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.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy. 

The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion. 

The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.

Archive


| By Bettina Hammer

Americans Aren't Fans of Arms Sales

The United States has long been the tops arms supplier in the world. Yet public opinion data shows that Americans aren’t fans of U.S. arms sales.


| By Bettina Hammer

Little Admiration for the United States among MENA Publics

Most Americans believe that respect and admiration for the United States are instrumental in achieving US foreign policy goals. But a new poll finds publics in the Middle East and North Africa continue to view the United States unfavorably. 


| By Bettina Hammer

Peace to Prosperity Misses the Mark with Palestinians

At the June 25-26 Bahrain Peace to Prosperity Workshop, Jared Kushner presented the first component of a U.S. peace plan for the Middle East. But how does this plan sit with the Palestinian public?



| By Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm

Scholars vs the Public: Collapse of the INF Treaty

In early February 2019, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty following President Trump’s October 2018 (and the Obama administration’s July 2014) accusations that Russia was failing to comply with the treaty. Russia withdrew from the treaty the next day.

Findings from a February 2019 Chicago Council on Global Affairs general public survey and a December 2018 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of International Relations (IR) scholars around the world illustrate how these different populations perceive the collapse of the INF Treaty.



| By Craig Kafura

Expert Panel Survey: US Focus on the Denuclearization of North Korea

Despite expectations for the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, their recent summit in Hanoi ended with no agreement toward denuclearization. With that in mind, we asked our panel of foreign policy experts whether the United States should continue to focus primarily on denuclearization, or shift to arms control and non-proliferation.



| 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.