When Fernando Lugo won the April 2008 elections, becoming the first non Colorado Party President of Paraguay in 61 years, he promised that the country was going to enter a period of renewal and change. At that time, nobody could foresee that after four years, Lugo would be ousted as president on June 22nd, 2012, via a constitutionally legal, but highly controversial, impeachment process.

Vice President Federico Franco and President Fernando Lugo back in 2008. (Photo: Fernando Lugo)

Lugo’s elected vice-president, Federico Franco, was sworn in the same day and has passed 100 days in charge in the midst of an ongoing bitter debate between those who continue to support Lugo and those who were glad to see him leave. Franco’s cabinet, purged of Lugo’s allies, has also changed the approach to key policies in energy and agriculture, deepening the divide in the country. Though this political experience, an unprecedented one in Paraguay, remains fresh, there are already some lessons to be taken from June’s events.

Reflections on Lugo’s Demise

Lugo won the election supported by the APC (Alianza Patriótica Para el Cambio) which was an alliance of several political parties coming from the left and right of the political spectrum. The Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA), led by Franco, was the most prominent among them. This alliance, based on heterogeneous and contradictory interests, began to crack as early as July 2009 with the withdrawal of the PLRA. The party accused Lugo and his left wing allies of reaching a deal with the opposition Colorado Party about the presidency of the National Parliament, disrespecting Franco, and marginalising the PLRA in government. The experience of the APC shows once again that an alliance established by heterogeneous sectors to win elections cannot guarantee successful governance when it reaches power.

The withdrawal of the PLRA from the APC did not mean its departure from government. Franco remained as vice president and tensions between him and Lugo continued to escalate. In this sense, far from changing things Lugo also continued a tradition of poor relations between president and vice in Paraguay’s immature democracy. Previously, this had happened during the presidencies of Juan Carlos Wasmosy (1993 – 1998), Raúl Cubas (1998 – 1999) and Nicanor Duarte Frutos (2003 – 2008).

Once again, far from changing things, Lugo failed to break the bi-partisan dominance of Paraguayan politics. Even though the APC grouped together several political parties, the PLRA and the Colorado Party have remained the country’s leading political forces. Lugo’s victory in the 2008 elections was possible due to about 500,000 voters belonging to the PLRA, and also due to hundreds of thousands of Colorados who voted him as they were frustrated with the traditional way of policymaking and their party’s increasing internal fights.

Lugo’s inability to implement the changes he promised meant he fell victim to the expectations he himself had raised. During the political campaign he promised to bring change to Paraguayan politics and to work for transparency and for the solution of the country’s very serious social problems. Once in power, Lugo was not able to meet the mobilised population’s demands for political renewal. On the contrary, owing to some actions, for many people Luguismo soon became a synonym for nepotism, corruption and more of the same bad practices. To make things worse, three additional events contributed to undermine the president’s initial popularity: the increasing violence in the rural areas, more radical activity by the EPP terrorist organisation, and question marks over his personal character after his admission that he fathered two children while he was a bishop.

Far from solving the country’s social contradictions, Lugo’s critics say he exacerbated them by supporting landless peasants that occupied private land, harassing landowners of Brazilian origins and their descendants (the so-called ‘Brasiguayos‘), and being permissive with the EPP’s actions. Some political sources claim that Lugo ousted Interior Minister Rafael Filizzola as he was seriously interested in dismantling the terrorist group. He replaced Mr. Filizzola with another Filizzola, Carlos (Rafael’s cousin), who proved to be ineffective in stopping the spiral of violence in rural Paraguay and bringing the EPP under control.

A family of famers in rural Paraguay (Photo: sub coop)

Lugo also gave birth to a crucial paradox: however hard he tried to deepen the gap between the Colorados and Liberales, he ended, involuntarily, bringing them together in a united front against him. It happened soon after the Campos de Morumbí massacre on 15th June, when 17 people were killed. Lugo was forced to remove Carlos Filizzola from the Interior Ministry and replace him with Rubén Candia Amarilla, a former Colorado prosecutor. The appointment of Candia Amarilla stoked political tensions, with the Liberales thinking it was a maneouvre of Lugo to establish an alliance with the Colorados for the 2013 elections.

