profio, i am curious what forces,in your opinion, (the sinister ones), are behind want is happening in latin america?
- Thread starter Jersey Devil
- Start date
Greatest Dominican President
It matters not whether or not the Head of government is Great or mediocre.
What really matters is that that government and it's appended functions are sensative to the wellbeing of the nation and it's people economically, socially and healthfully.
When the ones in power ignore those essential factors in order to perpetuate their own tenures, the seeds of revolution are planted and nurtured, eventually to the point of fruition. Then the bloodbath begins and the incumbents are replaced. Sometimes by a better group, sometimes by a group just as bad who forgot their mandate.
Regardless, NONE of the current nor the Previous Presidents of this republic can be considered as Great by ANY definition of the term.
Since this was off-thread, I'll shut up.
Texas Bill
What really matters is that that government and it's appended functions are sensative to the wellbeing of the nation and it's people economically, socially and healthfully.
When the ones in power ignore those essential factors in order to perpetuate their own tenures, the seeds of revolution are planted and nurtured, eventually to the point of fruition. Then the bloodbath begins and the incumbents are replaced. Sometimes by a better group, sometimes by a group just as bad who forgot their mandate.
Regardless, NONE of the current nor the Previous Presidents of this republic can be considered as Great by ANY definition of the term.
Since this was off-thread, I'll shut up.
Texas Bill
A worthy subject for another thread, perhaps?
Bill, I agree totally. One of the problems with the way things work here is "Presidencialismo" - perhaps not the Trujillo-style cult of personality but a definite, over-centralised focus on the President rather than the government and its institutions.
I cite as examples the fact that people are asked to vote for an individual rather than a party, the fact that the candidate's personality rather than ideology/political programmes are the focus of an election campaign, the signs that say "El Presidente cumpliendo, SEOPC trabajando" on roadworks, comments such as "esta carretera la hizo Balaguer " and conversely ("fulano lo mato Balaguer") carried over to subsequent administrations too, with no sign of diminishing.
I know of a public sector doctor who got a job in another part of the country, but has spent months waiting to be transferred because "Hipolito needs to sign the order" - and this apparently is literal.
Chiri
Bill, I agree totally. One of the problems with the way things work here is "Presidencialismo" - perhaps not the Trujillo-style cult of personality but a definite, over-centralised focus on the President rather than the government and its institutions.
I cite as examples the fact that people are asked to vote for an individual rather than a party, the fact that the candidate's personality rather than ideology/political programmes are the focus of an election campaign, the signs that say "El Presidente cumpliendo, SEOPC trabajando" on roadworks, comments such as "esta carretera la hizo Balaguer " and conversely ("fulano lo mato Balaguer") carried over to subsequent administrations too, with no sign of diminishing.
I know of a public sector doctor who got a job in another part of the country, but has spent months waiting to be transferred because "Hipolito needs to sign the order" - and this apparently is literal.
Chiri
Last edited:
joel pacheco said:
Well, since you asked (Criss, Tony C., and Escott should tune out to this answer because it's intent is not to start a "Domicans don't take blame for anything" shouting contest:
A downward spiral fed by (i) horrendous population curves matched to (ii) exploitative economic and political relationships between the wealthy and poor nations, including (iii) poor public education and (iv) a virtual conspiracy between the IMF, investment banks and bloodsucking latin american governments (in most instances elected by ignorant populaces).
For reasons that can only be called short-sighted, the wealthy nations do not seem interested in industrial and social development in Latin America (which would be mutually beneficial as increasing overall levels of two-way trade) but, rather, seem happy enough to have their financial institutions profit on loan schemes (ditto for the political classes of these countries) paid off the backs of poor latin americans engaged in raw material extraction or base levels of production.
Disclaimer: I AM IN FAVOR OF FREE MARKET ECONOMICS AND CAPITALISM IN GENERAL. The primary causes of this downward spiral are anomolies in the free market system brought about by incredible differences in market power and, again, by the ongoing virtual conspiracy between the financeers of the wealthy nations and the political classes of the poor nations. In essense, the financeers of wealthy nations pay for the election of corrupt governments throughout Latin America.
