Conference turris::womannotes-v2

  
    QUESTION: Why do so many other countries have women heads of state?
    	      Many of these countries are not known for their stances
              on equal rights. Why are so few American women in office?
    

Well, without going into the politics of it too much...  

Ms Chamorra (I'm not sure how to spell it either) received a lot of financial
and tactical help from "patriotic" Americans who backed her ONLY because she 
was an opponent to Ortega.  Since she has been so broadly helped by America,
one can only assume that she will stay bought and run a nice quiet little US
client state in Central America.  

As to why there are so few American women in office...

a.  people get the government they deserve.  Notice how large a percentage of 
Nicaraguans turned out to vote.  Compare that to the recent presidential 
election in America, where (I have read) 52% of the population turned out to 
vote.

b.  few women run for elected office.  Look at the Governatorial "race" in
Mass.  There are many more men than women in the race.  Lt Gvnr Murphy is the
only female candidate with any sort of name recognition in the state.


						Nigel

    Ms CHAMORRO (that's her correct name) is a very charismatic, smart
    person whose family has been on the newspaper business for years and who
    has experienced political divisions within her family...she is a very
    energetic, very outspoken and very fair... but lacks political
    experience.  Same thing hapenned with Cori Aquino of Fhilipines and she
    is proving to be a very worthy president... I wish Ms. Chamorro all the
    luck and perseverance to bring her country out of the caos, extreme poverty
    and extreme suffering that her country is going through...

    Although the victory of the UNO coalition in Sunday's elections is
    saddening, the good news is that the Sandinistas remain the single
    largest party in the country, while UNO is actually a coalition of 14
    much smaller and diverse parties.  Fortunately, therefore, the
    Sandinistas remain a powerful force in Nicaraguan politics.

    -- Mike

    re:-1
    
    Mike. Why does the UNO victory sadden you?
    
    KAte
    

     Because they are not sufficiently leftist for his political tastes.
    
     The Doctah

    Kate, it saddens me because I am a supporter of the Sandinistas,
    because UNO has been the recent focus of Bush administration 
    intervention in Nicaragua, and because Chamorro has often allied
    herself with the contras.

    -- Mike

    RE: .1 On UNO staying bought. Either you left out a smiley face
    or you are singularly ignorant of how things work in the real
    world. The US has not been able to successfully buy a head of
    state in quite some time. Witness how poorly controlled Noreaga,
    the recent heads of state of Israel, and Ms. Aquino and many others 
    who owe their jobs (and even the freedom to hold elections to the
    US) have been.

    RE: .6 One has to wonder why one is saddened by the choice of a
    free election winning. Can we safely assume that you'd prefer that
    the US didn't have free elections and that you are also saddened
    by the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe?


    ~Cliff

    
    well, I too think she has a 'very hard row to hoe' ahead of her.
    working with a coalition for a 'party' is VERY difficult, next to
    impossible in my opinion.  too much variation in thought/process/
    desires to work an effective political machine.  And, unfortunately,
    right now that is what's needed, an effective (but fair) political
    machine.  There are so MANY problems in all of central america,
    with poverty, despair, destruction, disease, illiteracy, etc, etc,
    that a strong presence is needed.  
    Perhaps thats some of the sadness Mike was alluding to.  Certainly
    in similar situations it has taken many many years, and much $$$ and
    despair before changes have been wrought (again we could discuss the
    Phillipines...i like Cory, and she has tried hard, but truly i don't
    see that she has accomplished much...other than managing by the
    skin of her teeth to stay in power).  
    I would not trade places with these women, and i do wish them 
    success, but I fear it will be extremely difficult.
    
    deb
    

    One can certainly be saddened by the results of a free election if one
    would have preferred that the outcome had gone the other way.
    
    -- Mike

    It does seem interesting to me that the countries where women have been
    elected seem to be 1) macho cultures and 2) in deep political and civil
    strife. I'm thinking of Pakistan as one instance.

    Could these women be the sacrificial victims used to get the country
    over the internal strife and bad times? Are they cleaning up the mess
    for the next male candidate? These are not cultures I associate with
    equal rights. Bhuto had to get married to a man her parents chose and
    then have babies. It would have seemed wrong if she hadn't. What's
    going on? liesl

    Re .11, I think Liesl was sincerely asking questions about things
    she was wondering about?  I don't think she meant any harm, nor
    does she deserve to be attacked.  If you know all the answers, why
    don't you explain them to us instead of making fun of how ignorant
    Americans are about the rest of the world.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .12
    
    Ah come on, Lorna.  The author pretty much prefaced her questions with
    conclusions AND the questions seemed, to me anyway, purely rhetorical.
    Nusrat is adding balance as far as I can see.  

    We Americans are indeed ignorant of the most simple aspects of other
    cultures, and we're supposedly the beneficiaries of the best (certainly
    the most invasive and well-equipped) media organizations in the history
    of the planet.  Presumably the people in those other cultures who make
    simplistic assumptions about 'life in America' get vehemently corrected 
    by their more worldly counterparts, too.  Ignorance touches us all.
    
    While the question may have been indelicately phrased, I share the
    underlying curiosity.  To we who so narrowly understand our own
    culture's tormented gender roles, other nations have been presented 
    as heirs to even more hidebound machismo traditions; and that such 
    nations as India with Indira Ghandi, Pakistan with Benazair Bhutto, 
    the Phillippines with Corazon Acquino, and now, Nicaragua with Ms
    Chaomorra, can select women in these times of extreme cultural change, 
    flies in the face of what we thought we knew (of their machismo 
    traditions).  Truly we must not understand the role of women in 
    these cultures.  Why has our media informed us so poorly...if not
    because it reflects our own cultural blindness towards the importance
    and capabilities of women?  Our media can't tell us because they are
    similarly blind.
    
    Where that leaves us is ignorant.  Nusrat and any others who *know*;
    explain to us how these cultures can turn to women in these times.
    Maybe we can learn something crucial.
                                         
    DougO

    Well excuse me. I had no intention of any of the things I've been
    accused of. If I didn't make it clear then IMO, from various articles I
    have read. And they were from the popular press - meaning my hometown
    newspaper which gets UPI and AP type stories.

    I was NOT in any way saying that Bhuto was not qualified!!!! I used
    Pakistan because the article about Bhuto stuck in my mind. Also the NPR
    report I heard where male politicos were accusing her of using her 2nd
    child's birth to delay deciding on some issues. My immediate response
    was to wonder if they were just playing dirty or if she was playing it
    smart and controlling them in a way they couldn't fight, or if it was
    nothing.