Meanwhile, some Colorados thought it was an attempt to divide their party. Candia Amarilla belonged to the sector led by party leader Lilian Samaniego, who was being challenged at the time by Horacio Cartes, the leader of the most important movement within the Colorado Party and one of the pre candidates to Paraguayan presidency for the next year’s elections. Shortly after the appointment of the new interior minister, both parties reach a consensus to hurry through the impeachment of the President.

The political events of Paraguay have also brought to surface an increasing debate about the real democratic vocation of MERCOSUR. Almost at the same time as the regional block suspended Paraguay, accusing the new government of a ‘parliamentary coup’. The remaining MERCOSUR members – Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay – proceeded to approve the admission of Venezuela, something had been impossible due to the strong opposition of the Colorado dominated Paraguayan parliament. Some sectors in Paraguay continue to say that the motives behind the country’s temporary suspension had more to do with this opportunity to admit oil-rich Venezuela into MERCOSUR than the impeachment of Lugo.

Franco’s Rule

On the other hand, the new government in Paraguay, far from helping to calm the waters, is becoming increasingly controversial, specially with some issues that are subject to deep public debate. These include more radical violence by the EPP; more accusations of nepotism; and the kind of personal crusade the President is performing in order to allow Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) to settle a big plant in Paraguay. This company has had a wide range of accusations, from being highly environmentally hazardous to having supported dictatorships and genocide actions in some places where it has established in previous decades. In this context, rumors that RTA financed the impeachment are common in Paraguay nowadays.

Rumours of vested interests behind (and in favour of) Lugo’s impeachment have also arisen from Franco’s very controversial decision to approve the use of GM seeds. Lugo had been resisting pressure from major agricultural companies such as Monsanto to introduce the new seeds. The new seeds are specifically for cotton and corn, two crops that are key to Paraguayan agriculture: the former has traditionally been produced in small plots, while the latter is one of the most important sources of nutrition for the popular classes. While the Government claims that the measure will contribute to the modernisation of Paraguayan agriculture, many peasant organisations reject it stating that, apart from being beneficial only to some major agricultural companies, it is very harmful for the environment and the population´s health condition.

Many Questions, Few Answers

Though some lessons have been learned from Lugo’s impeachment, the uncertain future in Paraguay politics invites many more questions.

It is very likely that Lugo will be elected senator in next year’s elections. What role is he going to play in Paraguayan politics? Will Paraguayan society overcome the current division among those who favored the impeachment and those who still support Lugo? How will the PLRA and the Colorado Party contribute to political stability after next year’s elections? (The answer to this question is key, especially taking into account that while the PLRA reached the Presidency through the impeachment after 76 years out of power, the Colorado Party will try to recover the presidency in the next year’s elections after the 2008 defeat).

And finally: do the main political actors have a real vocation for change? Or, as has been so common in the recent Paraguayan political history, are things going to change so that nothing really changes?

Fernando Lugo in the Government Palace watches images of his supporters on television on June 22. (Photo: Fernando Lugo Méndez)

In 2008, a bishop from the combative region of San Pedro, where important peasant struggles had been carried out, became president of Paraguay with the Patriotic Alliance for Change (APC). Aided by a strong division within the Partido Colorado -which had been in power for an uninterrupted period of 61 years, 35 of which were under Stroessner’s dictatorship- Fernando Lugo managed to win the elections and open up a new chapter in the country’s history.

But as soon as he made the decision to get involved in politics, encouraged by the support of citizens and social movements alike, especially the peasants, the ‘bishop of the poor’ encountered a dilemma: whether to run with his small party Tekojojá (‘Equality’, in indigenous guaraní language) and lose, or whether to try and win by making an alliance with the Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA), a traditional political force clandestinely founded by Domingo Laíno in 1978 as opposition to Stroessner’s dictatorship, which re-grouped some sectors from the old Liberal Party that had governed Paraguay between 1904-1936.

