Impeachment or Party Coup?

There needs to be an explanation of the decisions that led to the clash between police and armed farmers in Paraguay’s Canindeyú province that resulted in 17 deaths, and part of that will require discovering the lines of responsibility. If President Fernando Lugo is responsible—either directly for giving the order or indirectly through administrative incompetence—he should be forced to step down.

But impeachment is a powerful, politically charged tool that can have wrenching effects on the political system or can help heal it. Worse, the threat of political turmoil can—especially in fragile democracies like Paraguay’s—stir the temptations of politicians with the military to intervene to quickly put things back in order. It’s a delicate balance.

In any impeachment, one of the first questions to ask is why a congress has called for impeachment. In this case given that the solid opposition tilt of the Paraguayan Congress—and not just any opposition the Colorado Party that governed the country in collusion with the military for over 60 years—there could be legitimate reasons for questioning motives.

In this regard, my country is hardly a shining example. Recall that in 1997, Republicans in the U.S. Congress impeached then President Bill Clinton for perjury when it was revealed that he had lied about having sex with a White House intern.

What followed was a circus. Grandstanding Republican congresspeople (most of them men) held the country at a standstill as they recounted all the lurid details and denounced the President. In the end, after billions of U.S. taxpayer money was wasted, the President was found non-guilty.

A more positive case was that of President Fernando Color de Mello in 1992. Brought for trial before the Brazilian Congress on issues of corruption, President Mello resigned to avoid the Senate impeachment process. The net effect of that—now with 20 years perspective—was positive. While the process certainly didn’t end corruption in Brazil, institutional and popular process that led President Mello’s resignation mobilized civil society, brought public attention to corruption and helped to dent the aura of presidential invincibility and impunity.

Which way will it go in Paraguay? While it is tough to say, this could potentially be an opportunity. To be sure, the violations of the police are serious (making the U.S. 1997 impeachment look even sillier) and they deserve a serious airing to determine responsibility. If the opposition congress uses this moment to get to the truth and objectively assign blame it will have helped to strengthen democratic institutions and sent a powerful message that the abuse of power by security forces will not be tolerated.

But if the opposition uses this as an opportunity to sow discord and hamstring the country’s political system and use democratic procedures to re-capture the state or an excuse to call for the military—always a risk in Paraguay—democracy may be at risk.

To speak with one of our experts on this topic, call 212-277-8384 or email communications@as-coa.org.