Closure on Balaguer

[bilijou]

My first memories of any political campaigning were those of Balaguer in ?86 and ?90. ?En la bemba de Pena Gomez aterrizan los aviones!? was all you could hear. From that point on, Balaguer was portrayed to me as a gentle, wise sort-of savior of the Dominican people. (the East was very pro-Balaguer) He actually looked harmless, like a grandfather. When I started hitting the history textbooks, I learned more about him. His relation with Trujillo is mentioned, though he was disconnected from the regime?s deeds. At no point was the oppression of the ?12 years? mentioned in the textbooks. As an apprentice of Trujillo, Balaguer learned to manipulate all information at Dominican?s disposal (like textbooks) to seal control.

When I got older, my father explained his hatred towards Balaguer. Many here know how much damage this man has done to our country. No matter what people say, Balaguer was a continuation of Trujillo. The corruption, fraud and oppression of his 12 years (known as neotrujillismo) prove this. The style of corruption we see today (which is eating us up) is a result of Balaguer. He introduced many of the bad habits among politician which hinder our development. Despite my father?s hatred for Balaguer, at the same time there was a certain sense of admiration for the man. This love/hate view of Balaguer is shared by many Dominicans, which contribute to the lack of closure expressed by many recently.

It is no surprise that the same happens with his mentor. Trujillo is considered a horrible dictator, yet many he is admired by many Dominicans. Many see the Trujillo Era as a ?Golden Age? of stability and order unlike today. His propaganda machine?s effects (mass media, the church, etc.) still linger in DR today. A significant portion of the population call for the return of some sort of Trujillismo. An ironfisted government that will make Dominicans proud. The ambiguity of Trujillo?s legacy (the ?what should be admired or not?) has distorted our view of democracy.

Closure is the key here?
We didn?t have closure from Trujillo. Trujillismo should?ve been isolated and cut off from our society like the cancer that it was (and still is today). The images of many crying after his death shows how far Trujillismo had gotten in the poorer classes, el campesinado. Some chemotherapy ? I mean propaganda ? should?ve been applied in case some of the cancerous cells were still alive as they could spread. If this was done, THEN maybe we would?ve had closure. But the time (Cold War) wasn?t right. The cancerous cells, with Balaguer as their leader, remained alive, and indeed, they spread. Today we see members of ALL political parties claiming, and even fighting for a piece of his memory.

I think that if you ask Dominicans for a word to describe Balaguer, it would be ?intelligent?. I don?t get it. Is this why he is admired? How can you isolate this trait, his biggest political tool ?intelligence?, from what he used it for (despotism)?
Don?t give me the ?he was a great writer/intellectual?. How many intellectuals were eliminated for this one great writer?

? ?Es entender la historia entre lo blanco y lo negro, sin entender los matices de la historia, es como creer que todo lo que est? y participa de una dictadura est? manchado, y hoy sabemos que no es as?.
Hoy no podemos condenar al rey Juan Carlos de Espa?a porque se form? durante el per?odo franquista, como no podemos condenar a Balaguer porque se form? baj? el r?gimen de Trujillo?
? Leonel in the recent homage to Balaguer​

Essentially clearing Balaguer from everything he did.
Balaguer was ?stained?, not only for his participation in the Trujillo regime (he was THE puppet President) but for his own regime, known for political repression. As long as we have our politicians admiring what this man represent we won?t have true unity under true democracy. This is disgusting.
Am I the only person who thinks that closure is necessary?

Are there any Balagueristas out there who can explain what I?m missing?
I don?t see any justification.

 

[Chirimoya]

Interesting post, bilijou. I think you put your finger on it - closure, or lack of it. Interesting also that Leonel should use King Juan Carlos as his parallel. JCI is a constitutional monarch with no real powers, unlike Balaguer whose position was far more than ceremonial.

In any case, there have always been questions about JCI's real role in the failed coup d'etat in Spain in the early 1980s. Although he came out smelling of roses, it has been said that he was involved in some way - until he realised which way the wind was blowing and made his famous pro-democracy TV broadcast.

Spain is so over Franco, who died much more recently than Trujillo. Spain transformed itself into a new country almost overnight, more or less by the end of the decade in which Franco died. The DR, in contrast, is still haunted by Trujillo's ghost almost half a decade later.

Balaguer is the main reason, IMO, that the Dominican people are still not over Trujillo - the fear of authority, the stoic acceptance of injustice and inefficiency, the overcentralisation of power, the 'presidentialist' culture, the clientilism, the corruption... they all live on.