    I was saying that it seems when you look at Pakistan,Phillipines and
    Nicuragua or for that matter England, which has cities like Liverpool
    which are in self destruct mode and massive unemployment, (though I
    admit Thatcher doesn't quite fit this) that this seems when women come
    to the head of a state.

    At any rate, I was asking questions and testing my ideas. If I didn't
    state things correctly I apologise. The questions were not rhetorical
    and I was asking what others thought. liesl

    uh, excuse me, but two other things are unique about the new Nicaraguan
    president besides her sex.
    
    	She's in a wheelchair.  :-)
    
    	She's a grandmother.  :-)

    I'm probably going to get hacked to death by everyone for this, but...
    
    I think Liesl put her foot in it.  Although I would make book that
    Liesl's error was hubris rather than malice (mine always is :-} ),
    Nusrat was right to call her on it.
    
    Now I'm going to risk a similar blast:
    
    Nusrat, Pakistan is very heavily Moslem, true?  My impression of
    al-Islam is that there's not much to choose between it and
    traditionalist (I hesitate to say fundamentalist) Christian religions
    as far as their poor view of women goes.  Given that be true, I echo
    DougO in asking what mechanism makes it possible for a woman to be
    elected head of state in Pakistan when in the "progressive" US no woman
    has managed even an enduring candidacy.
    
    						=maggie

    
    
    There are many possible reasons why women do not actively go
    into politics.  One that comes to mind first off is that
    the society in the US is still not fully ready to accept
    women into political power positions.  Mind you I said
    not fully.  Sure there are women in politics and this
    trend hopefully will continue.
    
    I as a woman would not go into politics for several reasons.
    The main one being that politics is dirty.  The systems
    are usually run on the basis of the person with the most
    money gets what they want.  Growing up in Mass I've seen
    more politicians who had the best intentions when they
    started out, yet they have ended up just as crooked as the
    rest of them.  This is just my opinion.  But to play the
    game and win you have to play by the current rules.  The
    majority of those rules have been bought to serve the
    folks who paid for them, usually not for the good of the
    commonwealth.
    
    Another reason I feel is valid is that politics is just
    another male dominated field.  Yet with this field there
    are no specific college ciriculums to help folks out.
    Sure you can get a PolySci degree, but is that real
    training for politics?  When you see the folks polling
    on election day, how many of those folks holding signs
    and waving are women?  Not many.  
    
    Also, politics is a fulltime job that usually does not pay
    much.  It takes up much more time than a regular fulltime
    job and a hell of alot more energy.  Afterall, you have
    to be everywhere all the time getting public exposure
    and response.  If the woman has a family, will the 
    other parent be willing to put that much more time into
    the family?  What affect will the time away from the
    family have on the family and the woman?  
    
    I could go on, but I'll stop with just these issues.
    
    Mi

    re:-1
    
    By reading these replies I'm about to concede that USA is not on
    the top of the heap but on the bottom as far as electing women 
    leaders! This doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling at all.
    
    re: Evelyn Murphy
    
    I am a Massachusetts Democrat. I like Ms. Murphy but she has a very
    strong negative impact on the polls. She's too closely aligned with
    the Duke. I think it's kind of like the Ford-Nixon impression. Even
    the staunchest of Democrats question her fiscal leadership abilities.
    
    Kate
    

    Why hasn't a woman been elected President in the USA?
    
    I like the notion in .20 that idealism has something to do with it.
    
    Compared with the citizens of other democracies, those in the USA are
    notably apathetic ("all politicians are crooked", "nothing changes",
    etc.).  Relative lack of interest in politics (SOAPBOX aside) is a
    long-standing American tradition.  If you don't care passionately about
    something, you can expect the path of least resistance to be followed. 
    In politics, that path doesn't lead to female leadership.
    
    If Americans cared passionately about their government, then a female
    candidate who matched the will of the people would have a chance to
    win.  Since the people don't have much of a will (: >,) they don't see
    why such "drastic measures" would be called for.
    
    I asked a Swiss student many years ago why it took so long for women to
    get full political power in Switzerland and his answer was that no one,
    men or women, cared enough about politics to bother to make the change.
    
    Ray

    I know this is off the subject a bit but here goes:
    
    Are there any nations in the world in which women can't vote?
    (The countries that come to my mono-cultural ethnocentric mind
    may be Iran, Saudi-Arabia.)
    
    Kate
    

    Here's a thought - perhaps some of these "third world" countries that
    are electing women are responding to a more basic, primordial need that
    doesn't occur in the U.S.  That is, their countries are in such dire
    shape socially, economically etc that they respond to the woman elect
    as "Mother".  Who does the child run to in times of trouble but mother?
    Mother can be trusted - to make things right, to fix things.  She can
    be trusted, leaned on, will not harm.
    
    I've often thought of this, I haven't the slightest idea how much
    validity it may have.  I enter it here only for discussion - DNBM - do
    not blast me!
    

    In addition to the points raised in .21, my own opinion is that
    one of the major reasons that the US has so few women politicians
    and no woman president so far, still has a lot to do with the life
    expectations that women in our society are raised to have.  It seems
    that most of our US presidents have been lawyers (I once read a
    list of how many US Presidents hadn't been lawyers and it was very
    small) and many have come from the wealthy class.  It seems to me
    that the majority of the women raised in wealthy families in the
    US are raised to be well-dressed, charming, articulate supporters
    of men with important jobs, rather than raised to have the important
    jobs themselves.  Of the Kennedy grandchildren, for example, I can
    only think of one female, Kathleen, who has run for political office.
     It's 1990 and we still have a WASP male president, who went to
    Yale.  His wife smilingly supports him, wears pearls and raises
    dogs.  I think this country is run by rich men who want their women
    on pedestals, and some women think it's a nice way for things to be
    too (the ones who are on the pedestals leading lives of leisure
    while rich men support them).
    
    Also, I believe that children in the US are brainwashed while growing
    up to believe that life is better in *every way* in the US than
    it is *anywhere* else on the planet.  Therefore, when we grow up
    it is a shock to meet people from other countries, travel, read
    and find out that's not always true.
    
    Lorna
     

	In a number of countries woman who have taken over the government
	has done so by stepping into shoes left empty by the death of a
	male relative. Ghandi, Aquino, Bhuto - to name three. I believe they
	are (were) all very capable people in their own right. Ms Bhuto
	impresses me a great deal. I wonder if the name recognition and
	the "romance" of seeing them finish an uncompleted job helped?
    