Last edited:
LA ERA DE TRUJILLO
I am, by no means a party to despots. those that use brutal repression to maintain power. But, and this is a BIG but, he and other monsters like him, generally brough stability,peace, and, dare I say, prosperity? Trujillo was bad to the bone, BUT he KNEW how to govern. The people knew what he was, yet overwhelmingly wanted him in power.... In the end, we have to admit; it is not how legal or genuine a nation's goverment is. What REALLY, REALLY counts is how stable and well-off you may be politicaly, socially and, most importantly, financially. Therefore, Trujillo has my vote as the best ruler DR has ever had.
Leonel second, balaguer third and HIPPO dead last.
I am, by no means a party to despots. those that use brutal repression to maintain power. But, and this is a BIG but, he and other monsters like him, generally brough stability,peace, and, dare I say, prosperity? Trujillo was bad to the bone, BUT he KNEW how to govern. The people knew what he was, yet overwhelmingly wanted him in power.... In the end, we have to admit; it is not how legal or genuine a nation's goverment is. What REALLY, REALLY counts is how stable and well-off you may be politicaly, socially and, most importantly, financially. Therefore, Trujillo has my vote as the best ruler DR has ever had.
Leonel second, balaguer third and HIPPO dead last.
Cordell Hull. the US Secretary of State during Trujillo's incumbency, made a statement to the Press that said it all! "He(Trujillo) may be nothing but a Dictator, BUT he's OUR Dictator"!
I really think Mr. Hull was being flippant, but the effect was to say, essentially, that whatever Trujillo did, was OK by the US, other sentiments notwithstanding.
That merely reinforced the US stand of supporting a de facto government, which had been policy to that and subsequent times(excluding certain Communist leaning governments).
Texas Bill
I really think Mr. Hull was being flippant, but the effect was to say, essentially, that whatever Trujillo did, was OK by the US, other sentiments notwithstanding.
That merely reinforced the US stand of supporting a de facto government, which had been policy to that and subsequent times(excluding certain Communist leaning governments).
Texas Bill
Re: Don Juan
I was born in 1949, Trujillo's dictatorship ended in 1962. So yes, I did experience the tail end of it. When this devils' rule collapsed, all hell broke loose as if a bomb suddently went off. It was a very dramatic experience for me because I had never seen people take to the streets shouting, looting and calling for death to the " Calies" or Trujillo's sympathisers. We lived around calle Ravelo and Jacinto de la Concha which is where a lot of the action was taking place. My family had to quickly scramble to moved to a half-built home in Los Minas where, ironically, Trujillo had given us a "solar' to build on. From the relative safety of this place, I could hear bombs and plenty of gunfire go off at a distance. My innocent childhood ended soon after when I witnessed the capture and plublic lynching of a poor, desperate man. he was shot dead by the police over the outcries of his relatives. I knew then my life and my querida "Ciudad Trujillo" was forever changed. Very sad times indeed. We inmigrated to the US. in late1963.
calamardoazul said:I wonder ,How old are you? Did you experienced the Trujillo
era first hand?
I was born in 1949, Trujillo's dictatorship ended in 1962. So yes, I did experience the tail end of it. When this devils' rule collapsed, all hell broke loose as if a bomb suddently went off. It was a very dramatic experience for me because I had never seen people take to the streets shouting, looting and calling for death to the " Calies" or Trujillo's sympathisers. We lived around calle Ravelo and Jacinto de la Concha which is where a lot of the action was taking place. My family had to quickly scramble to moved to a half-built home in Los Minas where, ironically, Trujillo had given us a "solar' to build on. From the relative safety of this place, I could hear bombs and plenty of gunfire go off at a distance. My innocent childhood ended soon after when I witnessed the capture and plublic lynching of a poor, desperate man. he was shot dead by the police over the outcries of his relatives. I knew then my life and my querida "Ciudad Trujillo" was forever changed. Very sad times indeed. We inmigrated to the US. in late1963.
Last edited:
My mother moved to Spain around 63 too. She told me one of her most vivid childhood memories is when De La Maza was shot and killed in the Independencia Park, she remember a woman stumping her feet on a pond of blood splashing it all over her skirt and crying revenge for Trujillo.
S
Stephen
Guest
Re: suggestion....
It is interesting that you say that you beleive in democracy, since the leader you are talking about did not.
