Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The present work makes a comparative analysis of the foreign policy of the two historic moments of Mr. Ortega as president of Nicaragua emphasizing the actions of this country as an actor of the international system. At beginning, it makes a brief historic study of the first government (1979-1990) with regard to the Nicaraguan Revolution, that brought a socialist government to this central american country, and its foreign policy based on relations with Cuba and with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Those close ties, shows this work, put Nicaragua isolated from the rest of the american continent.

The second part brings an analysis of the present Ortega's government (2007-) after three mandates of neoliberal governments, Mr. Ortega's way back brings to the nicaraguans some hope after fifteen years of increase of poverty on the country. The second part of the work shows also that the international scenario is no longer the same. There is no more fight between capitalism and socialism. Regarding this new historic moment -- represented by the economic globalization and increase of new centers of power -- this analysis shows that Daniel Ortega comes back to the presidency with a main purpose: curb the poverty of the nicaraguans. On this way, we see a foreign policy marked by the approaches to Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. The first two by the "Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América" (ALBA). This work also shows the approaches of Nicaragua to Brazil and China, both new centers of power that want to have an influence on this central american country. Concluding, it makes an analysis of both periods understanding its similarities and diferences.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This essay examines the similarities between Alexis de
Tocqueville's 'democratic man' and Jose Ortega y Gasset's mass-man.
Both thinkers penned characterizations of a unique psychological and
sociological phenomenon: the emergence of the democratic multitude, the
harbinger of malicious forms of state power invested with (perhaps
unwitting) public support. Their most famous works explicate the
resemblance--for example, they proffer praise for some form of an
aristocratic ideal, they emphasize the leveling tendencies of democracy
and the resulting mass of undifferentiated men, and they offer
forewarnings of a state in the grasp of the democratic mass. In this
respect, Tocqueville's works issue constant reminders of his reaction
to the French Revolution and Ortega's political theory reflects a fear
of the mass political ideologies grasping the Europe of his day.
Beyond this revulsion at the sight of popular approval for a political
model they personally despised, this essay explores the suggestion that
both Tocqueville and Ortega espoused a simliar commitment to liberalism
in the nineteenth century sense of the term. Theirs was not an
egalitarian liberalism; rather, in doctrinaire fashion, they believed
it necessary for an enlightened elite to actively operate to curtail
the despotic tendencies emerging within the democratic mass. They
emphasized the deferntial component inherent to liberal democracy (as
they understood it) and sought to balance the need for 'select
individuals' to aspire to political leadership with their own fears of
extreme state power. This lesson--one of fearing the state without
succumbing to anti-statism--may be their most important legacy.
Likewise, the lesson we should take from both Tocqueville and Ortega
may be one of seeking to cure contemporary democracy not with more
democracy, but through a reinvigorated understanding of
liberalism.