The ghost of what had happened in Mexico in 2006, when Andrés Manuel López Obrador denounced being victim of election fraud, seemed familiar enough in Paraguay. So Lugo decided to side with the liberals -capable of providing votes, as well as making sure they were counted. He chose to seize the opportunity, maybe the only one he would have, of a Partido Colorado deeply divided between Blanca Ovelar, Nicanor Duarte Frutos’ candidate, and Luis Alberto Castiglioni, considered ‘the (US) embassy’s candidate’. The pro-Stroessner tripod made up of the government, armed forces, and the Partido Colorado had already started to crumble after the fall of the dictator.

Federico Franco greets Fernando Lugo (courtesy of Fernando Lugo Mendez)

And so, Lugo won. But at the cost of having a liberal vice-president -Federico Franco, who would later distance himself from the president in the midst of a division within the PLRA- and an almost non-existent parliamentary representation. Despite the fact that there had been important protests since Stroessner’s fall in 1989 (such as the one in 2006, against Duarte Frutos’ re-election attempts), Paraguay was far from being like Ecuador, where president Rafael Correa had enough social support to close down Congress and call for a Constitutional Assembly, or Bolivia, where Evo Morales has a massive indigenous-popular support base with important mobilisation capabilities.

Lugo also inherited a country impregnated by the colorados‘ political culture, where the fight for the state apparatus is ruthless, as made evident by the murder of former vice-president Luis María Argaña in 1999 -shortly before the resignation of president Raúl Cubas, who was at the verge of being impeached. An important character at the time was the right-wing, populist military officer Lino Oviedo, who was once protected by former Argentine president Carlos Menem, and who nowadays leads the Ethical Citizens National Union (also known as Ethical Colorados Union), which took part in the parliamentary coup.

Lugo’s presidency was based, at least at the beginning, in the politics of the ‘poncho juru‘ (in the centre, like the opening in a poncho). But even though he did not make consistent reforms, his government was -despite its contradictions- an interlocutor for the peasants and, for the first time, left-wing politicians were awarded some of the ministries. This caused enough concern within the landowners to have the spokesman for the ‘brasiguayos‘ -Brazilian-born land owners and their descendants- Aurio Fighetto, declare shortly after the coup that “the ‘carperos‘ (landless peasants who were occupying farms) were in the [government] Palace.” Such was the argument he was willing to use to ask Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff to recognise the new government. His colleague and president of the Association of Christian Businessmen, Luis Fretes, said with brutal honesty: “I believe Franco is going to be much firmer in terms of respecting private property.”

The issue of land is key to understanding anything that happens in Paraguay (80% of fertile land is owned by 2% of landowners). So is a variety of illegal activities -drug trafficking, smuggling, kidnappings- linked to the state, which has been permeated by a host of different criminal organisations.

Paraguayan farmers and signs of violence. (courtesy of Sub.coop)

There is no longer a massive exploitation of tannin (red quebracho) which enslaved thousands of peasants, and the centre of Paraguay’s economic activity is not timber or yerba mate production anymore. But although these products have been partially replaced, the logic of an enclave economy has remained, in an equally perverse way, with the new star crop: soy.

Today, Paraguay is the world’s fourth largest soy exporter. The area used up by soy plantations went from one to three million hectares between 1997 and 2012. And the borders between legality and criminality are diffused. Which is why, in the north of the country, the term ‘narco-stockbreeders’ has been coined.

In the midst of its extreme weakness, Lugo had to face an untimely guerrilla movement, the Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP), apparently organised by ex-militants from the Free Country group (some of its members have been accused of being involved in the kidnapping and murdering of president Rául Cubas Grau’s daughter, Cecilia, in 2004) and whose links and aims are not very clear. With only a handful of members, the EPP carried out actions such as destroying machinery in a soy farm accused of polluting a whole town -Concepción-, attacking a military barracks in San Pedro (the region where Lugo used to be a bishop), setting off a bomb in the national court and -the most important one- the kidnapping of landowners Luis Alberto Lindstron and Fidel Zavala in 2009. The latter was forced to distribute beef amongst the poor, ‘courtesy of the EPP’, and pay ransom before being released from the 3-month captivity. Leader Carmen Villalba, from prison, claimed responsibility for all these actions. Meanwhile, some members of the opposition accused Lugo of being an accomplice to the EPP -and even of being a member of it!