 

[Squat]

Balaguer was a fantastic transition between hardcore dictatorship and nowadays regular "democracy".

That can't be done without a certain curve when starting from such a regime as Trujillo's.

Have a look at our closest neighbour's dictators. The Duvalliers from Haiti. Instead of having a smart man to perform the transition between Fran?ois Duvallier and a future stable regime, Haiti had Jean-Claude Duvallier, an inept rich kid, more interested in racing his sports car than in taking care of his native land. His lack of capacities are part of the roots of todays Haiti's turmoil.

My point is that Balaguer was indeed a regular human being : yes, there was political murders and big corruption while he was in power, and no, he was not a gentle "grand-father-like" saint. But he made a great job.

Keep in mind Balaguer was also the one who started the reforestation of our nation. He made illegal to cut down trees, and introduced a subsidized propane-gas and stove for average dominicans.

And it sounds very hypocritical to state that today's corruption among dominicans politics is coming only from Balaguer's time. It is plain false ! Corrupted politics is a way of life in America Latina, Balaguer is not the one who invented it ! Please wake up...

I think balaguer is one of the few great leader of the Dominican Republic of all times.

 

[Chirimoya]

...and he probably would have made the trains run on time, had there been any...

 

[A.Hidalgo]

...and he probably would have made the trains run on time, had there been any...

There will always be people who will compromise democracy to see those trains run on time.:ermm:

 

[bilijou]

Chirimoya,

I also found it interesting the comparison with JCI. First of all, though they were in the same side, the monarchists and the fascists were separate groups. Unlike Balaguer, who was part of the Trujillo intellect, and who CHOSE to be his apprentice (JCI was born into it). JCI helped the transition to democracy, was Balaguer democracy?


Squat,

A ?fantastic? transition into democracy you say?

You?re not the only one that says this. After his death Hipolito did several ceremonies in the parks Balaguer created. He called for the inscriptions on all the parks to say ?Joaquin Balaguer, Padre de la Democracia?.

?Father of Democracy? would imply he was elected freely. Everybody knows he was a puppet President. Everybody knows that at most, he only won one of his seven times in office, the rest were fixed.
?Father of Democracy? would imply he would allow Democracy to flourish. Instead, he assassinated journalists, students and the political opposition. On many of the elections, the opposition abstained from participating in elections. The deterioration of the concept of Democracy is evident when Bosch released ?Dictadura con respaldo popular?.
?Father of Democracy? would uphold an incorruptibility of Democracy. Balaguer was the first to give out money, buying votes. The propane gas subsidies that you mention were part of this buying of votes. Now that government funds are drained with these subsidies, it is a headache to get rid of them. How are subsidies any help?

Ah? his environmental policies. Passing laws to prevent trees from being cut down justifies everything he did?

My question to you is: what did Balaguer do that anybody else couldn?t?

 

[Squat]

Bilijou, I understand your views...

-However, how do you want to have a nation that is just out of 30+ years of dictatorship, metamorphoses itself in a democratic paradise overnight ???

I am not saying Balaguer was perfect, but I maintain that he has been a great leader, better than most, and play a very positive role for the nation.

 

[bilijou]

Squat,

I don?t mean to be aggressive about this, but I really want to understand why he is seen as a great leader. You have mentioned twice that Dominicans weren?t ready for Democracy:

Balaguer was a fantastic transition between hardcore dictatorship and nowadays regular "democracy". That can't be done without a certain curve when starting from such a regime as Trujillo's.
[?]how do you want to have a nation that is just out of 30+ years of dictatorship, metamorphoses itself in a democratic paradise overnight ???

Why not? Was it necessary to go through moderate dictatorship (?a curve? as you call it) before reaching democracy?

Trujillo?s dictatorship was very concentrated on Trujillo ONLY, not any movement. The symbolism in the regime was his around Trujillo?s character. As one of the richest men in the world, Trujillo had uncontested power. He sealed control over the country without having to share, unlike Balaguer. Balaguer?s ?curve?/moderate dictatorship was made possible by anchoring his power in the military and the ruling elite classes, effectively dispersing the cancer. It was a corrupt free-for-all, especially when it came to dealing with the state run companies Trujillo left over. What if we would've avoided the diffussion of the trujillismo-balaguerismo ways?

