In two months it will be 33 years since the fall of Alfredo Stroessner, after a coup perpetrated by his generals, friends, relatives and fellow party members. After the coup, democracy was installed, or an attempt of it, as in other countries of the region that left behind a dark period of ignominy.
Unlike other countries, Paraguay has always been different because here the party that supported the dictator continued to govern. Only in 2008 the reign of the ANR came to an end with the triumph of Fernando Lugo, but again in 2013, after the removal of the former bishop in 2012, the Colorado Party returned to power until today.
This is no coincidence. The stronismo as a management model continues as a political legacy: prebendalism, corruption and clientelism. Impunity is also added, thanks to the institutional weakness. Throughout these years there have been changes, but no transformation.
Stroessner is a deeply rooted figure in Paraguayan politics and his name appears from time to time in the political discussion. Especially in electoral periods and particularly in the colorado campaign. It is like a good luck charm. Colorado Presidents of the last ten years vindicated him as a figure: Horacio Cartes had controversies with journalists when they asked him about the former dictator. When he was a candidate he had a first skirmish with victims of the dictatorship when, during an interview in a Chilean newspaper, he praised the period of order and progress. On another occasion, when he wanted to appoint grandson Goli Stroessner as an ambassador and was questioned, he replied angrily: “What do you have against Stroessner, did he steal your girlfriend or what?”. He never questioned the dictatorship.
Mario Abdo Benítez is the living example that stronismo is not a cross but an important asset within the ANR. Being the son of the former private secretary of the dictator probably gave him votes to become president of the Republic. In fact, he vindicates stronismo every time he is asked about it.
Today, he is joined by Vice President Hugo Velázquez, presidential pre-candidate who, when speaking about his government plans for the peasant sector, pointed out the importance of cooperatives and mechanization for small-scale producers. “We are going to make the countryside a good place to live again as in the time of General Stroessner”, he stated.
The Vice President should be asked which history books he has read. Because most of the studies on the agrarian reform conclude that the most unequal and unjust distribution of land took place during that period. More than 8 million hectares were handed over by the dictatorship to its political allies, impoverishing thousands of peasants, many of whom were murdered or imprisoned for claiming their rights or simply because they tried to live in a communitarian way.
THE SPEECH. The recurrence of stronismo is not alien to national politics. Paraguay never left behind the authoritarian packaging and a high percentage of the population still believes it is the best model. A survey was recently published with worrying numbers. 56% do not support democracy, 24% prefer an authoritarian government and 46% would support a military government. These numbers are the breeding ground for authoritarian, messianic or neo-fascist leaderships. They are the consequence of the political incapacity to solve the great and complex social and economic problems, giving rise to dictatorial nostalgics which banally sentence that “democracy is useless”.
It is enough to look around the world to see that there is a shocking setback in terms of democracy. In Chile, the presidential election is polarized between the extreme right, which unashamedly vindicates pinochetism, and the extreme left. Chileans will decide their destiny on December 19.
Authoritarianism ceased to be shameful and became a public, open and challenging political proposal thanks to the polarization of society and the unresolved problems of successive democratic governments. It no longer hides behind conservative candidacies sweetened with politically correct speeches.
In Paraguay it has never completely gone away. And the evidence is there for all to see.
The misguided words of the vice president or any other candidate who embraces authoritarian currents or more sophisticated models of exclusion in his speech, but similar in thought and action, must be denounced, fought and defeated as soon as they are presented.
Resistance to this model, which is not dead and which survives in chameleonic candidacies, must be stronger and stronger.
It is an ethical imperative.