As all this was happening, it started to surface that the president had various illegitimate children (despite the fact that, as a bishop, he was supposed to be celibate) and he was victim of a cancer that threatened his life.

Fernando Lugo in a recent press conference after his impeachment. (Photography by Fernando Lugo Mendez)

Within that context, Lugo’s political survival seemed like a miracle: as well as Congress, he had the justice system, a stronghold of the old, corrupt politics, against him; the fraudulent bourgeoisie, which, despite continuing with business as usual, mistrusted the president’s left-wing entourage; the mass media, who shamelessly conspired in favour of the impeachment as they waved around the ‘Hugo Chávez ghost’; and his own vice-president. In this situation, only the divisions within the right and the popular mobilisation (or rather, the threat of it) managed to keep the former bishop in power.

The problems were not only a product of the conservative parties’ conspiracy, but also of the lack of internal cohesion within the government. In cabinet, there were “from obedient disciples of neoliberalism in finance, to apprentices of repressors in Interior, to great ignorants in agriculture, or conservative ex-activists in the social ministries. (Thus) what happened was bound to happen: uncertainty first, and disappointment later,” writes the recently deceased sociologist Tomás Palau on his book ‘Lugo’s Government: Legacy, Administration, and Challenges’. Despite all this, he highlights the creation of the Executive Coordination for Agrarian Reform and the writing of a report from the Truth and Justice Commission and the National Institute of Rural Development and Land about illegally-acquired land, some 8-million hectares of it, as well as the beginning of a reform aiming to guarantee free and universal healthcare.

The key was perhaps what former minister Hugo Richer highlighted some time ago: “Lugo’s government can’t be called left-wing, but thanks to him the left managed to grow and to gain an amount of political influence that it had never had throughout Paraguayan history.” This may not seem much in countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, or Ecuador, but it is enough to upset the elites in a country “watched over” by the huge statue of Chinese anti-communist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. And it is impossible to understand the recent conflicts without the ‘anti-communist’ key, very much a part of the Paraguayan political culture thanks to the strong predominance of the colorados, crucial in holding up Stroessner in power for 35 years.

Fernando Lugo Méndez meeting with political representatives from 'Frente Guasu' and the 'PLRA' (Photo courtesy of Fernando Lugo Méndez)

In the last few years, various groups started up the Frente Guasú (‘large’ in guaraní), which brought together centre-left and left-wing political parties, from social democrats to marxists, as a -sometimes critical- support base for the government.

But -as was already evident in 2009- the impeachment was around the corner, waiting for the right opportunity. In the last few days, it was revealed that the US embassy in Asunción had warned back in 2009 about a plan to remove Lugo as soon as he “made a mistake”, and that the conspiracy was led by Lino Oviedo and Duarte Frutos to put Franco in charge (cable from 28th March 2009, leaked by Wikileaks). Despite the affinity of the US with the new president, the parliamentary coup seems to be more related to internal causes -and the brutal power disputes- than to the traditional ‘CIA coup’.

The ‘mistake’ was the recent massacre of peasants and policemen due to a land-owning conflict in Curuguaty and the later appointment of former colorado prosecutor Rubén Candia Amarilla as Interior Minister. This appointment did not go down well with the left and deepened the liberal divide, whilst activating the internal struggles within the Partido Colorado, which rejected it.

Lugo accused Horacio Cartes, an important colorado leader, of being behind the coup. Cartes is a stockbreeder who entered politics not too long ago, but already has a high chance of becoming president of Paraguay in 2013. Apparently, Cartes thought his candidacy would be threatened by an alleged agreement between Lugo and his party’s president, Lilian Samaniego, who was once Cartes’ ally and is now an internal rival. According to Cartes’ supporters, Lugo would have plotted to enter into an alliance with Samaniego to lend her his support from government, ahead of next year’s presidential elections. This led them to support the former president’s removal.

As the correspondent for La Nación newspaper from Buenos Aires wrote, the three pillars holding Franco are the church (which immediately blessed the new president), Congress, and the business community, especially that related to the agricultural industry. He ‘forgot’, however, to mention the media. ABC Color, owned by the Zucolillo family, was an active part of the anti-Lugo conspiracy and there was not a single day since 2008 in which they did not warn about the ‘Chavista threat’. Now, the newspapers are publishing ‘nationalist’ columns which see the reactions of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay as a new Triple Alliance, like the one that massacred Paraguayans in the 19th century. And they claim that the “Paraguayan race” shall overcome.

