THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN PARAGUAY: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS A Rapporteur's Report Nancy R. Powers Working Paper #171 - January 1992 Nancy R. Powers is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. She is currently conducting fieldwork in Buenos Aires for her dissertation study of political thought among the Argentine poor, focussing on those impoverished by the current economic crisis. She wrote with Timothy Power, “Issues in the Consolidation of Democracy in Latin America and Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective: A Rapporteurs’ Report,” Kellogg Working Paper no. 113. ABSTRACT This rapporteur’s report encompasses discussions and formal papers of the December 1990 conference on “The Transitions to Democracy in Paraguay: Problems and Prospects.” The essay begins with a brief history of twentieth-century Paraguayan politics, followed by analysis of the effects that various structural factors and social and political actors might have on the transition. Specific structural topics include: the legacy of Stroessner's economic development style, recent economic conditions, the international context, the peasant movement, and questions of how and when to handle demands for land reform. Social and political actors analyzed include: the business sector, organized labor, the military, and political parties. Paraguay, while not yet a democracy, has nevertheless undergone significant political (and some economic) liberalization in a short time. The international climate supports the transition, while the weakness of civil organizations and opposition parties, a politicized military, and intransigent factions of the dominant Colorado Party present challenges to democratic consolidation. Overall, conferees were optimistic that the regime will continue to liberalize and not return to dictatorship. RESUMEN Este reporte abarca las discusiones y trabajos presentados en el seminario de diciembre de 1990 sobre "La transición hacia la democracia en Paraguay: problemas y perspectivas". El ensayo empieza con una breve historia de la política paraguaya durante el siglo veinte, seguida de un análisis de los efectos que pueden tener varios factores estructurales, así como diversos actores sociales y políticos, sobre la transición. Algunos temas estructurales específicos se refieren al legado del estilo de desarrollo económico bajo el régimen de Stroessner, a las condiciones económicas recientes, al contexto internacional, al movimiento campesino, así como a preguntas sobre como y cuando manejar las demandas de refoma agraria. Los actores políticos y sociales analizados incluyen el sector empresarial, la clase obrera organizada, los militares y los partidos políticos. Aunque Paraguay no es todavía una democracia, ha vivido una significativa liberalización política (y en menor medida económica) durante un corto período de tiempo. Mientras que, por un lado, el entorno internacional es propicio a la transición, por otra parte, la debilidad de las organizaciones civiles y de los partidos de oposición, la politización de los militares y las facciones intransigentes del dominante partido Colorado, presentan retos a la consolidación democrática. En conjunto, los participantes en el seminario expresaron optimismo en cuanto a que el régimen seguirá liberalizándose y no volverá a la dictadura. Preface On December 7 and 8, 1990, eleven Paraguayan scholars joined thirteen North and South American colleagues at the University of Notre Dame for a conference entitled “The Transition to Democracy in Paraguay: Problems and Prospects.” Organized by Dr. Diego Abente and jointly sponsored by the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies and the Inter- American Dialogue, with funding from the Ford Foundation, the Inter-American Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy, the conference was (to our knowledge) the first international conference outside of Paraguay dedicated solely to discussion of the Paraguayan political transition. Part of the Stroessner legacy is that Paraguay was long denied the opportunity for close self-analysis, including an open intellectual examination of the economic processes, political actors, and structural relationships which shaped its history. Since the 1989 coup that toppled Stroessner, such examination has flourished among Asunción intellectuals seeking to rediscover their past and understand prospects for the future. Another part of the legacy was isolation—the “Albania of South America” had gradually become politically, diplomatically, and academically alone. The constancy of the Stroessner regime and the elimination of political competition for thirty-five years meant that Paraguay was often ignored by Latin Americanists choosing to focus their studies on more dynamic and accessible cases. This conference was the first international opportunity to end the isolation. It brought together Paraguay experts from diverse Asunción think tanks and U.S. universities for extended conversation with each other and with scholars who had specialized in the democratization processes of other Latin American countries. The goals, as described by Abraham Lowenthal, were to illuminate the Paraguayan case with the light of the comparative theory drawn from other Latin American transitions; to illuminate that theory, in light of the features of the Paraguayan case; and to learn how governments and international institutes might apply such insights to policy- making. The optimism among the scholars from Paraguay was palpable. There was hope that the conference itself would create momentum for further scholarly attention, at the international level, to Paraguayan politics. For the non-Paraguayan scholars, it was a unique chance to deepen understanding of the post-Stroessner era and to bring the Paraguayan case into the literature on democratization. The goal of bringing the results out to the international policy community was initiated immediately as several participants met with Washington policy-makers the following week, and a summary of the conference insights was reported back to journalists, politicians, and policy- makers in Asunción, in a follow-up meeting in January 1991. The conference began with an introduction to Paraguay’s political history. Subsequent sessions were organized for separate consideration of major structural factors, social actors, and political actors, followed by two comprehensive and comparative discussions of the transition process and prospects for democracy. Discussion and debate were based on formal papers, the majority of which will appear in revised form in a forthcoming volume from the University of Notre Dame Press edited by Diego Abente.1 This report follows the conference’s organizational scheme. The goal is to give the reader a summary of the principal political, structural, and social factors in Paraguayan politics, as described in the papers and discussion, and to outline the conference discussions about Paraguay’s prospects for completing its transition to democracy.2 Paraguayan Politics Pre-1989 According to Diego Abente3 prior to Stronism, Paraguay had a cyclical history involving the alternation of semi-competitive and noncompetitive regimes, culminating in a semi- competitive republic from 1870-1930. The republic incorporated liberal political and economic policies and civilian leadership.4 The principal modern political parties, the Liberals and the Colorados, developed their organizations and deep citizen loyalties during this period. 1 Author’s note: I have considered the papers prepared for this conference to be an integral part of the meeting. Therefore, I have not, as a general rule, distinguished in this report between what was “said” in the sessions and what was “said” in a paper, and have drawn from the papers and discussions freely. However, wherever confusion might arise about whether a difference of opinion was actually debated or merely uncovered in my comparison of papers and discussions, I have tried to clarify the context of the contradictory comments. 2 The reader may notice that the authors dominate the sections pertinent to their papers and that there is relatively little disagreement. This is an accurate reflection of a conference in which the Paraguayan conferees generally agreed in their interpretations of the past and present political situation and the non-Paraguayans generally saw it as their role to ask questions and clarify points in light of comparative experience, rather than to rebut views of this case. 3 Diego Abente began the conference with an introduction to Paraguayan political history. Except as noted, the summary in this section is based entirely upon his account, for despite an explicit request, no one at the table dissented from his historical interpretations. Abente’s perspective, Melissa Birch explained, reflects the scholarly consensus, although it is not the view of history available in Paraguay’s schools and newspapers. The minor discrepancies in historical perspective which arose in the course of the conference are noted in the footnotes or text of this report. 4 This aspect of Abente’s account—that Stronism represented, in some respects, a rupture with the nation’s past—was later contested by John Lewis, who argued that Paraguay has never known anything like liberal democracy, since an incumbent party never permitted its opponents to win an election. To many, this is a disagreement about distant history, not directly relevant to the discussion of the present transition