	This kind of thing would appear to also explain the wives of
	US Congressmen and Governors who went on to take their dead husbands
	place. Once there they made it or not on their own but being the
	wife/daughter/etc of some male helped get them though the male
	barrier in the first place.

	An other thing that helps woman reach to top in other countries
	is the parliamentary system they have. The party that wins the
	election elects the chief executive of the country not the people.
	People elect their local representative. Sure they know that one
	person will vote for a woman prime minister but they themselves
	are still electing a man from their district. Aren't most MPs
	in the UK men? Even if Japan gets a woman PM most members of the 
	Diet will still be men. The elected politicians are free to vote
	on ability. Ability is not something the general voting public
	seems to care about as much as they do other things.

	I also wonder if in some countries women get elected to "punish"
	a particularly bad man. In a really macho country wouldn't a man
	who loses to a woman be less well thought of than one who loses
	to an other man?

	If people were elected based on what they should be (honesty, ability,
	and strength to to the right thing) then sex would not matter.
	But that is seldom what wins elections. Look in this conference
	where the gender of the candidate is often seen as important.

	One thing relating to the situation in Pakistan. The situation there
	for women is the result of 100s of years of culture and tradition.
	Just electing a woman doesn't undo all that. Change takes time. Trying
	to make change too fast is why the Imans rule Iran today. Ms Bhuto
	understands that things take time (I heard here say that on TV).
	She knows that succeeding slowly is better than failing fast. She
	may not always be "politically correct" to US feminists but she's
	moving a country into the future and deserves a lot of credit for
	even making the attempt.

~Cliff

    By quickly reading through all answers...it comes to mind that the
    majority of readers are chocked that there are so many women rulers
    outside of the US...Well, the world does not end by Rio Grande in
    Texas! it DOES go on.  Women, everywhere, are very capable of doing
    whatever has to be done. Some, spend a lot of energy on women rights,
    movements, etc, etc, others not, I would not like to be categorized or
    included in any kind of group.  We are human beings with the ability to
    act, judge, work, think, etc, etc, without the need to be included in
    any group or special category...women have brains, who can doubt it?
    Violeta Chamorro has a very, very difficult path ahead of her, and
    Ortega won't help her to suceed in spite of his aparently good faith in
    view of the international press that covered the elections... my
    respect to her and to the many who are in equal circumstances (Bhuto in
    Paquistan, Aquino in Philipines, M. Thatcher in England, Julianna's
    daughter in Holland and whoever escapes my memory at this minute...)

    Re .28, I, for one, didn't mean to imply that I did not believe
    that women outside of the US are not capable of being leaders. 
    Of course, I realize there are intelligent, capable women all over
    the world!  But, there are intelligent, capable women in the US,
    as well, and we don't seem to be at the point where women can become
    leaders very often, and not on the Presidential level.  For me the
    surprise is not in realizing there are capable women in other parts
    of the world, but the surprize came several yrs. ago when I first
    realized that the US might not be all it was cracked up to be when
    I was a kid in school.  My impression then was that the US led the
    world in everything.  Now, this doesn't seem to be the case.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    RE: .0
    
    >why do so many other countries have woman heads of state?
    
      I don't know how many countries there are, I would guess a couple
      of hundred. Less than ten have woman heads of state, so I don't find
      the situation in the U.S. unusual. A better question may be: why do 
      so few countries have woman heads of state?
    
    

A column by Randolph Ryan in yesterday's Boston Globe does the best job
I've seen of putting what happened in Nicaragua in perspective. 

Some quotes:

"It is hard to say which is sadder: What happened to Nicaragua and its 
people (and its revolution) on the way to the stunning defeat of the 
Sandinistas in the election on Sunday. Or the fact that so many Americans 
in public life...describe the election victory of the American-backed 
candidate as a victory for peace and democracy....

"The vote count was fair. The Nicaraguan people have spoken. But whether 
that constitutes democracy depends on whether one's theory of politics 
allows for massive interference by a huge, hostile neighboring state....

"The steady message to the Nicaraguan government was: Drop dead or we'll 
kill you. And to the people: Dump that government or watch your loved ones 
starve....

"What today's self-congratulation in Washington indicates is not that 
Nicaraguans have achieved democracy but that Americans have forgotten what 
it is."
                 

    re:.31
    
    Good point!
    

    Randolph Ryan is a dedicated leftist, who has been a sandinista
    supporter for some time now. It is certainly not surprising that sour
    grapes would find their way into his column. Had the sandinistas won
    the election, he would have cheered the results of the election,
    proudly exclaiming "the people have spoken." But since his pet team
    lost, the game isn't fair anymore. But the fact that the sandinistas
    routinely use death squads to eliminate political dissent is "fair."
    The fact that the sandinistas do not allow papers with dissenting
    opinions from the party line to operate is "fair." The fact that the
    sandinistas have imprisoned thousands (and killed thousands more) for
    the sole reason that they differed politically is just fine and dandy.
    
    Whether or not you like the contras, you've got to admit that the
    sandinistas committed some pretty brutal acts to stay in power. The
    contras are not good humor men. They committed atrocities themselves.
    But that doesn't excuse the more widespread atrocities and denials of
    human rights perpetrated by the sandinistas. That doesn't excuse the
    fact that the sandinistas used food as a bludgeon to wear away at their
    political opponents (read- any not a dyed in the wool sandinista.)
    
    The whole situation is disgusting. And the elections will actually
    change little. Because the contras won't disarm and disband until the
    sandinistas hand over power because they feel that the lack of an
    opposition will be too tempting for danny, and he'll stage a coup
    attempt. (Well, considering that few communists have given up power
    peacefully, it's not all that farfetched). And Danny won't give up
    power until the contras disband. The end effect of this apparent catch
    22 is that Danny will use it to "justify" the fact that he will not
    honor the results of the election. He will retain power. And the beat
    goes on...
    
     The Doctah

RE.33

While I will not challenge what you have said regarding the atrocities committed
by the Sandanistas, US intervention in the internal politics of another 
sovereign state still occurred.  Indeed the people _have_ spoken in Nicaragua.
Whether they would have chosen as they did without US interference is moot at
this point.

From my personal viewpoint, I find Contra and Sandanista equally inimical and
would rejoice on the day that neither found favour in the hearts of my people 
and corridors of power in my government.

You may be right in declaring that no communist government has ceded its
power to the right without bloodshed.  On the other hand, it is equally rare
for Far-Right or Fascist governments to cede their power to the left without
the same.

If the elections in Nicaragua were swayed by US pressures, and even the US 
government must think so or they would not be crowing their victory so loudly,
then it is a US victory, not a Nicaraguan one.