All the signs show that Dominicans were ready for Democracy by the time Bosch came into power. Why did they have to experience a coup d?etat, political repression and then low turnouts at the polls?
Is this what you need before really experiencing democracy?
Didn?t we have enough sour (with Trujillo) to taste the sweet?

 

[A.Hidalgo]

Bilijou, I understand your views...

-However, how do you want to have a nation that is just out of 30+ years of dictatorship, metamorphoses itself in a democratic paradise overnight ???

I am not saying Balaguer was perfect, but I maintain that he has been a great leader, better than most, and play a very positive role for the nation.

Being realistic no one should expect a democratic paradise overnight. The least one should hope for and expect is fair and open elections and respect for human rights. Nothing justifies getting a knock in the middle of the night just because you are a critic of the government.

Balaguer learned very well from the Trujillo era. He thought of himself as a father figure and the country his children.

 

[Rick Snyder]

As this thread was started with the overture of bringing closure to people like Balaguer and Trujillo some posts continue to show that they are the ones that don?t wish to bring closure. They also fail to show why he should continue to be moralized when most of his actions fail to meet the test of morality.

I can understand a country and its people wishing and needing a person to serve as its Saint, God or Savior but to use a person that a lot of the population can remember due to their affiliation with that person when the fact that the person in question can be remembered as not fulfilling the desired role only demonstrates hypocrisy.

When the use of the word ?democracy? is used in conjunction with a person that person must show a history of democratic values to withstand its usage. From all the history of this island that I have read the only person recently deceased that might fit that bill would be Bosch but he wasn?t in power long enough to determine if he was a ?great? one.

It is safe to use people like Duarte, Mella and S?nchez because nobody remembers them except by what they read. As they are written as saviors of this country and nobody can contest that then that is the way they are remembered.

Looking at modern day history of this island I would think the Leonel Fern?ndez would or should come to mind as a savior of this island. His name could safely be used in conjunction with the word democracy also. The fact that the country is better off then before gives credence to his being a ?savior?.

Of course there are those who do or will wish for Hippo to be added to those journals of saviors and only time will tell if he makes that journal because I think he falls into the same class as Balaguer and Trujillo.

So out of the 8 people I mentioned in my post how many have served as positive role models for the Dominican Republic and its people? If they haven?t served as positive role models they shouldn?t be used now as a crutch to lean on as a rallying point for the future of the Dominican Republic. If they were not democratic their names shouldn?t be used in conjunction with the word democracy and everything that it stands for.

You should be very careful in who you pick to worship as your savior.

Rick

 

[Tordok]

Anyone in Balaguer's position would have had serious obstacles in jump-starting a rapid transition to democracy after Trujillo's long iron-fisted rule and the years of unrest (Juntas and weak coalitions) and false starts (Bosch) right after his death. Given the lack of fundamental elements for democracy to take hold in a semi-literate country of mostly peasants with no tradition of democratic society.

Instead of Balaguer's slowly paced transition to open the political process the country could have ended up in a much different situation, take your pick:
- under prolonged U.S. intervention
- under perpetual civil war
- under a Castro-like communist State
- under a Right wing, openly repressive Trujillismo led by the armed forces.

Balaguer was no saint but viewing him as simply another egomaniacal autocrat is not accurate either. It would have been nicer if he manufactured a faster track to open society, but he, like everyone else, was immersed in circumstances bigger than any one individual and as we can still se to this day, Dominican society is not developed enough for a more mature form of democratic rule.

IMO, both Hippo and Leonel are wrong and simply using nostalgia and lore of Balaguer's myth to their advantage. in my view, there is no single father of democracy in the DR. Balaguer's slow reforms and the role of the opposition (by the likes of Pena-Gomez, Bosch, labor unions) as well as the ofrces of private enterprise leadership, foreign diplomatic pressure, et al; all ultimately contributed to shape today's much improved (but still far from complete) process of democratization.

- Tordok

 

[NALs]

Democracy is the product of the social conditions of a nation.

If the social conditions are not there, neither democracy nor capitalism will flurish.

And contrary to popular belief, democracy does not always leads to a prosperous capitalist system and capitalism does not need democracy in order to exist.

To conclude, if democracy results from the will of the people it almost always flourishes well. If, however, democracy is forced upon by foreign intervention or a small group of people who wish to control a nation then what I call pre-mature democracy evolves.

The "side effects" of premature democracy includes all the ills found in third world politics such as personalismo, clientelism, etc.

