Information covering more than one election

Alcántara Sáez 1989: Describes presidential and congressional terms and elections based on the 1987 constitution (pages 202-205).

Alcántara Sáez 1999: “Evolución porcentual de las elecciones legislativas” (page 277). Covers elections 1984-1996. “Resultados de las elecciones presidenciales” (page 283). “Evolución de la composición de la cámara de los diputados” (page 297). “El régimen político” (pages 285-293). “El sistema electoral” (page 293). “El sufragio es universal, igual, directo, libre y secreto para todos los ciudadanos mayores de dieciséis años; se debe realizar de forma personal, sin admitirse el voto por correo ni en legaciones consulares en el extranjero” (page 293).

Alemán Cunningham 2001: “Resultados electorales en Las Minas 1984-2000” (pages 75-108). Includes very detailed results on all elections. “Resultados electorales en Puerto Cabezas, Waspam y Prinzapolka, entre los años 1984-2000, en diferentes cargos de elección popular” (pages 136-156).

Alvarez Montalván 2000: Reproduces texts of all major Nicaraguan pacts, party statements, and “convenios;” lists the names of heads of state; and the names of parties that participated in the elections of 1984, 1990, and 1996.

Artiga-González 2000: “Nicaragua: votos obtenidos por los principales partidos en elecciones presidenciales (porcentajes)” (page 126). From 1974-1996. “Composición de las principales coaliciones anti-Sandinistas” (page 127). For elections of 1990 and 1996. “Nicaragua: votos y escaños parlamentarios, según partido político (porcentajes)” (page 232). From 1982-1994. Includes many other electoral statistics for Nicaragua as a part of tables on Central America.

Barquero 1945: “Períodos administrativos de los jefes, vice-jefes, directores de estado y presidentes de la República de Nicaragua” (unpaged following title page).

Bautz 1994: “La presencia de representantes evangélicos en el Consejo de Estado (un representante entre 1980-1984), en la Asamblea Nacional (dos representantes entre 1985-1990), y en diversas instancias municipales, especialmente en zonas rurales, constituyó otra de las instancias más evidentes de la participación política a favor del proyecto sandinista…El otro extremo de la polarización en las iglesias evangélicas mostró actitudes de manifiesto rechazo a la revolución sandinista” (page 19). “La opción de organizar un partido político de inspiración evangélica se ha presentado con mayor fuerza, básicamente, a partir de las elecciones del 90. Hasta el momento han surgido cuatro movimientos que plantean la necesidad de participar en la vida política con una organización que dinamice, oriente y fortalezca las aspiraciones del sector: el Partido de Justicia Nacional (PJN) emergente a fines de 1991, el Partido Ecuménico de Rehabilitación al Agraviado (PERA), se organiza y culmina su efímera existencia en 1992, el Movimiento Evangélico Popular (MEP) surge en Noviembre de 1992, y el Grupo de Convergencia, sus primeras reuniones se realizan a finales de 1991” (page 23).

Blackford 1992: A “key to the Somoza power base was the alliance of the Somozas with the dominant class, the old Liberal Party...The Liberals became the political machine of the new Somoza controlled National Liberal Party (Partido Liberal Nacional). This alliance of Liberals and non-Liberal supporters of the Somoza regime [was] able to take part in most of the enrichment that went on in the Somoza era (illicit and otherwise)...During the Somoza dictatorship, the Somozas and the Conservatives signed three political accords in 1950, 1955, and 1967. These pacts always followed rebellions and military repression” (page 29).

Blandón 2001: “Elected offices in Nicaragua are determined using a combination of presidential and parliamentary systems. While individual candidates rather than parties run for president, as in a presidential system, individuals do not run for the National Assembly, Nicaragua’s unicameral Congress. Instead, voters choose from slates determined by each party, as in a parliamentary system” (editor’s note, page 125).

Brown 1995: “ Nicaragua’s contemporary political structure” (pages 19-22). Discusses the ties of many of President Violeta Barrios de Chamorro’s government’s officials to elite families from Granada and of those in the Sandinista party to elite families from León concluding that “One can thus argue that the combined dominance of these two groups, the Sandinistas and the Chamorro regime, marks little more than a continuance of the traditional elites of Granada and Leon in power. If this is the case, tensions between them may be seen as simply a new variant on traditional rivalries between elite groups” (page 21).

