fernando Lugo from power in what probably isn’t technically a coup since the Senate followed the Constitution. But it was little more than a politically motivated move to eliminate a president that spoke for the nation’s vast number of impoverished people. The entire process, from beginning impeachment proceedings to ousting Lugo, took less than 24 hours. Regardless of whether it technically falls under the definition of coup, it certainly puts a chill on the democratic revival in Latin America, much as the Honduran coup of 2009 did. There’s still a lot of elites in Latin America who are bitter and angry about the poor expressing their political will and they wish it was the Cold War and the U.S. would just send in CIA operatives or the Marines to reestablish order.
Colin is the person you should be reading on this. Also, see Boz. And Greg Weeks. In fact, consider this a time when you should start reading more of the Latin American bloggers out there, beginning with these three.
If the Paraguayan Congress is democratically elected, then this wasn’t a coup, no more so than if the Senate had convicted Clinton in the 90s would have been. The swiftness of events in Paraguay strongly suggest this was a miscarriage of justice and not a good thing.
On the other hand, I think Boz’ definition of ‘coup’ is actually too restrictive: “I reserve the term coup or “golpe de estado” for events in which democratic institutions break and an unconstitutional change of government takes place.” This ignores what is sometimes called an “autogolpe” where the democratically elected leader forcibly changes the rules to remain in power and eliminate democracy (Fujimori in Peru being the classic example.) Obviously, this isn’t what happened in Paraguay yesterday, either, but if the Senate (or some other actor) uses the current political uncertainty to rewrite the rules to eliminate democracy, then a coup will have occured at that future point, even if Franco remains in power.
I think that’s why “internal coup” is a useful way to think about it – one that leaves the basic institutions of the (in this case democratic) state in tact, even while resulting in the overthrow of a democratically-elected president.
I think arguing over whether the term ‘coup’ technically applies is a side issue. Obviously it probably doesn’t. Although if I were a Paraguayan leftist close to the events that probably wouldn’t stop me from yelling GOLPE at the top of my lungs.
The fact is, it’s terrible.
Also, it’s one more illustration of why US-style presidential democracy (like Paraguay has) is a terrible idea.
Yeah, it’s a side issue. But as a political scientist with some interests in the study of democratic transitions, one I’m personally interested in.
Actually if the US congress had impeached and convicted both Clinton and Gore to put Gingrich into the Presidency it would very much be a coup. A legal coup perhaps, but still a coup.
A “legal coup” is a contradiction in terms. If you feel the need to describe a maneuver as such, it’s a sign that your legal framework (such as the United States Constitution) is riddled with holes.
OK.
But something that is perfectly legal can be like a coup is some very significant ways. It can share some of the problematic aspects of a coup.
Notice, though, that in Paraguay they replaced the President with his own VP. They did not replace him with a third person from a different party. I know little about Paraguayan politics, but Colin says that the VP isn’t as leftist as the President was, so maybe it would be akin to the Senate in 2001 impeaching Gore and replacing him with Lieberman had Gore actually been allowed to take office after winning.
The vote was 39-4. This suggests that quite a few of Lugo’s “speaking for the poor” political allies voted to oust him, too.
Methinks that a square peg is being pounded into a round hole.
Not at all. Lugo won with a plurality, and ended up having to form a coalition with the Radical Liberal Party, which historically opposed the more conservative Colorado Party, but which was/is still composed primarily of elites with strong ties to the land-holding powers in the country, just with a (slightly) more progressive social vision (again, in comparison to Conservatives). His platform was always to try to address the socio-economic inequalities in the country, but in order to get his legislative agenda through, he needed the alliance of the Liberals; when it became clear that he was in fact earnest about providing some measure of land reform, the still-elite Liberal party quickly abandoned him for a vice-president more in line with their policies.
[The fact that one of the four "no" votes had his mic cut off when he tried to explain why he was voting against removal doesn't exactly suggest an open, democratic process, either.]
I’d buy that argument at 25-18. I’d even buy it at 30-13.
I’m not buying it at 39-4 without some actual party numbers.
