14. Conclusions: What Could Have Been Done?¶
Core Argument¶
In the wake of Nicaragua’s successful revolution, a singular and tragic outcome unfolded: the entire revolutionary leadership united to steer the movement in an openly capitalist direction, causing the revolution to decay from the head down. The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) transformed into a radical bourgeois electoral party, its ideology an incoherent blend of Social Democracy, Liberation Theology, Stalinism, and liberal bourgeois ideas. The revolution’s two most profound weaknesses were the absence of a Leninist party and the lack of independent organs of workers’ power—Soviets. The FSLN consciously filled this vacuum with a radical but reformist programme. The character of the Sandinista regime—radical, petty-bourgeois, and hierarchical—contained the seeds of its own defeat. Mass mobilisation had ousted Somoza, but the national bourgeoisie, aided by US imperialism, European Social Democracy, the Catholic Church, and FSLN leaders themselves, staged a comeback. The FSLN’s attempt to reconcile revolution with capitalism led inexorably to defeat.
The FSLN’s internal democracy was severely limited. In 1987, the party rewrote Nicaragua’s constitution without membership involvement, and members had no say in the 1990 election programme or strategy. The first FSLN Congress was not held until July 1991. Pre-Congress assemblies involved 47,000 Sandinistas, but delegates were elected indirectly—a method used to exclude opposition. The Congress split into two currents: the Directorate’s social-democratic faction, prioritising ‘national interest’ and parliamentary struggle, and a trade-union-based current rejecting class conciliation and concertación, demanding internal democracy and defence of living standards. The Congress was rigged by seating 80 ‘historic cadres’ as voting delegates, manipulating the agenda, and releasing key documents hours before proceedings. Daniel Ortega toured supporting strikes and mass action, but after being elected by acclamation, the same Directorate was retained.
Revolutionary socialists should have built a democratic, centralised Leninist party and fought for the transformation of Civil Defence Committees into workers’ and peasants’ councils—Soviets—to democratise the revolution and carry it towards a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. They would have supported calls for democratisation, organised rank-and-file meetings to challenge the leadership’s non-revolutionary policies, and defended strikes, factory occupations, land seizures, and democratic control of militias. Specific demands would have included freedom of assembly and association, collective bargaining, the right to strike, peasant seizure of bourgeois estates without compensation, and no official wages above the average skilled worker.