Brysk 2000: “Although the Miskito are the most numerous and politically dominant group, Nicaragua’s coastal Sumo and creolized Garifuna have also founded organizations and played a role in national struggles. In this case, what was essentially an emerging tribal self-defense movement was radicalized into an ethnic guerrilla group by a rapidly changing political landscape. As the external conflict subsided and regional autonomy was granted, the movement’s role has become more analogous to that of a tribal administration” (page 79). “ Nicaragua’s coastal Miskito have always been culturally distinct and have identified with foreign powers since the nineteenth century. Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast is isolated from the Hispanic interior by mountains and is inhabited by English-speaking Indians, blacks, and creoles who are culturally Caribbean” (page 112).

Butler 1997: “Regional Elections (number of seats won on Regional Council + National Assembly representatives)” (page 231). For RAAS and RAAN in 1990 and 1994.

Cardenal Tellería 2000: “Por la anarquía prevaleciente en el Estado Federal de Nicaragua de 1821-1825, el poder local dependía de los Comandantes de León y Granada. Teóricamente el poder central residía en el Presidente de Centro América en Guatemala. De 1825-1838, Nicaragua continúa como Estado Federado de la República de Centro América, teniendo gobernantes y ‘Ministros únicos’ a quienes se les llamó Jefe de Estado y Ministros Generales. De 1838-1854…se les dio el título de Director Supremo” (page 307). Lists the “Reyes de la Mosquitia” from 1670-1893 (pages 425-426). “Quienes han ejercido el supremo poder en Nicaragua: capitanes generales-alcaldes mayores-gobernadores-jefes de gobierno-directores supremos-presidentes y juntas de gobierno de 1522 a 1997” (pages 579-588). “Alcaldes municipales y ministros del distrito de Managua” (pages 591-592). “Presidentes del poder legislativo de Nicaragua” (pages 593-594). “Constituciones y constituyentes políticas de Nicaragua (1824-1995)” (pages 597-598).

Carey 1997: Summarizes the provisions concerning executive-legislative relations in Nicaragua, including executive election, presidential terms, assembly terms, election timing, etc. (pages 447-448).

Cerdas Cruz 1993: Gives a history of political parties active in the early 1990s and their performance in elections since their founding (pages 79-89).

Coleman 1997: “Granting of legal registration to Nicaragua’s current political parties” (pages 167-168). Gives names of parties with their dates of registration.

Datos electorales 1994: “Nicaragua: elecciones Presidenciales y Constituyente por categoría (1984-1990)” (page 233). “Nicaragua: números absolutos y porcentaje de votos obtenidos por los cuatro primeros lugares (1984-1990)” (page 233).

Derechos de las mujeres en Nicaragua: un análisis de género 1996: Gives the percent of women in the legislature in 1979, 1984, and 1990 and percent in “concejos municipales” in 1990 (pages 160, 164).

Electoral democracy under international pressure 1990: “Prior to the overthrow of the Somozas, no truly free elections had ever been held in Nicaragua; the tradition of electoral democracy was thin and discredited. Somoza’s elections featured translucent ballots, the buying of votes, intimidation, and, when all else failed, stuffed ballot boxes. Though U.S. diplomats would admit in private that democratic forms in Nicaragua were a sham, the United States put little pressure on the dictatorship to implement free elections. After the FSLN victory in 1979, however, U.S. interest in the cause of democracy in its former client state blossomed quickly” (page 7).

Fisk 1998: “The entire Atlantic Coast region was administratively one department—Zelaya—when the Sandinistas came to power in 1979. With the approval of an Autonomy Law in 1987, the department was divided into two administrative and governmental regions: the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) and the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS). The law established a 45-member governing council for each region. For representational voting purposes, the regions are divided into a total of 14 municipalities (‘municipios’), six in the RAAN and eight in the RAAS. These municipalities are further sub-divided into 30 ‘circunscripciones electorales’ (similar to electoral districts). Each ‘circunscripcion’ elects three members to its respective regional council. Members are selected by secret ballot and representation on the council is proportional” (page 5). Gives the name of each municipality and the numbers of the electoral districts within it (pages 5-6).