Is it truly our right to manage other countries to our advantage?  Or might it
be more in keeping with our stated ideals to allow the people of these other
countries self-determination without pressure?

  Ann

    Last year I heard a representative of Amnesty International talk about
    the human rights situations in El Salvador and Nicaragua.  Because AI
    strives to be non-partisan, and to avoid even the appearance of any
    ideological bias, the situations in those two countries presented a
    unique problem, since the human rights situation in El Salvador, with
    its death squads, was so much more worse than that in Nicaragua under
    the Sandinistas.  He said that AI was actually relieved whenever they
    received a report of a human rights violation occurred in Nicaragua,
    because of their relative rarity and the desire of AI to appear
    non-partisan on the Central America issue at all times.

    That is why, I hope that Chomorro's allies, the contras, do disarm
    before the UNO regime takes over.  There is no reason to assume that
    this group would stop its policies of rape, kidnaping, murder, and
    other forms of terror once Daniel Ortega left office; in fact, once the
    contras' UNO allies are in power, Nicaragua could easily turn into an
    El Salvador style "democracy", where death squads have murdered tens of
    thousands and utterly terrorized the population.  The murder of the
    Roman Catholic priests by the Salvadoran military a few months ago was
    a well publicized example, but hardly rare, example of this.

    -- Mike

    I'm what the Boston Globe calls a "Sandinista Sympathizer".  
    
    I'm one of thousands of North American men and women who have gone to
    Nicaragua to help the people of Nicaragua survive...survive the
    contras, CIA disinformation campaigns, mined harbors, blown-up oil
    tanks, a strangling economic embargo, ....yes all the devices
    of the low intensity conflict that the U.S. has waged for 10 years.
    And it was sucessful.
    
    Remember La Prensa?  Come, on, you know the paper that openly supported
    the Contras while they raped, murdered, destroyed health clinics, &
    burned coffee warehouses to the ground?  Remember who was editor
    through ALL that time?  Violetta Chammoro.  She allowed herself and
    her paper to be used as a tool of U.S. foreign intervention.
    
    La Prensa was one of the primary sources of CIA disinformation.  For
    example, when I was in Managua in 1983, La Prensa announced that
    through bad management, the FSLN had created a cooking oil shortage.
    Was there a shortage? NO!  But did La Prensa cause a run on cooking
    oil in all the markets...thereby creating a shortage? YES!
    This is the real Violetta Chamorro.  Let's remember her role in all
    of this.  This is NOT a victory for the women of Nicaragua!
    
    /eric
    
    

"Doctah", I can only assume that you've been noting too long and hard to pay
attention to the news these days.  Either that, or you're way behind on reading
your "Reader's Digest"!!  (-:

 Ortega has agreed to abide by the results of the election; he has vowed to
run again for the next election.  He has shown a willingness to abide by the 
results of the election, and has met/will meet with Mrs Chamorra  to work on the
transfer of power in a peaceful and postive manner.  Ortega is working on 
rebuilding the Sandinista Party as an effective political opposition to the
newly elected government. 
 These various events were reported on National Public Radio and CNN earlier
this week.  This doesn't sound like "Danny" is planning to stage a coup (or did
you mean Danny _Quayle_?)

 The election was the most closely monitored of any democratic election in any
country in recent years (I forget the exact number) with both UN and various 
independant observers there. 

 In my opinion, this was not a free election.  The US interfered in the running
of a sovereign nation, and manipulated the overthrow of a government through 
economic sanctions, political/diplomatic manoevering, armed insurrection and
by pouring money and expertize behind one of the candidates.  Surprise! She won.
And democracy lost.

 Imagine the outrage if it were discovered
that a large amount (like over 50%) of "Poppy" Bush's campaign backing had come
from the Soviet Union, so that an American president could be elected whose 
views more closely matched those of the Soviet Administration.  Or imagine
a mighty Soviet army were poised on our borders, with the clear message "Elect 
Bush or We Invade"?  

 At least the Doctah has demonstrated the truth of the old saying; "Propaganda
is that branch of lying which deceives your friends, but not your enemies!"

		What has this to do with women in politics???

					Nigel

> Ortega has agreed to abide by the results of the election; he has vowed to
>run again for the next election.
    
     That was his first reaction; he has been hedging ever since. (IE- we
    will not give up our power until xxx...)
    
    
>Ortega is working on 
>rebuilding the Sandinista Party as an effective political opposition to the
>newly elected government.                            
    
     The Sandinista party is already the largest and most powerful party in
    Nicaragua. "Rebuilding" hardly seems like the proper term.
    
> In my opinion, this was not a free election. 
    
     Because too few dead people voted for the sandinistas? Because too few
    UNO sympathisers were prevented from even reaching the polls? Because
    there were enough observers to prevent the sort of abuses which have
    managed to keep Ortega in power this long?
    
>    The US interfered in the running
>of a sovereign nation, and manipulated the overthrow of a government through 
>economic sanctions, political/diplomatic manoevering, armed insurrection and
>by pouring money and expertize behind one of the candidates.
    
     Do you have any idea where the sandinistas got their money? Do you
    have any idea how they came into power? Do you believe that it is ok
    for a communist country to install a sympathetic government into a
    sovereign nation (by force) against the people's wills? When the above
    occurs, should the US simply ignore it, especially when the country
    could be strategic (geographically) to an attack on our country?
    
>Surprise! She won.
>And democracy lost.
    
     I suppose that you would say "democracy won" if the sandinistas won.
    Aren't you simply an advocate of leftist governments, and would support
    the sandinistas regardless of the mood of the country? I'll be honest
    with you, if I thought that the majority of the country, when not under
    the pressure of political imprisonment, food restrictions, or death
    were in favor of that regime, I'd support their right to have it. but I
    don't.
    
>Or imagine
>a mighty Soviet army were poised on our borders, with the clear message "Elect 
>Bush or We Invade"?                                             
    
     So you do know how the sandinistas got there in the first place.
    
     The Doctah

    Before the election, polls (by American reporters, I gather) were
    projecting Ortega as the winner.  In a discussion on McNeil-Lehrer
    (sp?) on PBS, both sides agreed to this.  One side, however, claimed
    that people did not trust the pollsters enough to tell them the
    truth, for fear of their freedom or even their lives.
    
    He seems to have been right.  People lied to these pollsters.  This
    implies that they feared the Sandinistas' reaction [to an anti-Ortega
    vote] more than the Americans' reaction [to a pro-Ortega vote].
    Thus, I do not believe the claim that *American* *threats* (Two
    independant terms, notice.) affected the election noticably.
    
