February 8, 2019 | By Dina Smeltz

Majority of Nicaraguans Support Early Elections

Graffiti in Granada, Nicaragua

Times are tough in Nicaragua. On April 18-19, protesters from two movements took to the streets to criticize the Sandinista government response to forest fires in a nature reserve and to object to  government plans for unpopular pension reforms. The demonstrations spiraled into a political crisis when police and armed pro-government groups (including the Sandinista Youth) used violence against the participants, triggering follow-on demonstrations, looting, and additional deadly repression. A few days after the protests began, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega had retracted the plans for pension reform. But by then many in opposition had expanded their demands to include calls for democratic reforms and for Ortega – who is serving his third term in office – to step down.

The estimate of actual deaths during this time varies and includes police deaths; human rights groups say the figure is about 300 with about 2000 injured. In addition, the government initiated a crackdown on independent journalists which has continued into the new year.

As I headed to Nicaragua for the month of January to work remotely, improve my Spanish, and escape the polar temperatures in Chicago (with two chihuahuas in tow), this much I knew about the situation.

But over the weeks I learned that the state of affairs was much more complicated. I’m not an expert on Nicaragua or Central America. My Spanish is limited but I was able to have conversations with everyday Nicaraguans in Granada, Leon, and Masaya: hotel and restaurant workers, taxi drivers, guides, Spanish instructors, and farmers. These conversations are merely anecdotal, I’m not going to make broad generalizations from singular meetings like some writers do. But there has also been some nationwide polling on the issues, thanks to CID Gallup, a research firm founded in Costa Rica with affiliates throughout central America.

Many were shocked at the government’s disproportionate response against its own people – a May 2018 CID Gallup survey found that 68 percent agreed with the actions of the students and other protesters versus 22 percent who supported the actions of the police. Because many of the people I spoke with worked in tourist-based businesses, they were particularly concerned about the economic impacts of the unrest. Hotel and restaurant proprietors have had to let their staff go or decrease their hours, close their businesses and/or slash their prices. CID Gallup’s January 2019 survey found that 46 percent of Nicaraguans said their family economic situation had worsened, compared to 25 percent the year prior.

Many are waiting for new elections, currently scheduled for 2021, hoping that will solve the political turmoil. Others would like President Ortega to step down now or at least hold early elections. Ortega has ruled out both of these options arguing that it would violate the constitution. Constitutional or not, a January 4-10, 2019 survey found that a slight majority of Nicaraguans believe the elections should be moved forward to 2019 (54%, though down from 60% in September 2018). Just over a third (34%) prefer to wait until 2021 when officially scheduled.

Whether Ortega would leave office peacefully is an open question. Moreover, it’s unclear what opposition party or candidate the public would support. The January 2019 survey found that sixty-eight percent of the public say they are not inclined to support any political party in the country. Nor is there a clear favorite among the opposition figures.

On the other hand, there is a core of group of at least a quarter of Nicaraguans who continue to back the Sandinista regime (25% in the January CID Gallup poll, down from 31% in May 2018 and 56% in January 2018). The president of CID Gallup noted in El Nuevo Diario that roughly three in ten Nicaraguans have consistently supported the Sandinistas since 1990. In defense of the government, some pro-Sandinista Nicaraguans that I spoke with criticize western media reports for ignoring key details. They point out that several police were killed in the violence, not just demonstrators – and that not all protesters were non-violent. Many government buildings, businesses, and infrastructure had been attacked. And they state that the very action that sparked the protests – the social security reforms – deserves more explanation. The need for pension reform was first raised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF); financing for Nicaragua’s social security system was on course to run out of cash by 2019. The government had apparently rejected the earlier IMF reform options that were more severe than those Ortega had attempted to implement.