Freeland 1988: “The Atlantic Coast…is home to six different ethnic groups, speaking four different languages…The Sumos and Ramas are direct descendants of indigenous peoples now much reduced in number; only the Sumos still speak their own language. The Miskitos, product of intermarriage since the 17 th century between indigenous Indians, African slaves, and Afro-Caribbean immigrants, are the largest of the ethnic minorities, and still speak their own language. Next in size is the population of English-speaking Creoles, descendants of white settlers on the Coast and their African slaves imported in the 18 th century, and of further migrations of Afro-Caribbean workers from Jamaica and Belize. Spanish-speaking Mestizos, who have migrated from the Pacific Coast at various periods in search of land or work, now constitute the majority group. There is also a small population of Black Caribs, descended from black slaves…who interbred with the indigenous Carib Indians” (page 17). “In 1687…the governor of Jamaica crowned a Miskito chief ‘King of Mosquitia,’ owing allegiance to the English crown, and justifying the English presence there as the protector of indigenous autonomy. Mosquitia officially became a British protectorate in 1740” (pages18-19). “Towards the end of the 18 th century, Spain successfully reasserted its claim to ‘Mosquitia,’ and under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1783) Britain was forced to pull out, though links were kept up with the Miskito monarchy” (page 20).

González 1997: “Entre 1957...y los comienzos de los años setenta, un gran porcentaje de aquellas personas que votaron por los Somoza fueron mujeres. Estas mujeres liberales provenían de diferentes estratos económicos y llegaron a tener mucho poder durante la dictadura por medio del voto y mediante la participación en el Ala Femenina del Partido Liberal” (page 197).

Grigsby Vado 2004: “Election results in 2000 and 2001: Masaya, Carazo, Granada and Rivas” (page 21). “Results achieved by the main national parties in the last three Caribbean coast elections” (page 25).

ICSPS 1963: Gives the method of electing the president, a description of the national legislature, and the method of electing the national legislature (page 8).

ICSPS 1967: “When the Spanish colonies in the Western Hemisphere were torn into factions over the power of the Catholic Church, León sided with the Liberals, who favored a greater separation of church and state, and Granada joined the Conservatives, who campaigned to enhance the influence of the Church. Although any meaningful ideological differences between the two cities diminished in succeeding decades, the struggle between Liberals and Conservatives has remained unabated throughout Nicaraguan history” (page 80).

Krennerich 1993: “Las elecciones durante la dictadura Somocista (1936-1979)” (pages 176-178). “Las elecciones en la Nicaragua ‘Sandinista’ (1979-1990)” (pages 178-181).

Kuant 1990: “Nicaraguan political life has been marked by the ‘historical parallels,’ a name given to the liberal-conservative two-party system that lasted more than 100 years. The Liberal and Conservative parties were organized in the 1850's, after the so called “National War” during the conservative government of General Tomás Martínez. Both parties already existed throughout Latin America” (page 3).

Luciak 1998: “Gender composition of FSLN candidates for parliament 1984 and 1990 elections” (page 224). “Gender composition of FSLN Members of Parliament, 1980-1996” (page 232).

Luciak 2001: “Gender composition of the FSLN’s Nacional Directorate, 1979-2001” (page 174).“Gender composition of FSLN candidates for Parliament, 1984-1996” (page 208). “Gender composition of FSLN members of Parliament, 1980-1996” (page 217).

Menjívar 1986: “Nicaragua: cambios en la presidencia según forma de ascenso al poder, por años de 1944 a 1984" (unpaged in “Anexo 2").

Millett 1977: “(T)he country has from the start been divided by a senseless and destructive type of regionalism. The rivalry between the cities of León and Granada, as well as the hatred and vindictiveness with which the political parties representing each of these two cities treated one another at least up until 1927, is the single most tragic national trait in Nicaraguan history. This exaggerated regionalism and partisanship has been the cause of a continued succession of revolutions and coups, and, in part at least, also the cause of foreign interventions” (from introduction by Miguel D’Escoto, M.M.) (page 4).

Millett 2000: “The president and vice president are elected for six-year terms and, along with close family members, are barred from reelection…Nicaragua’s unicameral legislature has ninety-three members. Complex constitutional provisions provide that twenty seats be elected from national party lists and seventy be elected departmentally, under a system of proportionate representation. In addition, defeated presidential candidates who win a bit over 1 percent of the vote are also given a seat. This has encouraged a proliferation of parties, with twenty-four competing and eleven actually winning one or more seats in 1996. No single party has a legislative majority. Electoral law reforms in 2000 changed this system, curbing the proliferation of smaller parties but also concentrating power in the hands of the two dominant parties” (page 462). Describes the electoral system (page 463). “ Nicaragua has thirty-four political parties, many of which exist only to promote individual ambitions and have no national structure. Only three currently have the right to a place on the ballot” (page 464).