It’s impossible for me to say because I know not one damn thing about Paraguayan politics. However, there are all sorts of red flags here, particularly the fact that the impeachment process took less than 24 hours. This suggests to me that what happened here doesn’t even approach the standards necessary for procedural legitimacy.
But that’s the thing – Lugo doesn’t have party members in the Senate. He’s actually from the Patriotic Alliance for Change party – ran as president for them, won for them. But he’s also their biggest figure by far – they have exactly zero members in the Senate. Meanwhile, the Colorado party has 15 and the Radical Liberals another 14, putting you at 29 already. Throw in the right-wing nationalist National Union of Ethical Citizens Party and the conservative Christian democratic Beloved Fatherland Movement, and you have another 13 senators, with only 3 from three other parties. Lugo was a man with a presidency and with a coalition, but without his party being represented in the Senate. He had to depend on the 14 liberals, and when they bailed on his progressive policies and joined the senators from the three rightist parties, there were more than enough votes for impeachment.
Interesting, thanks.
For all the faults of the U.S. two-party system, you just illustrated why combining U.S.-style presidentialism with a fractured party system is even worse. (Of course, going to a multi-party parliamentary system might be better than both.) How on earth Lugo could get anything done in that situation, I have no idea. How did he survive 4 years of his term?
This is also why the broderists screeching of a centrists 3rd party presidential candidate are such idiots. It really requires you to be a complete moron to know as much about politics as those guys and still think it’s a good idea.
Presidential systems require that there only be two-parties to function. Its the only way a President could work with the legislature and get things done without constant conflict.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say require. Plenty of Latin American systems have had fairly functioning democracies that combined both Presidents and multiple parties in the legislature. It requires coalition-building like you have in parliamentary systems.
The reason its less stable than its parliamentary counterpart is the dual-mandate. If the President comes from a small party or an extremist party, it can be hard to get a workable coalition. If they come from a large, mainstream party, it often isn’t hard to make it work. In parliamentary systems, the PM pretty much always comes from the latter. Plus, they’re better equipped to deal with breakdowns in the coalition because they can change PMs or call new elections relatively easily.
Greece and Belgium recently and Italy for most of its history suggest that this flexibility could come with a cost, though.
The dual-mandate is one problem. The other problem is the usual difficulties of coalition building. The genius of the parliamentary system is that the prime minister and cabinet usually have enough of a coalition to make implementing policy and passing laws relatively easy till the next general election. This is especially true in parliamentary systems with only a few parties. Presidential systems with multiple parties will have to theoretically build a coalition every time they have to work with the legislature rather than have an inbuilt one.
Don’t you mean “without constant debilitating conflict?”
There is still conflict. The opposition party, based in the legislature, is still constantly fighting the President, but the President has his own party support in the legislature to fight back.
It isn’t about getting rid of the conflict, but about allowing the President to function in the midst of the conflict.
Well yes but in most parliamentary systems, the Opposition is rendered powerless until the next general election. Their might be conflict but it takes the form of political temper tantrums, annoying but useless.
Right, but I was replying to your comment about presidential systems:
In a presidential system, the opposition party is certainly not rendered powerless – as we’ve had plenty of occasion to see in this country.
The Patriotic Alliance for change was/is not a political party, but an alliance of parties, including the Radical Liberals. Lugo is not a Radical Liberal, but they did support his presidential candidacy in 2008.
A President without a party.
I wonder if this is what it would look like if an Americans Elect candidate won the presidency.
And as gmack points out, there is the slight issue of whether one can really have “due process” when given less than 24 hours to prepare a defense and only 2 hours to mount said defense.
Oh, certainly.
This was a big problem for Lugo from the beginning. The opposing party (the Colorados) had a plurality in Congress. His party (the Authentic Radicals) was only the second biggest grouping, and Lugo was quite far to the left of the median Radical.
Seeing as Lugo’s policy preferences are arguably closer to the median Paraguayan’s – certainly not to the left of all but 4 out of every 43 Paraguayan’s – this speaks to the failure of Paraguayan party politics.