I recomend reading "Dictadura con respaldo popular" where Bosh confeses that he does not beleive in Democracy. I also want to point out that I have not seen a communist nation that lives under a democratic system. And, if you read "The road to Serfdom" by Hayek, where he explains how comunism leads to dictatorship. Therefore, I don't think the vision that Bosh had for the country was the right one. I do thing he had good intentions, and that he was honest, but he was wrong in his politics.
Another point is that, it is not only I who thinks that. During the government of Leonel, I have not found any of Bosh main ideas being implemented, rather I see a lot of conservativism. The way I look at it, is that Bosh was so wrong, that even his own party agrees with that, obviously not with words, but the facts are there.
I would like to see one of Bosh main ideas that the PLD implemented in the government, in terms of agriculture, or foreign investment, government intervention in marketplace, property rights. I think Bosh has enough writings to understand his views in those perspective, however, fortunately for the country, those views are only in writings.
I just want to point out again that I do think that he had good intentions, and that he was honest, that is something I do not question.
Christian Corcino
saturnc15_DR said:
It is interesting that you say that you beleive in democracy, since the leader you are talking about did not.
I recomend reading "Dictadura con respaldo popular" where Bosh confeses that he does not beleive in Democracy. I also want to point out that I have not seen a communist nation that lives under a democratic system. And, if you read "The road to Serfdom" by Hayek, where he explains how comunism leads to dictatorship. Therefore, I don't think the vision that Bosh had for the country was the right one. I do thing he had good intentions, and that he was honest, but he was wrong in his politics.
Another point is that, it is not only I who thinks that. During the government of Leonel, I have not found any of Bosh main ideas being implemented, rather I see a lot of conservativism. The way I look at it, is that Bosh was so wrong, that even his own party agrees with that, obviously not with words, but the facts are there.
I would like to see one of Bosh main ideas that the PLD implemented in the government, in terms of agriculture, or foreign investment, government intervention in marketplace, property rights. I think Bosh has enough writings to understand his views in those perspective, however, fortunately for the country, those views are only in writings.
I just want to point out again that I do think that he had good intentions, and that he was honest, that is something I do not question.
Christian Corcino
Last edited:
Balaguer was the greatest President
To me, and to the majority of dominicans I know, the answer is simple. Balaguer.
I think our history will be divided in two, befor 1966 and after. Based only in facts, before this period our country was a caos. Dictatorships and civil wars. There was no lasting period of peace. After 1966, there was a transition to Democracy, that relative to what was before, it was a great inprovement to the system. And in the past 40 years there have been 0 (zero) civil wars, and Democracy have improved. I would like to find another similar period in our history.
The first three period of Balaguer are very interesting, mainly because it was a transition to democracy. I want to point out that internally in the country the military was very powerful, and the political and organizational structure in the country was dictatorship. As you can not expect Iraq to be a democracy in a short period of time, we could not be a democracy in that period, mainly because we did not know what it was. It was only mainly a concept. There was no institutions for it, the people did not have experience. I also want to point out that internationally and mainly after the Cuban Misile crisis, the CIA ordered to kill leftist in DR, and some other countries in Latin America. Time Magazine makes a reference to that in the article http://www.time.com/time/archive/pr...-449497,00.html .
I also want to quote the word of Leonel Fernandez (who is an opositor to Balaguer) about that period:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuando se examine en forma desapasionada esa etapa turbulenta de nuestra historia, y se cuestionen c?mo fue posible la supervivencia de nuestro sistema pol?tico, a?n en ausencia de radiciones, valores e instituciones democr?ticas, la respuesta, invariablemente, tendr? que ser una sola.
La democracia pudo sobrevivir porque cont? con el privilegio de la presencia de los JB: Joaqu?n Balaguer y Juan Bosch.
El doctor Joaqu?n Balaguer desde el poder, y el profesor Juan Bosch, desde la oposici?n fueron las dos figuras que las proporcionaron sentido de equilibrio y de estabilidad al sistema pol?tico en la Rep?blica Dominicana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:http://www.leonelfernandez.com/elpr...1996/16-08b.htm
Even an oposition leader like Fernandez, to my conclusion, agree with the sensitiveness of the period.
So, acording to me, Balaguer was the responsible for the level of democracy we currently have.