Merrill 1994: “National Assembly seats, elections of 1985 and 1990" (page 234). Gives party and seats won.

Mujeres latinoamericanas en cifras: Nicaragua 1993: “Participación femenina en la Asamblea Legislativa, 1979-1996" (page 97). “Participación femenina en las municipalidades, según cargo, 1990-1994" (page 98).

Mujeres: panorámica de su participación en Nicaragua 1990: As of 1985, women in the Asamblea Nacional constituted 13.54% of the “propietarios” and 13.54% of the “suplentes” (page 68). “Con anterioridad a la conformación del nuevo estado de derecho nicaragüense, las mujeres tuvieron cierta participación en el Consejo de Estado (órgano de transición en los primeros años de la Revolución) colegislativo con la entonces Junta de Gobierno de Reconstrucción Nacional. En el Consejo participaban representantes de las distintas organizaciones de masas y de los partidos políticos existentes. De 51 miembros, 3 fueron mujeres en la legislatura de 1981, 7 en la del 82, 5 en el 83 y 6 en el 84.” “(E)n las contiendas electorales anteriores al 19 de julio de 1979...77 mujeres participaron como candidatas propietarias (12.85 por ciento) y 115 (19.19 por ciento) como suplentes. La Asamblea quedó conformada por 96 escaños de los cuales 13 fueron mujeres propietarias y 13 suplentes” (page 68). “Candidatas a la Asamblea Nacional.” For the elections of 1984 and 1990 gives the number of women who were candidates for “propietarias” and “suplentes” for three parties. “Evolución de la participación femenina en los órganos legislativos (1981-1990)” (page 70).

Munro 1967:”Under ordinary circumstances, there is no chance for any but the official ticket. The opponents of the government, and even those who are suspected of being lukewarm in their support of it, are excluded from the official lists of voters, with or without a perfunctory excuse, and opposition candidacies are discouraged by the imprisonment or the expulsion from the country of the rival leaders and of their chief supporters. Fraud and intimidation are generously employed to increase the government’s majority. The measures taken are usually sufficient to secure a result satisfactory to the faction in power, but occasionally they are unavailing because the opposition is strong enough to wring a compromise from the administration or to overthrow it by revolution. Elections, therefore, are often accompanied by more or less disorder and uncertainty, and a too violent attempt to impose an unpopular candidate on the people has not infrequently been followed by civil war” (pages 74-75).

Nicaragua: 10 años en cifras 1989: “Partidos políticos de Nicaragua” (page 49). Gives name, acronym, president, and founding date of parties “con personería jurídica al 5 de junio de 1989.”

Nicaragua en cifras 1991: “Resultados de las elecciones electorales de 1984 y 1990" (page 90). For each election gives the number eligible to register to vote, the number registered to vote, total votes cast, abstention rate, valid votes, and null votes.

Nickson 1995: “ Nicaragua is a unitary nation divided for administrative purposes into nine regions and fifteen departments. Below the department level, the country is divided into 143 municipalities” (page 211). “Nicaraguan local government comprises a unipersonal executive head, or mayor (alcalde), and a legislature (concejo municipal). These replaced the former coordinators and JMRs following the municipal elections of 1990, the first to be held under the new municipal code [1988]...(T)here is no separate election of the executive head. Instead, the mayor is elected indirectly by a simple majority vote from among councillors...(C)ouncillors are elected for a six-year term of office...Municipal elections are also held at the same time as national elections, thereby diverting voter attention away from local issues and toward national electoral considerations...(T)he electoral system is not based on proportional representation” (page 214). Provides more detail on election of municipal officials.

Nohlen 1993a, 1993b: Electoral information and tables (1993a pages 453-476; 1993b pages 577-603). 2.1) “Evolution of the electorate 1924-1990” gives year, type of elections, population, registered voters (total number and percent of population) and voters (total number, percent of registered voters, and percent of population). 2.2) “Abbreviations of parties and coalitions.” 2.3) “Electoral participation of parties and coalitions 1912-1990” gives party, dates of participation, and the numbers of elections for president and Congress in which they participated. 2.4) “Dates of national elections and institutional interruptions 1924-1990” includes presidential, congressional, and Constituent Assembly elections. 2.5) “Elections for Constituent Assembly 1950, 1972, and 1984” has two parts: a) gives total and percent of registered voters, voters, blank, null, and valid votes and b) gives by party number of votes and percent of total vote, seats won and percent of total seats. 2.6) “Congressional elections 1947-1990 (total numbers)” gives by year registered voters, voters, blank, null, and valid votes and total votes received by each party. 2.7) “Congressional elections 1947-1990 (percentages)” gives the percent of registered voters who voted, the percent of blank, null, and valid votes and the percent of votes received by each party. 2.8) “Composition of Congress 1957-1990” for Chamber of Deputies gives by year the total seats and the number and percent of seats held by each party. 2.9) “Presidential elections 1912-1990” gives by year a) the registered voters, the percent who voted, blank, null, and valid votes and b) candidates/parties with their total votes and percent of vote. 2.10) “List of national leaders (presidents, juntas, dictators, generals, etc.) 1893-1990” gives names, dates, and observations on how they came to power and details on electoral issues in their regimes.