The Colorados were fairly terrible for the 70 years they ruled, but there’s a reason people never gave Authentic Radicals the time of day before Lugo. Faced with a populist winger and a Bourbon liberal, Paraguayans like most people on earth will choose the winger.
Isn’t this only true if you think that legislators should vote party line regardless of circumstances?
What if members of his party, in perfect ideological alignment with Lugo, voted to remove him because they disapproved of his performance? Is that a failure of party politics?
I for one am going to enjoy Joe arguing endlessly and with great vigor about Paraguayan politics, a subject which he knows absolutely nothing about, against people who actually do know about this topic.
If this post doesn’t end in 123 consecutive Joe from Lowell comments, I am going to be very disappointed.
Award-winning blogger strikes again!
Thank you for your useful contribution.
Great minds talk about ideas.
Mediocre minds talk about things.
Weak minds talk about people.
If this post doesn’t end in 123 consecutive Joe from Lowell comments, I am going to be very disappointed.
You have 121 comments on this to go. Keep it up.
Award-winning blogger strikes again.
Can we stop with this “award-winning blogger” shit? It’s fucking annoying.
Although joe poking Erik for doing the same thing joe does on a regular basis is kind of hilarious.
How about “we” stop with the assholish comments that provoke it? Think “we” can do that?
Nothing annoying there, no sirree.
Dude, what are you talking about? When have I ever written anything remotely like that?
Maybe you should just think it next time, Miss Congeniality.
They could start a club with the genuine liberal Democrats who voted to remove Clinton because they disapproved of his blowjob performance, and the fire-breathing radical Republicans who voted against Andrew Johnson’s impeachment because of sincere qualms about the Tenure of Office Act.
I do not think the Paraguayan branch of that club would be any larger than the US one.
Six of the seventeen Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon, fwiw.
But not over policy differences.
My point exactly: Sullivan was arguing that nobody ever votes on these things for reasons other than policy or partisan differences, and I came up with a counter-example.
Used to be a lot of liberal Republicans, too. Also, Nixon was alleged to have committed serious crimes (unlike Lugo or my two examples).
ok, technically speaking, clinton had no “blowjob performance”, that was monica lewinsky, clinton just stood there. as to ms.lewinsky’s “performance”, any critique on that would be pretty subjective, at best, since everyone has their own personal preferences.
and being realistic, the republicans were just pissed because they have to pay for blow jobs, and here clinton was, getting them for free.
I guess the question is what is the spirit behind including impeachment procedures in the constitution? Is it to allow votes of no confidence to remove leaders whose policies you oppose, a la parliamentary systems? Or is it supposed to be reserved for more serious transgressions, like we believe it should be in the U.S.?
Since I’ve seen no one credibly claim that Lugo was guilty of what we would normally consider an impeachable offense, my presumption is that they followed the letter but not the spirit of the law.
In other words, it wasn’t a failure of party politics but a failure of constitutional norms that is at issue here.
Well put. Democracy is more than procedures.
Re-reading, Sullivan Hyde might have been saying that the composition of the Senate represents a failure of party politics not that the impeachment was a failure of such.
If so, then assuming he’s right that Lugo’s preferences are near the median of the Paraguayan electorate, a Senate where only 4 of 43 members supported him would suggest something screwy with the electoral and/or party process.
You’re right, the makeup of the senate itself if the antecedent of “this,” not the vote itself.
Yeah, that was what I was going for.
To be somewhat fair to the oligarchs, Lugo actually was not very effective as president…because there was a brick wall of opposition to his policies in the Congress.
(From, of course, the oligarchs and their minions.)
let’s be blunt, the very same thing could (and has been) said regarding the clinton impeachment:
lying about getting a blow job, from someone not your wife, hardly qualifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a rational world.
hell, larry craig was arrested, for his “wide stance”, and that still wasn’t sufficient for the house republicans to call for his impeachment. republicans are what they are, and do what they do.
First, Clinton committed perjury, not ‘lying.’