Sandinista backers rightfully point to the great gains the Sandinista government has achieved in cutting poverty in half in Nicaragua and increasing Nicaragua’s per-capita GDP. Some also describe the protest movement as a failed coup, potentially backed by the United States to prevent Nicaragua from becoming a successful leftist model outside of the US orbit. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, in the face of international criticism for human rights violations during the conflict, Ortega developed this same narrative – an opposition coup backed by foreign supporters – to explain the violence. The government could also use the recent economic sanctions imposed by the United States to feed into this line of argument.

In sum, the picture seems to be more nuanced than some media outlets have reported. The government apparently bungled the rollout of the social security reforms, inadequately preparing the public for the changes and then responded with excessive violence to the public demonstrations against those reforms - especially considering that the government had earned majority public support by 2018. The current polarization in the country between the government supporters and the opposition coalition of students, farmers, civil society groups, and business leaders makes compromise a challenge. Regardless of which side they favor in the current climate, Nicaraguans are living with great uncertainty about the future.


Dina Smeltz joined The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February 2012 as a senior fellow in public opinion and foreign policy, and directed the Council’s 2012 survey of American public opinion (see Foreign Policy in the New Millennium).  She has nearly 20 years of experience in designing and fielding international social, political and foreign policy surveys.

As the director of research in the Middle East and South Asia division (2001-2007) and analyst/director of the European division (1992-2004) in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the US State Department’s Office of Research, Dina conducted over a hundred surveys in these regions and regularly briefed senior government officials on key research findings. Her experience includes mass public and elite surveys as well as qualitative research.  She has written numerous policy-relevant reports on Arab, Muslim and South Asian regional attitudes toward political, economic, social and foreign policy issues.  Her writing also includes policy briefs and reports on the post-1989 political transitions in Central and Eastern Europe, and European attitudes toward a wide range foreign policy issues including globalization, European integration, immigration, NATO, and European security.

With a special emphasis research in post-conflict situations (informally referred to as a “combat pollster”), Dina has worked with research teams in Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel-Palestinian Territories and in Iraq (2003-2005), where she was one of the few people on the ground who could accurately report average Iraqis impressions of the postwar situation.  In the past three years, Dina has consulted for several NGOs and research organizations on projects spanning women’s development in Afghanistan, civil society in Egypt and evaluating voter education efforts in Iraq.

Dina has an MA from the University of Michigan and a BS from Pennsylvania State University.

Feel free to email Dina with comments or questions at dsmeltz@thechicagocouncil.org


| By Dina Smeltz

Opinion Landscape Not Ideal for New Mideast Peace Plan

At a Middle East conference this month in Warsaw, Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and Mideast adviser, said that the administration will unveil its much-vaunted Middle East peace plan after the April 9 Israeli elections.

| By Karl Friedhoff

America the Dangerous

The Trump administration has taken a hard line on China, but has failed to convince the American public or many allies to follow suit. Instead, publics around the world now see the United States as a major threat.

| By Craig Kafura

2018: Year in Chicago Council Surveys

It's been a busy, eventful year around the world. Throughout 2018, the Council's polling team has captured public and opinion leader attitudes on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, including US-Russia relations, American views of China, public support for internationalism and trade, and how the rising generation of Millennials think about American foreign policy.

| By Karl Friedhoff

Confidence in Congress Low

As the House becomes majority Democrat, there is low confidence among the American public for Congress--and several other institutions--to shape policies that benefit the United States.

| By Craig Kafura

Public Support for Foreign Aid Programs

Past surveys have found that Americans want to cut US spending on foreign assistance and dramatically overestimate how much the US spends on those programs. When asked to construct their own US budget in the 2018 Chicago Council Survey, Americans allocate far more than the US actually spends. 

| By James Drimalla

Bleak Outlook on US-Russia Relations

A new joint report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center finds experts have little hope for US-Russia relations in the near future.

| By James Drimalla

Millennials' Divergent Views on Global Affairs

Attitudes and beliefs frequently change from generation to generation and a new joint study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, CATO Institute, and Charles Koch Institute explores generational differences between the American public on foreign policy issues.