Ortega Hegg 2001: “Resultados elecciones presidenciales por partidos y alianzas de partidos en Nicaragua (elecciones de 1984, 1990 y 1996)” (page 123). “El sistema electoral” (pages 124-126). “Los procesos electorales” (page 127-130). “La participación en las elecciones presidenciales de Nicaragua (1984-1996)” (page 128). “La participación en las elecciones legislativas de Nicaragua (1984-1996)” (page 128). “La inclusión de las etnias” (page 131). “Resultados de las elecciones regionales autónomas (1990, 1994, 1998)” (page 131). “Inclusión de las mujeres” (pages 132-134). “Resultado de las elecciones locales en 1990 y 1996” (page 135).

Parker 1981: “There are 122 ‘municipios’ for local government in Nicaragua (1958) besides a National District. The chief officials of the ‘municipios’ and the National District are appointed by the nation’s president” (page 221).

Pezzullo 1993: “Chronology of the Nicaraguan Revolution 1933-July 1979” (pages 253-275).

Saint-Germain 1994: “Women and minorities in the national legislatures of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, 1984-1990” (page 212).

Santiuste Cué 2001: “Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional” (pages 483-505). Tables for FSLN’s performance in elections. “Partido Liberal Constitucionalista” (pages 505-522). Tables for FSLN’s performance in elections.

Stahler-Sholk 1987: “Aside from the dissident Conservatives, the political opposition to Somoza family rule included two smaller parties: the Independent Liberal Party (PLI), which split with Somoza’s Nationalist Liberal Party in 1947, and the Social Christian Party (PSC), a Christian Democratic party formed in 1957…The Moscow-oriented Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN), founded in 1944, followed the accommodationist line typical of Latin American communist parties in the postwar period, but it was nevertheless severely repressed from 1947 onward. The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), founded in 1961, carried out a series of guerrilla actions in the 1960s, but the National Guard had inflicted heavy casualties on the guerrilla columns by 1970” (page 63).

Statistical abstract of Latin America volume 32 1996: “ Nicaragua election results, by department/region and political party, 1984-90” (page 304).

Taracena Arriola 1994: “Gobernantes de Nicaragua 1870-1945" (pages 409-410).

Teichgraber 1994: “Nicaragua political parties: 1947-1990" (page 108).

Tenorio 1996: “Desde 1838 hasta 1950 los procesos electorales de Nicaragua, vistos desde los intereses de las mujeres, se enmarcan en leyes y bases constitucionales que limitan el concepto de ciudadana(o) o ciudadanía a llenar requisitos discriminatorios de orden social, económico y cultural para ejercer el derecho al voto…En la constitución de 1893…desaparecen formalmente las discriminaciones económicas y sociales, y se establece sólo como requisito la edad del votante que es de 18 años si es soltero, y mayor de 16 si es casado. Sin embargo, implicitamente se le niega a las mujeres el derecho al voto. De todas las leyes electorales, las de 1912 y 1923, aún cuando no se registraron procesos electorales, son las únicas que han sido claras en la discriminación de género hacia la mujer…Es hasta en 1950 que se establece en la constitución nacional el voto femenino…No es hasta en las elecciones de 1957 en que las mujeres votan por primera vez en Nicaragua” (page 10).