With Franco, the liberals reached power for the first time in 76 years, and can now use the state resources until the 2013 elections to campaign and improve their chances. There is no doubt that, as political scientist Marcello Lachi points out, “politics here are not refined.” And controlling the state (and its resources, such as employment) is key to winning elections. This explains the urgency with which they acted, only a few months before an election in which Lugo could not be re-elected. Historical PLRA leader Domingo Laíno, however, has strongly condemned the coup and supports Lugo.

The colorados, meanwhile, are excited at the prospect of returning to power, like the PRI in Mexico, counting on the discredit the liberals will suffer now that they are governing on their own. They have so far managed to break up the APC, and the polls look promising for next year’s election. “If the left and the liberals go their separate ways in the election, the colorados will win with at least 35% of the vote,” says Lachi. There is no second round in Paraguay.

Lugo -whose first reaction was to leave office after being impeached and who did not call for social mobilisation- has regained the initiative and announced that he will go around the country garnering support, denounced the government as “fake”, and received important shows of support from around the region. However, it is unclear whether he is really looking to lead the resistance to an already settled government, or to begin his campaign to become a senator in 2013.

Translated by: Celina Andreassi.

Paraguay’s new government has called for the Venezuelan ambassador to return home. This follows accusations that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez coordinated an attempt to stop the impeachment of former Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo last month.

Chávez ordered Venezuela’s ambassador to leave Paraguay and halted oil shipments in protest of the impeachment.

Paraguay’s new defense minister, Maria Liz Garcia, has accused Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, of participating in a meeting with senior Paraguayan military officials during the two-day process that saw Lugo pushed out of office.

Garcia made a statement on Wednesday before a prosecutor who has opened an investigation.

She cited “… grave evidence of intervention by Venezuelan officials in the internal affairs of Paraguay,” as leading to the Foreign Ministry’s orders to bring the ambassador home.

The actions of the new Paraguayan government drew criticism across Latin America and the world.

Maduro traveled to Asuncion the day before Lugo was removed from the presidency after a hearing that lasted many hours regarding the impeachment process.

Maduro went along with a delegation of foreign ministers from countries belonging to UNASUR.

UNASUR and regional trade bloc Mercosur have suspended relations with Paraguay until elections are held next year.

Close up of the Presidential Palace, now Federico Franco's home (Photo: Allendria Brunjes)

On 21^st June, the Paraguayan House of Deputies voted 73-1 to hold a hearing that would decide whether Fernando Lugo should be impeached from his position as president.  One day later, on 22^nd June, the Senate voted and Lugo lost his job to his vice-president, current president Federico Franco.

Congress called it democratic impeachment. Lugo called it an “express coup d’état.”

Foreign media jumped on the words “coup d’état” and ran images of the protest in Asunción on Friday evening. Many countries took drastic diplomatic action, with Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner going as far as to pull its Paraguayan ambassador.

Local media reports, on the other hand, have varied. Along with cries of censorship regarding the country’s public television station, there have been reports of deep corruption in some of the nation’s newspapers.

The only time “Paraguay” has been googled more than now has been during major sports events, and the country’s internet presence is growing.

In this war of words, every newspaper line, television image, radio clip, tweet or blog post sharing a slogan or point of view can move the public and change the narrative.

And with so many voices crying to hijack the discourse in Paraguay, the truth of the situation is hard to discern.

Protests and Local Reports

The night of the impeachment, thousands gathered in Plaza Independencia, in downtown Asunción, to protest Congress’ decision. In images circulated around the world, riot police and water cannons pushed people from the government offices after the decision.

By the 23^rd June, there were just a handful of protestors left in the plaza. Packing up their blankets and bags, the half-dozen youths occasionally shouted chants, calling for democracy in Paraguay.

Celso Velázquez and Concepción Oviedo were two of those protestors. Both are members of the student movement CREAR. Oviedo said although the movement started with students’ interests in mind, they found the situation too important not to protest.

