‘Constitutional democracy is the desirable norm everywhere, but there are only approximations of it around the world. . . .It is more realistic to view democracy as a process in time and place. I’m more interested in purpose and direction than in the status at any given moment.’ Thus Lincoln Gordon, former us Ambassador to Brazil, explained his views of military dictatorships to reporters just after taking office as Johnson’s new Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs (Newsweek, January 31st, 1966). Gordon, who has been a kind of godfather to the Brazilian military government, did not mention Paraguay specifically, but his view clearly reflects the thinking of the United States vis-`-vis the dictatorship of General Alfredo Stroessner. Inherent in Gordon’s theory is the idea that dictatorship today may well lead to democracy and progress tomorrow. In the case of the Stroessner government, us diplomats are convinced that the situation is ‘improving’.
A predatory military caste forms the small ruling elite in Paraguay, while a profound sadness based on hunger and misery dominates the countryside, where more than 60 per cent of the population lives. The average income of a peasant family is $55 a year. In the cities, the finest homes are air-conditioned, imported cars are owned and enjoyed by Stroessner’s ministers and army cronies, in some cases identical. It is more than just a curious fact that the major religious festival in Paraguay,
Stroessner frequently visits the countryside and uses his authority and prestige to command the respect that comes naturally to the peasant, accustomed to feudalistic personal relationships. The government, for all its superficial paternalism, is patently unconcerned with the fate of the population. Public works are rare, and the limited school and road construction that has occurred is financed and directed by Americans. In 1965, throughout the 157,047 square miles of the republic, only 90 miles of new telegraph and telephone wire were laid, giving some idea of the extent of government outlay. One third of the government’s expenditures are for the military.