Teplitz 1973: “The first forms of government in Colonial Nicaragua were town councils, at Granada and then León…Local offices in 1524 went to conquistadors who were personally selected by their commander…Later, upon the arrival of Spanish civil officials, town government was controlled primarily by a system of nepotism. A royal ‘cedula’ in 1536 ordered that annual elections be conducted for local administrators, but the franchise was limited to men such as government functionaries, titled people and property owners…The succeeding king of Spain, Philip II, had grave financial crises, which he endeavored to overcome partly by selling public offices. In Nicaragua, the result was an increase in oligarchical control” (page 296). “Non-paying posts, as on city councils,...were prized for their prestige and their opportunities to share in profits from municipal contracts…The sale of public offices consequently became engrained for centuries…By 1809, however, the sale of municipal offices was a dying practice, and in 1812 the Spanish Constitution of Cadiz eliminated the sales practice. Thereafter, a number of governmental jobs became hereditary. In brief, the first three centuries of local administration in Nicaragua showed a pattern that commenced in nepotism, was transposed to oligarchy and finally was altered to an ancestral model” (pages 297-298).

Traña Galeano 2000: Lists mayors of Managua from 1820-2000 (pages 188-216). Includes biographical information.

United States . Department of State 1932: “ Nicaragua has a republican form of Government, its Constitution being modeled after that of the United States. Power is highly centralized in the Federal Government. Responsible to the President is a cabinet which, besides exercising the ordinary ministerial powers, also has many duties which in many countries are exercised by the local authorities. The country is divided into 13 departments, each presided over by a ‘jefe político,’ or chief executive, appointed by and responsible to the President. There are also six districts, all on the east coast, two of which are responsible directly to the Ministry of the Interior. The other four elect their own governors, who are responsible to the ‘jefe político’ of the Department of Bluefields. Local self-government centers around the municipalities, administered in each instance by an elected alcalde or mayor” (page 2).

Vanhanen 1975, 1979: Results of presidential elections, 1849-1967 (1975 pages 195-198). Results of presidential elections, 1849-1974 (1979 pages 238-239). Gives year, elected presidential candidate, votes received, percent of the total votes, total votes, and percent of the total population who voted.

Vargas 1989: “En las elecciones de 1912 y 1916 sólo se presenta un candidato, perteneciente al Partido Conservador que era el partido que había servido de mampara a la contrarrevolución de 1910 promovida por Estados Unidos. El Partido Liberal no pudo participar en ambas contiendas electorales por disposición del gobierno de Estados Unidos. Hasta la fecha, no hemos podido encontrar datos electorales confiables por departamento, y de todos modos no servirían para nada, al haberse dado la candidatura única” (page 9). “Cuadro número 1" (page 157). For the PC gives by departments the votes won in 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932 and the percents by which the number of votes for the party increased or decreased from one election to the next. “Cuadro número 2" (page 158). For the PL gives by departments the votes won in 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932 and the percents by which the number of votes for the party increased or decreased from one election to the next. “Cuadro número 3: resumen elecciones, 1920-1932" (pages 159-162). Gives for each department the number/percents of votes for the PC and PL.

Walker 1970: “(W)hen the [Somoza] regime is really threatened, as it is during the election, democratic rules tend to be ignored. Basic freedoms of speech, press, and assembly vanish. Practically every imaginable form of election and pre-election fraud occurs. Time-tested devices such as multiple-registration, multiple-voting, and the destruction of ballot boxes are commonplace. And, the government even resorts to imaginative innovations of its own such as the use of the translucent ballot…The Somoza system depends for its existence on six sources of support: the military, the economic elite, the bureaucracy, the Liberal party, United States ‘aid and comfort,’ and the Church hierarchy” (pages 13-14). Explains the importance of each.

Walker 2000: “Nicaraguan heads of state, 1937-present” (page 68).

Williams 2000: “In pre-1979 Nicaragua, the Somoza regime used elections as an instrument for keeping itself in power and to create a democratic façade. By allotting an agreed-upon number of seats to the principal opposition party, the ‘somocistas’ also served to reward those who played according to the ‘rules of the game’” (page 14).

Zelaya 2000: Zelaya discusses elections in Nicaragua as a 16-year member of the CSE.

Zub K. 2002: “El establecimiento del protestantismo fue encabezado por la Misión Centroamericana (1901), Asambleas de Dios (1912), Bautistas (1917), Apostólicos (1918), iglesia de Cristo (1928), iglesia del Nazareno (1943), iglesia de Dios (1951), misión Evangélica Pentecostal Unida (1954), iglesia Cuadrangular (1955), Misión Cristiana (1959), y otras. Todas ellas autónomas o dependientes de las misiones extranjeras, asumieron un ideario proselitista y confrontativo con la iglesia Católica, culpándola del avasallamiento de los pueblos indígenas y de la simbiosis entre la cruz y la espada, como también por mantener en ignorancia religiosa y política al pueblo” (page 17).