“The parliamentarians – the senators and deputies – in one day decided the future of the country, and put in place a person who was not elected [as president] by the citizens in 2008,” she said. “And so, they cut the democratic process that started in 2008.”

Asunción's Plaza Independencia stands empty the day after the protests. (Photo: Allendria Brunjes)

Velázquez said he started protesting 21^stJune. He noted that although he does not support Lugo, he supports democracy and believes the process to remove him was undemocratic. “Now, Paraguay is under a dictator,” he said. “It was the opinion of Parliament, not the fruit of popular vote. The international community is not recognising this government, and there could be an economic decline and blockades against Paraguay.”

By 23^rd June, most protestors in favour of Lugo’s return to the Presidential Palace were in front of TV Pública, Paraguay’s public television station. There, hundreds of people took their turn in front of the camera during the station’s “Open Microphone” – a program which usually lasts two hours, that ran straight for a couple of days.

Rodrigo Tellez runs the new-media company SEO Paraguay. Soon after the Senate’s decision, he started the website Noticias Desde Paraguay to crowdsource information from various social media. From the site, he broadcast TV Pública’s continuous coverage of the protest.

“When it started, there was a little bit of repression of information,” he says. “[Citizens] were speaking what they were thinking, how they feel about the recent situation, and you couldn’t see that on TV or on any station. [Government] even tried to pull the plug on their energy – they sent the energy company to cut them out. But after a time – thanks to social media – everybody could see what was really happening in the country, and it forced the politicians to put that on air.”

José María Costa is a professor of journalism, information law, new technologies and cultural industries at the National University of Asunción. Now a columnist, Costa has decades of experience in the field as a journalist for the Paraguayan daily Última Hora and a voice on radio. Having reported in Paraguay during Alfredo Stroessner’s 35-year dictatorship, he says he thinks the media today is quite free to report what they want. He says the freedom of media to criticise Congress and the sequence of events is the “most palpable and most conclusive evidence that there is.”

“In the period of transition from 1989 to today, Paraguayan society has recuperated many freedoms,” he says. “One of the freedoms, obviously, is freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”

He says he believes TV Pública was practically in Lugo’s party’s hands, and did not permit opinions and visions contrary to his political thinking. “[It was] the state’s own television station, none other than its own voice criticising the [new] government,” he says. “I would find it difficult to find another situation like it in Latin America. The public television station of Argentina doing this – Cristina Kirchner allowing this at this time, or TeleSUR in Venezuela doing the same – it wouldn’t happen.”

As far as traditional forms of media are concerned, in Paraguay as around the world, the almighty dollar is a driving force in what makes it to the evening news.  “What is emerging now is journalistic media that exploits sensationalism, as a mechanism to increase ratings,” Costa says. “They create journalism and communicate with a feeling that is much more sensational.”

The Growth of New Media

Paraguay is one of the continent’s least connected nations. When Lugo became president in 2008 Paraguay had 530,300 internet users – 7.8% of the population – according to the United Nations’ specialised agency for information and communication technologies. Costa says that in just four years, that number has risen to about 20% or 30% of the population.

“It’s a real growth,” he says. “I believe that accompanying this real growth of internet penetration, there was growth in the use of internet for freedom of speech and the expression of ideas, debates, criticisms – expressions in respect to issues of public interest.”

One Laptop Per Child program is now in schools in Paraguay helping connect children to the internet and more information. (Photo: Christoph Derndorfer)

Tellez says there are both negative and positive aspects to more people using social networks for news. As one positive, he says the diversity of viewpoints increased as Paraguay increased its internet usage.

“Everyone was watching TV, and you can’t really watch what’s happening,” he says. “The owner of one channel wanted you to get his point of view, and the owner of the other channel – I say channel, but it’s networks. The same owner is the owner of one channel, one newspaper and many magazines, and they use it in the same way.”

Tellez – who had to study his trade in Buenos Aires due to the lack of available training in Paraguay – also says the internet helped people around the country understand what was going on despite not being in the capital. “They were watching TV and it was Popeye or some canned film, instead of what was going on,” he says.

Argentina’s Coverage

While representatives from many Latin American countries have been reacting to the impeachment, Argentines have been especially vocal.