Another success of Balaguer is his economic policies, he revived the economy of the country twice. First in 1966, after the civil war, he reconstructed the country, and during the period of 1770 to 1773 the economy was growing at an average of 11% anually. The highest since 1966.
In 1978 he left the country with an external debt of about 25% of GDP, he received it in 1986 with a debt of 62% of the GDP, and in 1996 the PLD received the Gov. with a debt of 29% of the GDP.
During his second period, the tourism sector flourished, he was the first one to notice the importance of direct foreign investment, and the first one to make important laws to incentivate it. Like laws enacted in 1990. Acording to Ahora Magazine:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La pol?tica de inversi?n extranjera vigente hoy d?a en Rep?blica Dominicana, se inici? en 1990, con un conjunto de reformas que continuaron con la puesta en ejecuci?n de una disciplina fiscal continua y una pol?tica monetaria m?s fuerte, que impuls? el aumento del capital extranjero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.ahora.com.do/Edicion1334...ctualidad4.html
Which back upt my claim. Another important law to incentivate foreign investment was passed in 1995. Acording to Ahora Magazine:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desde principios de los 90?s, Rep?blica Dominicana ha mejorado su pol?tica de atracci?n de inversi?n extranjera. En 1995 aprob? la ley 16-95, en la cual se permite el acceso de capital for?neo a muchos de los sectores que estaban restringidos, concede trato nacional a los inversionistas extranjeros y elimina las restricciones de remesa de capital y utilidades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the vision of foreign investment helping our economy was Balaguer's. I want to point out that the vision of Bosh, leader of PLD was the contrary to that, and that the PLD gov. followed Balaguers vision, rather than Bosh.
The last thing I would like to say is that the smallest government in term of spending where the Gov. of Balaguer, The private sector was the one driving the economy growth during those goverments.
I could say a lot more, but I think I have said enough.
Christian Corcino
To me, and to the majority of dominicans I know, the answer is simple. Balaguer.
I think our history will be divided in two, befor 1966 and after. Based only in facts, before this period our country was a caos. Dictatorships and civil wars. There was no lasting period of peace. After 1966, there was a transition to Democracy, that relative to what was before, it was a great inprovement to the system. And in the past 40 years there have been 0 (zero) civil wars, and Democracy have improved. I would like to find another similar period in our history.
The first three period of Balaguer are very interesting, mainly because it was a transition to democracy. I want to point out that internally in the country the military was very powerful, and the political and organizational structure in the country was dictatorship. As you can not expect Iraq to be a democracy in a short period of time, we could not be a democracy in that period, mainly because we did not know what it was. It was only mainly a concept. There was no institutions for it, the people did not have experience. I also want to point out that internationally and mainly after the Cuban Misile crisis, the CIA ordered to kill leftist in DR, and some other countries in Latin America. Time Magazine makes a reference to that in the article http://www.time.com/time/archive/pr...-449497,00.html .
I also want to quote the word of Leonel Fernandez (who is an opositor to Balaguer) about that period:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuando se examine en forma desapasionada esa etapa turbulenta de nuestra historia, y se cuestionen c?mo fue posible la supervivencia de nuestro sistema pol?tico, a?n en ausencia de radiciones, valores e instituciones democr?ticas, la respuesta, invariablemente, tendr? que ser una sola.
La democracia pudo sobrevivir porque cont? con el privilegio de la presencia de los JB: Joaqu?n Balaguer y Juan Bosch.
El doctor Joaqu?n Balaguer desde el poder, y el profesor Juan Bosch, desde la oposici?n fueron las dos figuras que las proporcionaron sentido de equilibrio y de estabilidad al sistema pol?tico en la Rep?blica Dominicana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:http://www.leonelfernandez.com/elpr...1996/16-08b.htm
Even an oposition leader like Fernandez, to my conclusion, agree with the sensitiveness of the period.
So, acording to me, Balaguer was the responsible for the level of democracy we currently have.
Another success of Balaguer is his economic policies, he revived the economy of the country twice. First in 1966, after the civil war, he reconstructed the country, and during the period of 1770 to 1773 the economy was growing at an average of 11% anually. The highest since 1966.
In 1978 he left the country with an external debt of about 25% of GDP, he received it in 1986 with a debt of 62% of the GDP, and in 1996 the PLD received the Gov. with a debt of 29% of the GDP.