    							Ann B.

Mark,

You seem to have forgotten what the Sandinista's overthrew.  It was
not some nice little democracy down there.  It was a brutal right wing
dictatorship (supported by the United States I believe).  There was
tremendous poverty and exploitation and a huge difference between the
have's and the have nots.  I, like others, would have preferred that
the United States stay out the conflict as much as possible.  Many
accounts (in the papers) from actual Nicaraguans say that they were
tired of the civil war and economic hardships more than anything else.  I
think the connection between the contras and the trade embargo should
be apparent.

While I don't support much of Communism and its methods,  I hope that
the country doesn't go back to being a militairy right wing
dictatorship sponsored by the US of A so that US multinationals can
make large profits from exploiting people...  

    It is interesting that one of the parties that participated in the UNO
    coalition, running against those nasty evil "communist" Sandinistas,
    was the Nicaraguan Communist Party.  The only thing that really united
    UNO was its opposition to the Sandinistas.

    The Sandinistas won in free elections in November, 1984.  Those
    elections were observed by official delegations from Ireland and
    Holland, as well as others, who verified the free nature of the
    campaign and the vote.  Daniel Ortega won 67% of the vote that year,
    running against 6 other political parties.  As Ortega said yesterday in
    a television interview, the Sandinistas never intended to establish a
    one-party state, nor did they do so.

    The 1990 elections were also conducted fairly by the Sandinistas.  In
    that sense, therefore, the elections were democratic.  However, as fair
    as the elections were conducted, unfortunately, the Bush
    administration, which has a curious definition of "democracy", heavily
    financed the political party it wanted to win the election.  Other
    pressures included the imposition of a trade embargo which they will
    now lift because the party they like has won, the refusal to aid the
    country after a devastating hurricane, and the armed support for
    terrorist clients (the Contras.)  A reasonable explanation for why the
    public opinion polls were wrong is that the people answered the
    pollsters with their hearts, but voted with their pocketbooks.  And why
    not?  Economic blackmail by the U.S. can be very convincing.  Now the
    trade embargo will be lifted and aid will be forthcoming.

    The reasons for the Reagan and Bush administration policies in
    Nicaragua had nothing to do with supporting democracy, since the
    Sandinistas had established a democracy, and since these
    administrations have staunchly supported dictatorships elsewhere (such
    as China and Chile, for example.)  It would seem that the actual reason
    is the same as that used to justify 1954 CIA engineered golpe de estado
    in Guatemala, the 1973 CIA supported golpe de estado in Chile, and all
    the other countless interventions by the Gringos--the U.S. simply
    considers Latin America its own to run as it pleases, and has done so
    since the early 1800s, long before the alleged communist "threat".

    Now that UNO has won the election, of course, the real question is
    whether or not Bush's Contra terrorist buddies will disarm or not. 
    Will Nicaragua resemble El Salvador, with the Contras running rampant
    and raping, kidnaping, torturing and murdering as their death squad
    cohorts in El Salvador have been doing?  Will everything wonderful that
    the Sandinistas have done be in vain?  We can only hope not.

    In any case, Daniel Ortega remains one of the great figures in
    twentieth century politics, and deserves to be congratulated for what
    he has accomplished in the last ten years.  My heart goes out to him,
    and to the Sandinistas, who remain the largest single political party
    in Nicaragua.

    -- Mike

    re: .39
    
     I agree completely, Ann. Well said.
    
>    The Sandinistas won in free elections in November, 1984.
    
     You forgot the quotes around free. I do not call using guns to prevent
    people from voting against you "free." Perhapos you do.
    
    
>However, as fair
>    as the elections were conducted, unfortunately, the Bush
>    administration, which has a curious definition of "democracy", heavily
>    financed the political party it wanted to win the election.
    
     Perhaps you'd liek to finish the story, Mike. Perhaps you'd like to
    tell how much money the US spent. Then tell how much the Sandinistas
    spent. Then tell us where the Sandinistas got the money. (Hint: the US
    was outspent by wide margin). That's "freedom," though. (Time to add a
    defnition in the dictionary- this type of "freedom" is being bandied
    about sufficiently that it ought to be added as an alternate
    definition.
    
>    Now that UNO has won the election, of course, the real question is
>    whether or not Bush's Contra terrorist buddies will disarm or not. 
    
     No, the real question is whether Mr. Ortega will abide by the vote and
    relinquish power. (At that point, the contras have said they will be
    happy to disarm).
    
>    In any case, Daniel Ortega remains one of the great figures in
>    twentieth century politics, and deserves to be congratulated for what
>    he has accomplished in the last ten years.  My heart goes out to him,
>    and to the Sandinistas, who remain the largest single political party
>    in Nicaragua.
    
     He certainly is what the left can look up to.
    
     The Doctah

    As I mentioned, several international observers found the 1984
    elections fair and free.  However, Mark, if it makes you feel better,
    you can continue to refute this by making ridiculous charges against
    the Sandinistas.  Obviously, every nation, including the U.S. is guilty
    of at least some human rights violations, but since your allegations
    about "death squads" and such in Nicaragua are not consistent with
    numerous human rights reports from the region, I I can only assume that
    you must be confused--perhaps you are thinking of El Salvador, Bush's
    model "democracy", in which the death squads are a very real and
    serious problem.  Or perhaps you are thinking of the contras, whose
    murder, rapes, and kidnaping were quite effective means of terror
    against the Nicaraguan population.

    As for the the Contra terrorists promising to lay down their arms after
    their allies come to power--yeah, right.  That's kind of like the brown
    shirts promising to behave once Adolph Hitler becomes chancellor.  We
    all remember Crystal Night, don't we?

    -- Mike

     If you stand at the polls, and everyone who comes to the polls smiles
    and votes- it's a fair election, right? What about when you start
    walking down the road, and you get to places where people are held at
    gunpoint, not allowed to GO to the polls where the voting is being
    held? But all the observers at the polls are convinced that everything
    is on the up and up. Go figure.
    
>I can only assume...
    
     Very dangerous, Mike. And wrong in this case.
    
     Kinda neat how you turned the contras into Hitler followers. Nice
    juxtaposition. As if your worshipping of Ortega didn't already contain a
    slight clue as to where your ideological interests were.
    
     The Doctah

    There is no point in dragging this out, either by mail or in notes.  I
    happen to consider your charges against the Sandinistas to be grossly
    inaccurate, and not because, as you suggest, I "worship" Daniel Ortega,
    although I do admire the man a great deal.  Similarly, you question my
    own perception of events in Nicaragua, which of course is your right. 
    This could go on and on, endlessly.  Perhaps it would be better to
    return this topic back to the question of female heads of state, and
    put the ideological discussions, at least for the moment, to rest.

