桑定民族解放陣線對尼加拉瓜政治發展之影響(1990-2002)

The Influence of the Sandinista National Liberation Front to the Political Development of Nicaragua (1990-2002)

黃俊榮(Chun-Jung Huang)

指導教授 ： 王秀琦

淡江大學/國際研究學院/拉丁美洲研究所碩士班/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2006.00550

摘要

1979年7月19日，尼加拉瓜桑定民族解放陣線（the Sandinista National Liberation Front, FSLN）推翻蘇慕薩（Anastasio Somoza）政權後，透過1984年的選舉，丹尼爾奧帝加（Daniel Ortega Saavedra）取得執政的正當性與合法性，成為尼加拉瓜總統。但是在他執政的期間，採取混合式經濟政策、不結盟外交政策、多元政治及土地收歸國有政策，與當時的既得利益者有所衝突，再加上對外介入中美洲國家的革命運動，不僅造成國內民眾反彈，也迫使美國採取必要手段維護中美洲的利益。而在1990年的總統大選，反對派全國反對聯盟獲得勝利，查莫洛夫人成為新任總統，奧帝加將政權和平轉移，從此桑解落為在野黨。歷經1996年及2001年兩次總統大選，桑解始終無法贏得選舉，依舊是尼加拉瓜最大的反對黨。

本論文研究的宗旨，在分析桑定民族解放陣線（the Sandinista National Liberation Front, FSLN）在野黨期間的變化以及對尼國民主化的貢獻，並探討一個曾經受尼加拉瓜民眾支持，懷抱改革理想的政黨，為何無法在1990年、1996年及2001年三次大選中獲得尼加拉瓜選民的青睞？另外，是什麼因素造成桑定民族解放陣線與尼加拉瓜天主教會的決裂？美國勢力的干預是否影響尼加拉瓜的選情？或單純只是桑定民族解放陣線的選舉策略失敗？還是其所堅持的理念無法讓尼加拉瓜選民接受？本文將比較歷次總統大選前的民意調查探討桑定民族解放陣線的轉變，並從上述的觀點來分析桑解90年代以來的沿革以及對尼加拉瓜民主化的影響。

關鍵字

尼加拉瓜 ； 桑定民族解放陣線 ； 奧帝加 ； 民主化 ； 全國反對聯盟 ； 總統大選

並列摘要

On 19 July 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front（FSLN） overthrew the Anastasio Somoza regime; and through the election in 1984, the leader of the FSLN, Daniel Ortega Saavedra obtained the legitimacy and legality in power and became the Nicaraguan president. But during the time when he was in power, the measures he adopted, including the composite economic policy, nonalignment foreign policy, plural politics and land nationalization policy, conflicted with those with vested interests. In addition, Ortega himself was involved in the revolutionary movementss of other countries of Central America. This had not only resulted in an antipathy among his people, but also prompted U.S.A. to take necessary actions to safeguard the interests of Central America. During the general presidential election in 1990, the National Opposition Union obtained the victory. Chamorro, Violeta Barrios became the newly appointed president. Daniel Ortega transferred the regime peacefully; from then on, the FSLN became an opposition party. After going through the two general presidential elections in 1996 and 2001, the FSLN was still unable to win the elections and remained the biggest opposition party of Nicaragua.
The aim of this thesis is to analyze the FSLN’s change as an opposition party and its contribution to the democratization of Nicaragua. Also, this thesis will investigate the reason why the once popularly-supported political party with ideals of reform was unable to obtain the Nicaraguan voter's favor in the general elections in 1990, 1996 and 2001? In addition, what was the main contributing factor that had caused the FSLN to break its relationship with Nicaraguan Catholic Church? Were Nicaragua’s election results influenced by a U.S. intervention; or were they simply the outcome of the FSLN’s wrong election campaign tactics? Or was it simply because the ideas the FSLN had insisted were not shared by Nicaraguan voters? This study will analyze the public opinion polls of all previous general presidential elections and the transition of the FSLN; also, from the viewpoint of public opinion, this study will investigate the evolution of the FSLN since 1990s and its impact on the democratization process of Nicaragua.

並列關鍵字

Nicaragua ； the Sandinista National Liberation Front ； Daniel Ortega ； Democratization ； the National Opposition Union ； Presidential election

參考文獻

Anderson, Leslie E. and Dodd, Lawrence C.（2005）. Learning Domocracy—Citizen Engagement and Electroal Choice in Nicaragua 1990-2001. Chicago：The University of Chicago Press

Arana, Mario.（1997）.”General Economic Policy”, Nicaragua without illusions—Regime Transition and Structural Adjustment in the 1990s. Wilmington, USA： Scholarly Resocures Inc.

Close, David.（1999）. Nicaragua-The Chamorro Years. London：Lynne Rienner Publishers

Gilbert, Dennis. （1986）. “Nicaragua”, Confronting Revolution: Security Through Diplomacy in Central America. New York：Pantheon Books

McConnel. Shelly A.（1997）.“Instituntional Development”, Nicaragua without illusions—Regime Transition and Structural Adjustment in the 1990s, Scholarly Resocures Inc.