Second, perhaps the House Republicans didn’t call for Larry Craig’s impeachment because they’ve read the Constitution and so know that impeachment only applies to the executive and judiciary, not Congress.
I know this is a week later, but for the record:
Jesus, David, you’re supposed to be a lawyer. Do you know what an acquittal means?
The entire process, from beginning impeachment proceedings to ousting Lugo, took less than 24 hours.
The vote was 39-4.
This tells you all you need to know. Lugo is a socialist and was supported by the communist party in 2008.
Good riddance.
“In fact, consider this a time when you should start reading more of the Latin American bloggers out there, beginning with these three.”
Fresh homework on a Saturday morning? What kind of sadistic teacher are you?
Saturday School for you!!!!
that does it, i’m scratching your class from my schedule next semester! unless you have refreshments. if i’m fed, i would consider a saturday class. and no cheese puffs!
I would like to note that anyone who thinks this isn’t exactly what would happen to any U.S President who didn’t have political allies of the tribal sort in Congress is out of their minds.
How could a radical centrist supported by Tom Friedman
not have all his plans approved by acclamation of senators who are not of his party. It is unpossible.
and inconceivable. you forgot inconceivable.
I don’t know what “political allies of the tribal sort” means but Johnson was impeached with Republicans having a strong position in Congress and he wasn’t removed after a day or so.
I tend to see Lugo in a long line of executives without congressional party support turned out for political reasons, whether legitimately or illegitimately. F. Collor, J. Mahuad, L. Gutierrez, F. Lugo….
Sure, it’s nasty that landed elites turned him out, but the other problem lies in having insufficiently strong copartisans backing you in the legislature.
FWIW, I actually thought “joe from lowell”‘s interventions were quite worthwhile. If I were leading a seminar where this came up (unlikely since in the fall I’m teaching Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Machiavelli), Joe’s comments would have been quite welcome. While I ultimately don’t agree with him, I think he got some of the commenters who are more knowledgeable about Paraguayan politics to draw out their arguments – something that doesn’t often happen when everyone is in agreement.
I think one thing we’re seeing is a system in which sovereignty doesn’t ultimately lie within the realm of the executive, but the legislature. That there is a procedure by which a president can be removed within 24 hours by a united legislature may actually be interesting to think about in relation to Tocqueville, Federalist, or even Rousseau – if the legislature represents more entrenched interests, and president is the only office that is directly elected by the citizens, is this supposed to be a system that protects against “whims” of the populace? And if so, should we revisit earlier texts in democratic theory and, in light of this, asking new questions since “whims” seems to, quite often, be demands for the rights of the lower classes?
But it was little more than a politically motivated move to eliminate a president that spoke for the nation’s vast number of impoverished people.
I don’t know what “politically motivated” means in this context. Determining if a person is unfit to be in office in this country is done via a political process as it is in other countries with “no confidence” methods of removal.
As to the speed, one thing would to determine how long there was discontent. He came into power in 2008. He had a year left and was not subject to re-election. The problems were brewing:
The Senate vote came after Paraguay’s lower house of Congress voted Thursday to impeach Mr. Lugo over a clash this month between squatters and the police that left 17 dead. The clash led to the resignation of Mr. Lugo’s interior minister and his chief of police.
[NYT] I don’t know the facts here but it is unclear to me the lopsided vote in the legislature was just a result of them wanting to get rid of someone that spoke for the poor. There are many ways of doing this and local legislators might know more about it than I.
The quick nature of the removal is problematic. Fair procedure would seem to justify some time to defend himself. He asked for 18 days. We aren’t talking some drawn out process here.
Well, I’m kinda suffering through Marquez’s misgynistic Nobel prize winnah, but his depictions of Latin American politics are spot on, despite the whole almost 200 years ago vibe. Damned if things haven’t changed…
isn’t Paraguay the place tha bush fambully have a sort of really large south american weekender?
[...] candidate for the powerful Colorado Party that governed for over sixty years (and that played a central role in the impeachment of Fernando Lugo). In what may be some tactical political maneuvering, Cartes [...]