    -- Mike

    re .37,
    
    'What does this have to do with women in politics' - 
    
    not a thing, that I can see. Maybe we need a separate topic?

    re:-1
    
    The note was meant to be two-fold. I did want to hear more about
    Ms. Chamorra. I also wanted to hear about other woman heads of state.
    
    Mike,
       What might Ms. Chamorra do to hurt these people? Do you think
    her government will carry the corruption of it's predecessor (before
    Ortega)? Do you think it will have a negative impact on the standard
    of living of these people?
    
    Mark, (Doctah)
       Your reference of "left" and "right" surprises me. These people
    are in absolute poverty. You can't eat "left". You can't sleep in
    a "right". My kids need shoes on their feet not political rhetoric. 
    
    Who's government do you think would help the people's
    standard of living more?
    
    Kate
     

    The following list describes the opposition parties who ran in the 1990
    Nicaraguan election.  This information is taken from the Winter/Spring
    issue of the magazine Nicaraguan Perspectives:

    First, here are the parties in Chamorro's UNO coalition:

    o Independent Liberal Party (PLI).  This party was formed in 1944 by
    anti-Somoza factions of Somoza's Nationalist Liberal Party (PLN).
    Withdrew from the 1984 elections two weeks before election day after
    meeting with the U.S. ambassador, but received 9.6% of the vote anyway,
    and elected eight members in the national assembly that year.
    
    o Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC).  Split from the PLN in 1968
    over presidential aspirations of Ramiro Sacasa, a Somoza rival.

    o Neo-Liberal Party (PALI).  Formed in 1985 by elements of the PLN,
    which had disintegrated in 1979 after Somoza's flight from the country.

    o Social Democratic Party (PSD).  Formed from the Nicaraguan
    Conservative Party (PCN), which was allied with Somoza's PLN, after the
    fall of Somoza.  Its general secretary, Alfredo Cesar, was a member of
    the contra political directorate.

    o National Conservative Party (PNC).  Formed by rightist elements of the
    PDCN in 1983.  Originally known as the PCN.

    o Popular Alliance Conservative Party (PAPC).  Formed from elements of
    the PNC after the 1984 election.  Led by Myriam Arguello.

    o National Conservative Alliance Party (PANC).  Split from the PCDN (see
    below) in 1989.

    o National Action Party (PAN).  Split from the PSC in 1987 (see below).

    o National Confidence Democratic Party (PDC).  Split from the PSC in
    1987 (see below).  The PSC is affiliated with the Christian Democratic
    International; the split occurred in opposition to the CDI's declaration
    in 1987 opposing armed struggle against the Sandinistas, with the PSC
    forming from a pro-contra faction, led by Agustin Jarquin.

    o Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN).  Founded in 1944 as an orthodox
    communist party.  In 1984 it received 1.3 percent of the vote and two
    assembly seats.  In 1988 it officially renounced Marxism-Leninism.

    o Communist Party of Nicaragua (PCdeN).  Founded in 1966 in a split from
    the PSN.  In 1984 it received 1.5 percent of the vote and two assembly
    seats.

    o Central American Unionist Party (PUCA).  Founded in 1920 by Nicaraguan
    exiles in El Salvador.  Its goal is the establishment of a Central
    American federation.

    o Central American Integrationism Party (PAIC).  A faction of PUCA.

    o Nicaraguan Democratic Movement (MDN).  Founded by anti-Somoza members
    of the business community in 1978.  Founded by Alfonso Robelo, who later
    helped form the contras.
    
    
    These are the non-UNO parties which ran their own candidates in the 1990
    election:
    
    o Democratic Conservative Party of Nicaragua (PCDN).  Formed in 1956 by
    anti-Somoza elements of the Nicaraguan Conservative Party (PCN) who
    opposed that party's alliance with Somoza.  Finished second in the 1984
    elections, with fourteen members in the national assembly.

    o National Unity Liberal Party (PLIUN).  Formed in 1987 by those opposed
    to the leadership of the PLI.

    o Social Conservatism Party (PSOC).  Split from the PAPC in 1989.  Lead
    by former leader of the PCN during the 1970s.
    
    o Social Christian Party (PSC).  Founded in 1957.  Is affiliated with
    the worldwide Christian Democratic movement, and is a member of the
    Christian Democrat International.  Abstained from the 1984 elections, a
    decision now regarded as a mistake by party leader Erick Ramirez.
    
    o Popular Social Christian Party (PPSC).  Split from the PSC in 1976
    because it favored armed struggle against Somoza.  Received 5.6% of the
    vote in 1984, and earned six assembly seats in that election.  Was in
    UNO, but withdrew to run its own candidates.
    
    o Popular Action Movement-Marxist Leninist (MAP-ML).  Founded as a
    Maoist party in 1972.  In 1984 it received one percent of the vote and
    two assembly seats.
    
    o Revolutionary Workers Party (PRT).  Trotskyist party formed after the
    1984 elections.

    o Movement for Revolutionary Unity (MUR).  Founded in 1988 by dissidents
    from all left-wing parties, including the FSLN (Sandinistas).  Headed by
    a former Sandinista, Moises Hassan, who was mayor of Managua.
    
    -- Mike

    I feel that many women in the third world are taught to be bright and
    intelligent. Sure, some may adhere to custom by agreeing to an arranged
    marriage, but that does not stop them from pursuing higher education. 
    In fact, education is such a magnificent jewel that women like Bhutto
    are admired and respected by the most "macho" of men. 

    Intelligence is beauty. 

	Back to the question:
    
        QUESTION: Why do so many other countries have women heads of state?
    	      Many of these countries are not known for their stances
              on equal rights. Why are so few American women in office?
    
	In my opinion, when a role of an individual is not clearly defined
	in a society, it's impossible for that individual to succeed. I'm
	referring to the role of women in society. Culturally speaking, 
	America is a new country, about 200 years, and individual roles have 
	not been defined yet. In other countries, people have been living 
	together for thousands of years and they have strict guidelines for 
	individual achievements where in America it's not. I have been here 
	in America for many years and have an impression, as portrayed by
	the media, that women are simply a sex object while in Indian 
	sub-continent (India, Pakistan, Bangla Dash), women's role is defined 
	as a mother (not so called western concept of home maker), who have 
	equal opportunity for education and her career, so when a woman is 
	in public eye, she isn't treated as a sex object but  a respectable 
	a member of society. There is a saying in our country that if you 
	want want to go to heaven, then worship your mother.
	 