-NALs

 

[Chris]

In my view, there is no single father of democracy in the DR. Balaguer's slow reforms and the role of the opposition (by the likes of Pena-Gomez, Bosch, labor unions) as well as the ofrces of private enterprise leadership, foreign diplomatic pressure, et al; all ultimately contributed to shape today's much improved (but still far from complete) process of democratization.

- Tordok

As I cannot see the DR as a democratic country, I cannot see a father of democracy in amongst the cadre of historical and current leaders.

As Nals said (and everyone gets to say something right sometimes ), democracy is a product of a social system, or a social conditioning that is ready for a democratic system. I do not see all the pieces in place yet in the DR.

In terms of closure, I think closure can only come when there is closure, and here in the DR, nothing has replaced the certainty that the dictators brought. You mess up, you're a dead man! Binary, Yes or No! I don't yet see a leader of 'democratic' stature emerging.

 

[Rick Snyder]

Tordok as usual your post spoke very well and precisely to the position and outcome that transpired. You failed to address the OP and Nal's did likewise by failing to address the issue of whether there should be closure to the memories of Balaguer.

I as an outsider would very much like hear your opinions on this issue as like Bilijou, you and Nal's are Dominican also that have also lived the life in the US and are therefore very intelligent and I take the opinions of people like yourselves very seriously.

Rick

Edited to add;

I don't think we are talking about "a leader of 'democratic' stature" but rather a person that can and should be placed in that "savior" role. As the DR is not yet to the position of democracy as a lot of people would classify the word. I think it unfair to use democratic when talking about a person from the past.

 

[Chirimoya]

History is full of examples of countries that emerged from dictatorship and made a successful transition to democracy. Spain has already been mentioned, and ignored by all the posters who said you can't go from dictatorship to democracy overnight. Spain managed it in less than a decade. Here in the DR we're in the fifth post-Trujillo decade and still counting. What is so different about the two cases? BTW I'm not asking that rhetorically - I think the cases are similar but wonder about the differences between the two societies and their economies as well as the post-dictator leadership/government style that caused Spain to flourish and the DR to flounder.

Post-WW2 (West) Germany is another example. Some of the former eastern bloc countries like the Czech Republic are doing OK. Then again there are also a number of disasters, as seen in the Balkans, but the reasons for this are not analogous to the DR's case.

As I said I don't know what all the crucial factors are, but having a truly visionary leader has to be among them.

 

[bilijou]

It seems most of us are divided over one thing: whether democracy was possible in post-Trujillo. Squat says that is should be done in a ?curve?. Tordok says there was a ?lack of Fundamental elements for democracy to take hold?. This is echoed by others,

?El historiador Guti?rrez F?lix dijo que el l?der reformista jug? un papel pol?tico muy ajustado a la realidad del momento durante el per?odo de transici?n de la dictadura a la democracia dominicana.?
?De su lado, monse?or Benito ?ngeles, secretario de la Conferencia del Episcopado Dominicano, consider? que el doctor Joaqu?n Balaguer es un protagonista y promotor de la democracia dominicana que jug? un papel importante en el proceso de transici?n de la dictadura a la democracia dominicana, que debe ser tomado en cuenta por toda la sociedad.?
-Listin​

When did Balaguer act in the name of Democracy?
May I remind you all that this is the man that a little over a decade ago that agreed to cut his administration short (2 years) having committed fraud in the elections. The moment when the ?transition into Democracy? was complete (?96) was when he had to let go of power. How can he be the reason for the transition into democracy if he didn?t participate in it?
Would there be democracy in DR if Balaguer were alive? I seriously doubt he would let go of power.

A bit of History
This concept, mentioned above, of Dominicans not being ready for Democracy is as old as DR itself. This essay, by Andres L. Mateo, is the closest I could find to explain this. The Dominican political scene has been dominated by the pragmatists and idealists. The essay cites a recurring concept among the Dominican intellectual class: the unfeasibility of a liberal, idealist Dominican government. At the time of Independence, Duarte?s ideas were ?nice? but weren?t seen as viable. As it always happens, the pragmatic conservatives (Pedro Santana, Buenaventura Baez) took over and reinforced this idea. The idea that Dominicans can?t live under a liberal democratic government has been prevalent ever since. The fact that Bosch?s government (in the 60?s) wasn?t seen as viable for being too liberal shows how alive this idea was 120 years after independence. Like Duarte, his ideas were "nice" but not viable. Today, polls show that 8 out of 10 Dominicans ask for an iron-fisted government (conservatives).
You might as well say, Dominicans aren?t capable of governing themselves. How can anyone say Democracy wasn?t possible after Dictatorship? The liberal Bosch government wouldn?t be able to handle the transition?