Argentine political theorist and professor Atilio Boron said in a recent article that the president’s dismissal was “one of the most blatant acts of fraud in the political history of Latin America,” noting the power of agribusiness, its power in Paraguay and the role it played in Lugo’s impeachment.

He also talks about deep corruption in the newspaper industry, arguing that the nation’s biggest newspaper, ABC Color, among other things “launched an intense campaign prior to the coup d’etat, preparing a political climate that permitted Lugo’s express political hanging.”

Martín Gomez Bustillo, Interim Representative of Argentina to the OAS at a special meeting of the OAS in Washington DC on June 26, 2012. (Photo: Maria Patricia Leiva/OAS)

“The US embassy, together with the agro-industrial transnationals and the oligarchy, made up the gang that dominated Congress,” he said in the article, published with the Latin American television station TeleSUR. “Lugo realised too late what little democracy there is in the institutions of the capitalist state, which removed him in a tragicomic political show trial, violating with impunity all standards of due process.”

The Argentine daily newspaper La Nación also wrote an editorial about the impeachment/coup on Tuesday, noting that the critical countries are also ones with their own issues regarding democracy. “There is thus an asymmetry between the way the almost unanimous decision of the Paraguayan Congress to displace Lugo was attacked, and the indifference with which the continuing constitutional violations of governments with legitimacy of origin are taken,” the article said.

Costa says he believes the transition from Lugo’s government to Franco’s was through “a democratic process,” and that members of Congress “were elected in the same election as Lugo, and with the same quantity of votes.”

Tellez says he believes international governments also have their own interests in mind when it comes to their coverage of the situation. He noted that Latin American countries with “left-leaning” governments would have a special interest in Lugo’s downfall as his party tends toward what is considered the “left” side of the political spectrum.

“Other countries are a bit worried, because they are run by social parties,” he says, bringing up Argentina as an example. “Now, with this happening here, Cristina Kirchner is afraid it could happen to her in her country. She has a lot of stuff that her politicians could say about her to get an impeachment – easy, easy, easy.”

As different forms of social media take hold in Paraguay, the country will be able to represent itself better in the future. Costa says while there is not yet the depth or power seen in Egypt or Tunisia, Paraguay is on its way.

“Obviously, it’s a process that is going to create force,” he says. “But yes, [the crisis] demonstrates that the seed is there, and the feeling is there, too.”

Paraguay – Following last week’s violence in the rural Northeast of the country, leftist President Fernando Lugo was removed from office on Friday.

“Paraguay’s history has been profoundly wounded,” he said just before opposition Federico Franco, was sworn in to complete the last year of his presidency.

The speed of the impeachment trial has drawn criticism from other Latin American governments. The leftist presidents of Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador announced they would not recognise Franco’s government.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, spoke out against the impeachment: “We believe that they [Unasur - Union of South American Nations] should apply the sanctions of what the democratic charter establishes, not to recognise an illegitimate government, even go as far as closing the border.”

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, spoke in similar sentiment: “We, the Venezuelan government, the Venezuelan state, do not recognise this illegitimate and illegal government that has been installed.”

The US and Spain have been slightly more cautious in their public judgments regarding the impeachment of Lugo.

According to the AFP news agency, a statement from the Spanish foreign ministry said: “Spain defends full respect for democratic institutions and the state of law and trusts that Paraguay, in respect for its constitution and international commitments, will manage to handle this political crisis and safeguard the peaceful coexistence of the Paraguayan people.”

US State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan was quoted as saying: “We urge all Paraguayans to act peacefully, with calm and responsibility, in the spirit of Paraguay’s democratic principles.”

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said her country would not “validate the coup” in Paraguay. She also said she was working with Brazil and Uruguay – partners in the Mercosur trade bloc, along with Paraguay – to respond jointly.

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was one of the first to speak out against the impeachment. Rousseff has suggested that Paraguay could be expelled from Mercosur and Unasur since the two organisations have clauses in support of democratic rules and governance

The last time a Paraguayan leader was impeached was in 1999 when Raul Cubas was accused of failing to fulfill his duties following the murder of the vice president and the killing of seven protesters. However, Cubas resigned before a verdict was reached.