	In Islamic society, there is segregation, but no discrimination.
	There are schools for women where they can study any thing they
	wish to, Engineering, Medicine etc. and after graduation, they'll
	get paid same as their male colleagues. In that part of the world,
	you'll find much higher number of women doctors, engineers than you'll 
	see in USA. And also there is function of human race to reproduce,
	where having kids and raising them is a duty of both parents and not 
	only the women. There, you might be surprised to see how men take 
	care of their children. In Pakistan, when a working woman has a kid, 
	she'll get 3 month maternity leave with full pay. When I came to USA, 
	I was surprised to hear that a women lecturer will be paid less than
	her counterpart with same education/skill. I never heard of this
	in Pakistan.  Therefore, role of women is clearly defined as a 
	productive member of society and not simply a sex object.

	As long as Ms. Bhutto is concerned, she is playing her role.
	She is educated, got married according to the customs of the
	country she lives in, a mother, and very popular in the country.
	She knows the culture and attempting to move Pakistan towards
	next century. (Zia did really screwed up the country). Three days 
	back I returned from Pakistan after a month long visit and was 
	surprised to see many TV programs which were canceled by Zia.
	There was a very interesting weekly TV program, called "Doosri
	Dunia" - another world, in which professional women were 
	interview for their success and gave hints/contacts for those 
	women who are interested in starting their own business. I have
	never seen such an informative program for women on American TV.
	There are some professional associations such as AWIS (American
	Women In Science) who do publish a monthly report to share such
	ideas and opportunities for women in sciences, but again it's 
	limited to those who are member but not on public TV or so.
	Ms. Bhutto is not the only women in the government. There are many
	more who are holding key government positions as well.

	To summarize all this, I would say, American public has a different
	concept of women' role in society (mostly males) and as long as media
	does not correct image of women in the society, people will not
	take women seriously.

	Any comments?
    

    re .-1 -
    
    Media portrayal of women as sex objects is big business in this
    country. Lots of people make lots of money that way. Porn alone is a
    $10 billion a year business. And in advertisting, how products got sold
    before someone came up with the idea of using nubile female bodies to
    sell them (*any* product) is a big mystery.
    
    Does this image of women in the media mean they're taken less
    seriously, and are therefore less likely to attain positions of power?
    
    What do *you* think?

    >Does this image of women in the media mean they're taken less
    >seriously, and are therefore less likely to attain positions of power?

    >What do *you* think?

    In my opinion, women are capable to holding any position and do as well
    job as men but that is opinion of few in millions.
    Image of women as portrayed by the media as a sex object, it's origin
    and effects on society needs a whole new topic to discuss, however, I
    simply state it is just like few years back in America when blacks had 
    an image as slaves and in-capable of holding positions of power until
    they organized, struggled and now you can see that  our attitude (image)
    towards blacks is changing. Another example: When ever in Lebanon, 
    terrorist strikes, here media portrays them as **MUSLIM TERRORIST**, but
    when Irish Republic Army (IRA) strikes and kills innocent people, it's 
    aired as IRA terrorist and not the **CHRISTEN TERRORIST**. Then in 
    America, we develop an attitude towards Muslims that they are all 
    terrorist. 
    
    Similarly it'll be a long fight for women in America to change the
    attitude (image) as sex object which is deep rooted in the society.
    Children from very beginning start getting such ideas from TV and it
    will be a long fight to change that and eventually it will change.

>                      <<< Note 999.47 by USEM::DONOVAN >>>
>                                 -< Questions >-
>
>       What might Ms. Chamorra do to hurt these people? Do you think
>    her government will carry the corruption of it's predecessor (before
>    Ortega)? Do you think it will have a negative impact on the standard
>    of living of these people?
>    
>    Who's government do you think would help the people's
>    standard of living more?
    
    
    I'd like to reply to Kate Donovan. Of course, I'm not impartial :-)
    
    
I feel that a leader cannot alone bring about true social changes. There must
be a broad movement from which the leader rises, and from which the leader gets
ideas, inspiration and the power to take action. Moreover, the movement
provides the people who actually implement changes. This is because true change
involves changing the power relations between classes of people. Thus we need
to change our understanding of how the present structure works and of our
ability to change it; then we can go on to organize to transform society.

For example look at the Civil Rights movement - some people attribute the
accomplishment to leaders such as Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. I agree that
they provided inspiration and insight but these leader functioned on a broad
base of support. For example, King was an unknown minister chosen to lead the
Montgomery bus boycott by groups that had long been active - the Brotherhood of
Negro Porters and the NAACP - in order to involve non-active church-going
people. Once the organizing began, there was a ground-swell of support far
beyond these circles and King showed his validated their choice.


People can also be falsely be promoted as figureheads to subvert a movement. We
see this recently in the appointment of various Black officials. For example
Reagan appointed conservative Blacks - some of whom were more interested in
promoting their own interests than that of fellow Blacks. Former HUD Secretary
Pierce is one - he is being investigated about granting of funds for developing
low income housing. The Boston School Board several years ago appointed
Superintendant Wilson, a Black man who was the most conservative candidate
under consideration. Recently Boston Mayor Flynn has proposed appointing a
Black to a housing post rather that a White housing activist favored by Black
community groups.


You can admire Chamorro as a woman who has gained the office of president,
but to see if she is likely to help the women of Nicaragua, it is necessary
to see whom she represents. Chamorro is the head of one of the leading
landowning families in Nicaragua. (Like Corazon Aquino.) What has been the
position of this class? Traditionally it supported rulers who maintained
their control over their extensive lands growing coffee and banana cash crops
and over the peons who worked for them.

However, after a devastating earthquake impoverished the middle-class and in
addition Somoza stole international relief money, then even parts of the
upper-class realized that, like the Shah and Marcos, Somoza wasn't allowing the
elite their share. At this point these groups joined the Sandinistas. Another
of the triggering points was the assasination of Violetta's husband - the upper
class saw that even they were not immune from death squad executions. This is
similar to the assasination of Corazon Aquino's husband. After the revolution,
just as in the Philippines, there comes a struggle between the working class and
the elite over who will control the government, the factories and the
farmlands.

When the Sandinista's overthrew Somoza, they seized his lands and those of
opposition landowners and redistributed them to peasants as individual plots
or collectively as an estate. (Land ownership has been the central conflict
in Mexico and Central America for atleast the last hundred years). Educated
young people from the middle class were sent out in a movement to bring literacy
and health care to the poor (and also to bring together the middle class and
the peasants). Neighborhood committee were formed for people to solve local
problems. Women and religious workers gained prominent positions in the
government. (Women had played a leading role in the defeat of Somoza's National
Guard.)