Chris said something interesting, "I think closure can only come when there is closure, and here in the DR, nothing has replaced the certainty that the dictators brought. " The reason Balaguer is admired for his intelligence is because he knew how to play the liberal/idealist vs. the conservative/pragmatist dichotomy to his advantage. He (together with Trujillo) made it seem as if "certainty" cannot be achieved under a liberal democracy.

The Future

Virtudes ?lvarez opin? que ?declarar a Balaguer patrimionio hist?rico del pueblo dominicano es una evidencia de c?mo el conservadurismo ha ido avanzando a lo interno del PLD?, y que el partido en el Gobierno, con el presidente Leonel Fern?ndez a la cabeza, es ?la nueva derecha del pa?s?.
-Listin​

Leonel is positioning himself and his party as the ?new right? in DR. The new pragmatic, conservatives. Most of the old balagueristas are already in his party. He is seeming more and more like the old man every day, increasingly conservative. As I stated in the OP, the cancer has spread, it needs to die. We need closure for democracy.

 

[Chris]

Leonel is positioning himself and his party as the ?new right? in DR. The new pragmatic, conservatives. Most of the old balagueristas are already in his party. He is seeming more and more like the old man every day, increasingly conservative. As I stated in the OP, the cancer has spread, it needs to die. We need closure for democracy.

This last paragraph of yours is a little chilling.

.... If one accepts that some kind of societal 'closure' or 'purging' of old values is needed before this country can make a successful transition to some kind of democracy....

... and then one extrapolates the idea that Leonel is in a sense moving backwards on this one issue under discussion, i.e, making progress to some kind of democracy....

... Then one also has to accept that the DR society is in a place where they are the victims of wheel spinning.

But, we actually knew all that and I don't know why I'm saying it again. A democratic society educates its people.

It is the old conundrum. Change comes through evolution, or revolution. It seems to me that we are proving that an evolutionary process here in the DR is a 'spinning the wheels' process. Viva La Revoluc?on? Or What?

 

[NALs]

History is full of examples of countries that emerged from dictatorship and made a successful transition to democracy. Spain has already been mentioned, and ignored by all the posters who said you can't go from dictatorship to democracy overnight. Spain managed it in less than a decade. Here in the DR we're in the fifth post-Trujillo decade and still counting. What is so different about the two cases? BTW I'm not asking that rhetorically - I think the cases are similar but wonder about the differences between the two societies and their economies as well as the post-dictator leadership/government style that caused Spain to flourish and the DR to flounder.

From an economic point of view, the difference between Franco's Spain and Trujillo's Dominicana was that when Franco lost power, he lost his power due to a civil war initiated by the people of Spain wishing to be freed from the iron fist.

Trujillo's Dominicana on the other hand was abruptly thrown into a power vaccum on that 30th of May of 1961 with the abrupt assassination (ie. decapitation) of Trujillo and his regime. The power vaccum that followed was attempted to be eliminated by his son who had absolutely no legitimacy in the eyes of most people and thus, many ignored his orders and he had no choice but to flee the country - after cleaning the coffers, of course.

What followed was nothing more than a foreign power (U.S.) molding the tiny republic from something it created in the 1920s (the Trujillo dictatorship) to something else that would continue to ensure and protect American investments in the republic. Hence, the U.S. government was the sole shaper of what was to become the Dominican Republic post-Trujillo and that nation could had cared less what occured as long as US interests were respected. This lead to support of Balaguer (a staunch protectionist of American investment - at times with an iron fist not much different from Trujillo's). Additionally, this also lead to the unjustifiable elimination of Juan Bosch from power under the pretext of he being a Communist. Of course, years later we learn that all he wanted was to break the large landholdings and create a new land reform which would had benefited the landless peasants in a country where 70 to 80% of the land was owned by the state and a small number of wealthy families (the few who were not harassed by the Trujillo regime). Not to mention that his plans actually had the little guy in mind, a big no no in a country carpeted by much valued sugarcane, of which 80 to 90% went to the U.S. in one shape or another (ie. molasses, sugar, etc).

