Uruguay's Citizens Challenge Impunity
Government officials stunned when one-fifth of
Uruguay's
population sign referendum petition
by Carlos Varela
One of the articles in Caring For Families (IC#21) Spring 1989, Page 8
Copyright (c)1989, 1997 by Context
Institute
| To order this issue ...
Uruguay's "Impunity Law," which shields the military from
prosecution
for past human rights abuses, has been challenged by a courageous
campaign
involving what may be the most pluralistic and representative coalition
ever created in this South American nation's history.
Over 600,000 registered voters - one-fifth of Uruguay's population -
signed a petition calling for a national referendum to repeal the Law.
This
monumental feat stunned government officials and returned to Uruguay's
people
the right to set their own course.
The military ruled Uruguay from 1973 until 1985, when it stepped
aside
to allow the elections that brought current President Julio María
Sanguinetti to power. During transition talks in 1984, military and
political
leaders had agreed that while the Executive branch of the new government
would not prosecute human rights violators, the civilian courts would
still
be free to pursue the matter without interference.
But Mr. Sanguinetti, citing threats by the Armed Forces to ignore
judicial
subpoenas, pushed the Impunity Law through Parliament on December 22,
1986
- just in time to exempt the first group of military and police officers
due to appear in court on charges of torture, extrajudiciary execution,
abduction and "disappearance."
Within 24 hours citizens formed the National Pro-Referendum
Commission,
led by the grandmother of a "disappeared" girl , the widows of
two murdered parliamentarians, and other prominent Uruguayans
representing
the entire political spectrum. In the following weeks some 300
grassroots
neighborhood committees started organizing throughout the country in
preparation
for the petition drive, launched in February 1987.
"Mission Impossible," said the government. Uruguay's
Constitution
requires the signatures of 25% of the registered voters to put such a
referendum
on the ballot, and voter rolls are swollen by mandatory registration at
the age of 18. The government was also banking on the legacy of fear
left
behind by a very recent dictatorial experience.
Just to be on the safe side, however, government spokesmen warned
that
the undoing of the Impunity Law could lead to a military coup and
suggested
that the signatures be controlled by the ministries of Internal Security
and National Defense. Such pronouncements were widely interpreted as
part
of an attempt to intimidate potential signers, especially those with
government
jobs.
But the broad appeal of the Pro-Referendum Commission helped to
compensate
for these and other handicaps, such as a shortage of funds and very
restricted
access to the media. Tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of
life
collected signatures door-to-door as well as in public places, private
and
public offices, shops and factories all over Uruguay. Actors, musicians,
singers and other artists toured the country offering benefit
performances,
and pro-referendum groups abroad collected signatures and funds from
Uruguayans
living in other countries.
After a 10-month effort that went almost unreported beyond Uruguay's
borders, the Commission delivered to the nation's Electoral Court more
signatures
than the highly politicized Court could honestly count. The Court
then spent a year questioning the validity of the signatures, in effect
daring some 37,000 citizens to come forward in person to confirm their
support
for the referendum (and, by consequence, to publicly identify themselves
to the ever-threatening military).
The overwhelming majority of these citizens rose to the challenge.
The
Court was forced to concede defeat, and the petition was officially
certified
on December 23, 1988. The national vote will take place on April 16,
1989.
No similar recourse against unpopular laws is available in any other
Latin American country, but the implications of the campaign in Uruguay
reverberate throughout the region. Impunity is a source of increasing
concern
to human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, which noted
in a June 1988 report that Uruguay's impunity measure, "by
undermining
the law's ability to deter future abuses ... could encourage some to see
'disappearance' as an acceptable practice and contribute to the
occurrence
of similar abuses in the future."
And America's Watch, assessing the Argentine public's reaction to a
military
mutiny that paved the way to a similar impunity measure, commented in
1987
that "Never in Argentine history has there been such a
demonstration
of overwhelming support for the democratic process and such outspoken
opposition
to authoritarian rule."
Although the threat posed by an unrepentant military cannot be
overemphasized,
these examples of popular opposition to impunity indicate that civilian
governments grossly underestimate the resolve of their people to uphold
the rule of law. Uruguay's National Pro-Referendum Commission proved
right
the slogan it had adopted: "Each signature counts." In
anticipation
of a final test, which is sure to see the government and military
fielding
all their resources in defense of the "Impunity Law," the
Commission
is again reaching out to the Uruguayan people - this time with the
message,
"Each vote counts."
Carlos Varela is a Uruguayan journalist and U.N. correspondent for
ANSA, the Italian news agency.
Please support
this web site ... and thanks if you already are!
All contents copyright
(c)1989,
1997 by Context Institute
Please send comments to webmaster
Last Updated 29 June 2000.
URL: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/VarelaPP.htm
Home | Search
| Index of Issues | Table
of Contents
|