However, the economic blockade by the US, attacks on farms and government
workers by the Contra's (organized by the CIA), a falling price of coffee, 
inexperienced business management by the Sandinista's and the departure of
experienced people has lead to massive inflation and fall in production.
(Nicaragua's neighbors aren't immune to bad economic conditions but they
are kept afloat by massive US economic aid. Thus all are client states of the
US; even Costa Rica, which is experiencing no war.)

Thus I feel that Nicaraguans supported UNO to end the war, remove the blockade
and to get economic aid. What happens after Chamorro assume office? As show in
.48, UNO is a fragile coalition which even contains the official Communist
Party.

Wealthy exiles are already calling for the restoration of confiscated land and
factories. This could easily lead bloodshed since Sandinista's usually
handed-out rifles with grants of land. (Does it sound like the Sandinista's
afraid of the people?). The Contra's could easily return to their death squad
role. (Before the election, the Sandinista's released all political prisoners -
even those who had tortured and killed. e.g. the killers of Carlos Foneseca (a
founder of the Sandinista's), Daniel Ortega's torturers.) The Sandinista's are
trying to retain control of the army and police.

Then we need to look at the role of the US who funded Chamorro's campaign
and promised her aid and an end to the economic blockade in her trip to
Washington. Below is a summary of intervention by US forces in Nicaragua.


P.S. I have added reply 1006.7 which discusses the interaction of working women
and wealthy women in the labor movement at the time when Int Women's Day was
chosen.

*******************************************************************************

1855-1856

William Walker took over a contract to supply mercenaries to one of the factions
of landowners in Nicaragua. (Previously he had invaded the Mexican territory
which Mexico was then forced to sell to the US as the Gadsen Purchase.) In 1856,
he was "elected" Nicaragua's president. However since he interfered with the
plans of Cornelius Vanderbuilt and also those of Britain to build a
inter-oceanic canal, Britain ran him out (twice) and then shot him when he tried
a repeat performance in Honduras. 


1881

Over 7,000 people died in a war that came from the aristocracts 
intensified efforts to seize Indians' communal lands for plantations and 
lumbering. These aristocrats worked together with US interests, such as the 
United Fruit Co., to turn these Indians into peons on immense coffee and
banana plantations.


1909 - 1933

The US armed and backed two conservative generals, Estrada and Chamorro
against President Zelaya who was trying to implement limited reforms (limiting
the power & wealth of the church and the landowners; reforming the judiciary).
(Does the name, Chamorro sound familiar?) The US sent down its navy and broke
off relations thus forcing Zelaya to flee. Since the US didn't favor the next
president chosen by the Nicaraguan Congress, it imposed a junta of Estrada,
Chamorro, D�az and Mena. After several resignations, D�az, an employee of a US
mining company, became president and proceeded to turn over the ports, customs,
revenues, railroads and banks to US interests.

The Nicaraguan Congress gagged on this and tried to appoint the
relatively-liberal Mena as president. However US troops defeated Mena and forced
him to flee. Benjamin Zeledon, an aide of Mena, who was also a doctor and
teacher, stayed to fight D�az. US marines landed and aided in his capture and
execution in 1912. This US occupation lasted till 1933. The commander of the US
forces, Gen. Butler Smedley, later describe their role as "high priced muscle
for Wall St.". 

In 1926 Augusto C�sar Sandino began his uprising against the US occupation. He
joined with Gen. Moncada and liberal interests to oust D�az. However, when they
were about to take Managua, US troops intervened. Ambassador Stimson convened a
"peace" conference. There Gen. Moncado betrayed the Nicaraguan liberals and
agreed to lay down his arms, thus allowing D�az to reign till the end of his
term in 2 years. Then there were to be elections in which Moncado would be the
main candidate. A US-trained-and-led National Guard was formed as the
President's private arm. 

Sandino and others rejected this deal among the generals and refused to disarm. 
After suffering reverses against US airpower and modern weapons, the Sandinistas
withdrew to the jungles of northern Nicaragua to wage guerrilla warfare. The US
forces left in 1933 after unsuccessfully using the usual weapons of occupiers
(leveling of towns, relocations camps, indiscriminate bombings, mass executions
etc.) They put Anastasio Somoza (the Ambassador's translator) in charge of the
the National Guard. (Nixon referred to this policy as "Vietnamesation" - i.e. 
In a protracted guerrilla war, withdraw US troops and set up the local elite as
proxies.) 

When Gen. Moncado was replaced with the liberal Sacasa, Sandino signed a peace
treaty with Sacasa which recognized the patriotism of the Sandinista's actions 
and promised them farmland. However, in consultation with the US Ambassador, 
Somoza had the Guard kill Sandino and three of his aids as he left the 
Presidential Palace on the night of February 21, 1934. In the following days,
the Guard killed over 300 leading Sandinista's. President Sacasa tried to
control the Guard but it besieged the Palace and forced him to resign. In 1937 
Somoza became president.

Over the next 30 years, the Somoza family accumulated about $900 million, thus
controlling all major sources of income in association with US interest. 
Suppression of peasants cost 20,000 lives. After Anastasio Somoza was 
assassinated, he was succeeded by his West-Point trained son, Tachito (after a
short struggle with his elder brother). Under Somoza, Nicaragua served as a
military base - e.g. as a staging area for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
(This is similar to the role the Honduras plays today.)


Much of the above information comes from the very-readable
NICARAGUA FOR BEGINNERS by Ruiz.

-Weimin Tchen

    It should be mentioned that many (most?) of the female leaders
    have family connections to past leaders - Cory Aquino's husband
    was the leader of Marcos's opposition until he was assassinated,
    Chamorro's husband was prominent in Nicaraguan politics (editor
    of the largest newpaper) bafore his death, Benazar Bhutto (sp?)
    is the daughter of a former leader of Pakistan, as was Indira
    Gandhi the daughter of a former leader of India (Nehru).  Perhaps
    these women came more easily to power because they inherited
    something in way of a power structure from the men who preceeded
    them (and because, IMO, they are figureheads for the ruling
    class and thus more easily tolerated  -  I also happen to think
    George Bush and Ronald "I have no memory" Reagan are mere figureheads
    for the ruling class but guess that's off the subject. Or maybe
    not.)

               
    Bush is no one's figurehead...
    
    Reagan is someone's figurehead...
    only he doesn't remember whose.