In other words, the DR failed to develop into a very successful democracy because the majority of the people were outside the moneyed economy at the time the Trujillo regime was eliminated. Post-Trujillo those who had access to the moneyed economy gained control, the new system worked to their advantaged and those who were outside the moneyed economy remained outside until the 1970s and 80s onward, when massive emigration gave access to hard currency to many formely impoverished and hopeless families.

Dictatorship, despite being very cruel and heavily violating human rights, are an effective tool of developing a nation economically, as long as the leadership of such dictatorship wishes to develop the nation. As a nation becomes wealthier, the people demand more freedom. Because greater general wealth leads to better education, better understanding of how things work, and most important of all, knowledge of the difference in lifestyle between educated people in dictatorship ruled nation vs. those in democracies causes people to react against repression. Because such reactions are created by people who have collective economic power (ie. the middle class) who are often people not as traditionally bound as the elites and not as powerless as the peasants, the regime would have to either comply with the demand of the middle class or face a collapse of the economy and consequently the dictatorship as well.

This is playing very well in China right now, with the most prosperous regions of China demanding and becoming more democratized by the will of the people, correction by the will of the up and coming middle class people. Those people would not dare challenge the state if they were to remain poor peasants and they would object to change if they were elites, but since they are new middle class not afraid to use their collective economic power to challenge the state while not bound to tradition, and thus receptive to change, the dictatorial state has no choice but to grant the desires of the most mobilized individuals in such society.

Compare that to how the DR was thrown into the suppose "democracy" and it becomes clear why it did not went as planed. In fact, such comparisons can be done between all successful democracies and not so successful democracies and the clearness appears as to why one was successful and the other was not.

As I said I don't know what all the crucial factors are, but having a truly visionary leader has to be among them.

Certainly, a visionary leader is essential.

However, by social conditions I mean having the way of thought that would make the most of a democratic system.

For example, the biggest problem in the developing world is the "struggle" between traditional society and modernity.

In a modern society (ie. Western), individuality, respect to the authority of the state, etc are essential.

In a traditional society (ie. non-western), very often collective action is preferred over individuality, respect to an authority figure is preferred to respect to the state, etc. An authority figure could be elders or a leader.

Under a modern society a leader is someone who has a plan to help perpetrate the will of the people by asking them what they want to accomplish. In a traditional society a leader is someone who tells them what to do and makes his authority very clear through strong tactics.

Thus, in a traditional society the leader could be consider to be simultaneously a spiritual healer, a God, a wiseman, a judge, and a father like figure.

When such traditional society is disrupted by foreign powers and imposes on them an alien system of governance that they are not ready to take the most advantage from, then we get the modern third world state.

"Democracy" is brought from abroad to the traditional society, however because in a traditional society leadership is invested in the perceived strenght or sanctity of an individual, politics revolves around the charisma of a political figure rather than competing political ideologies. It's quite obvious that this is the start of a faulty democratic system where votes are gained through the charisma of an individual vs. a particular ideology. Government job positions are used as tools to reward those who support that particular individual rather than as instruments to improve the society. Because this leads to an overblown beuracracy, inefficiencies develop. Thus, you will witness a law being passed demanding that all motorists need to change their license plates, but there is only one office where such thing could be done, only two people working at such office, and 500 motorist with the need to change their license plates. Obviously, it would be impossible to do such thing in a decent amount of time so the way motorist could skip the hurdle of beuracracy is through kickbacks or bribing in order to speed up the process.

So on and so forth the spiral into a failed democracy starts all because a society was not ready for an alien system of governance.

-NALs

 

[NALs]

A democratic society educates its people.

That is correct.

However, that is only true in successful democratic societies.

In societies where democracy was imposed without the elites or the foreign power accepting such change bargaining with their masses, then you get a democracy that is nothing more than an olygarchy in disguise.

Thus, educating the people will not be a priority because democracy does not really exist in it's successful entirety.

If democracy did exist in its entirety, then education would become a priority since a democracy always gives the people what it wants. But, those people must be ready to accept that democracy and that is where the problem lies.

The DR was thrown into democracy without the masses being prepared for such change (ie. bargaining) and this lead to those who were prepared (elites, foreigners, etc) gaining tremendous advantages over those who were not able to prepare for the new system.

And as all humans, once power and wealth is gained by a group of people, it becomes extremely difficult for them to give that away.

-NALs

 

[Chirimoya]

another Nals classic?

...when Franco lost power, he lost his power due to a civil war initiated by the people of Spain wishing to be freed from the iron fist.

errrm... you lost me there. I suggest you re-check your historical facts.