During his second period, the tourism sector flourished, he was the first one to notice the importance of direct foreign investment, and the first one to make important laws to incentivate it. Like laws enacted in 1990. Acording to Ahora Magazine:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La pol?tica de inversi?n extranjera vigente hoy d?a en Rep?blica Dominicana, se inici? en 1990, con un conjunto de reformas que continuaron con la puesta en ejecuci?n de una disciplina fiscal continua y una pol?tica monetaria m?s fuerte, que impuls? el aumento del capital extranjero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.ahora.com.do/Edicion1334...ctualidad4.html
Which back upt my claim. Another important law to incentivate foreign investment was passed in 1995. Acording to Ahora Magazine:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desde principios de los 90?s, Rep?blica Dominicana ha mejorado su pol?tica de atracci?n de inversi?n extranjera. En 1995 aprob? la ley 16-95, en la cual se permite el acceso de capital for?neo a muchos de los sectores que estaban restringidos, concede trato nacional a los inversionistas extranjeros y elimina las restricciones de remesa de capital y utilidades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the vision of foreign investment helping our economy was Balaguer's. I want to point out that the vision of Bosh, leader of PLD was the contrary to that, and that the PLD gov. followed Balaguers vision, rather than Bosh.
The last thing I would like to say is that the smallest government in term of spending where the Gov. of Balaguer, The private sector was the one driving the economy growth during those goverments.
I could say a lot more, but I think I have said enough.
Christian Corcino
The greatest Dominican president?
Vicini, Bonetti, Le?n, Corripio, Grull?n, Armenteros, hazoury, B?ez, Jimenez, Brugal, Pellerano, Najri, Selm?n, Cuesta, Ramos, Rainieri, Garc?a, Menicucci...
Take your pick...
Other very important and influencial DR presidents, Harry S. Truman, Eisenhawer, JFK, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.
Balaguer, Trujillo, V?squez and Lilis account for 100+ years of the 160 we've been a country for... all of them put there or maintained by the US.
Who are we kidding?
Vicini, Bonetti, Le?n, Corripio, Grull?n, Armenteros, hazoury, B?ez, Jimenez, Brugal, Pellerano, Najri, Selm?n, Cuesta, Ramos, Rainieri, Garc?a, Menicucci...
Take your pick...
Other very important and influencial DR presidents, Harry S. Truman, Eisenhawer, JFK, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.
Balaguer, Trujillo, V?squez and Lilis account for 100+ years of the 160 we've been a country for... all of them put there or maintained by the US.
Who are we kidding?
Quite offensive
As a Haitian-Dominican I find it quite offensive that some of you would even utter this insane Haitian-Dominican man, yes whether you want to admit it or not, Trujillo had Haitian roots. I find it quite offensive despite the very many astrocious acts this man orchestrated against the people on the island Dominicans and Haitians alike, despite all that he's still seen as a national hero.
HOw can we as "Hispagniolans" go forward with such retro-thinkings. Like someone stated earlier, Denial is not only in Egypt...................indeed it is a sad day in the history of Haitiano-Dominicano conflicts. We must learn to move forward, the hateful thoughts can only create a bigger bridge between the two nations, nothing else.
As a Haitian-Dominican I find it quite offensive that some of you would even utter this insane Haitian-Dominican man, yes whether you want to admit it or not, Trujillo had Haitian roots. I find it quite offensive despite the very many astrocious acts this man orchestrated against the people on the island Dominicans and Haitians alike, despite all that he's still seen as a national hero.
HOw can we as "Hispagniolans" go forward with such retro-thinkings. Like someone stated earlier, Denial is not only in Egypt...................indeed it is a sad day in the history of Haitiano-Dominicano conflicts. We must learn to move forward, the hateful thoughts can only create a bigger bridge between the two nations, nothing else.
OpenMindUSA said:
My sincere apologies, Mr. Rapadou.
Yes, you're absolutely right about all these undue heroic accomplishments bestowed on this monster of a man. However, as bad as he was, he knew how to keep the peace and the economy in check. Back then, we had STABILITY, which is a far cry from the chaos we find ourselves in today. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Haiti a hell of a lot better off under Duvalier than it is under Aristide? Admit it, don't deny it!Rapadou said: