
          "The Logic of the Majority"
          By Gorostiaga, XabierXabier Gorostiaga
          Vol. 6, No. 1, 1984, pp. 6-10
          
          
            Xabier Gorostiaga: 
            I was born in the Basque
country in the north of Spain. My family was very persecuted at that
time, after the Civil_War (1936-39). In the confrontation between
General Franco and the Basques, my father was very involved in the
Basque fighting. Then we went into exile. Exile and persecution are
part of my vital experience.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            You were in a Catholic
family. Was the Christian faith a vital force in your family?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            Yes. Especially with my mother,
later also with my father. My father was not a good Christian at the
beginning, but was transformed by the religious thinking of an
atheist, the Basque philospher Miguel de Unamuno. Then when the
Vatican put Unamuno's writing on the black list of forbidden books, my
father had to rethink his own atheism and his own religious
beliefs.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            The condemnation of the Vatican
caused your father to re-think the Christian faith.
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            Yes, but in a very dialetical
process. Because instead of saying, "Well, I won't have anything to do
with the church," my father said, "This man is a real Christian. I
don't know why the church condemned this fellow." It forced him to
rethink. It was a starting process to get closer to an evangelical
attitude toward life. And in the last years of his life he was a very
committed Christian.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            So did you become a Jesuit
early in life? And leave home?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            I came to Latin America very
young to do all my religious studies here. The novitiate we call
it. Then I studied in Cuba, from 1958 to 1960, in El Caballo, a small
town close to Havana. And the Cuban experience was an incredible
experience for me. At that time I realized that the role of the
Catholic Church in Cuba was a very traditional, very conservative
role. The Cuban Church was very rich and had no contact with the poor
in Cuba. We were not allowed at that time even to hear Fidel Castro on
television. And even though some Christians took part in the
revolution, the church was not considered part of the building of a
new society. And that experience, in the negative sense, also was
important for me.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            So you stayed in Latin America
after that training?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            Yes, all the time except my
final years doing theology studies. I did my theology studies in a
university in the Basque country in order to be close to my mother and
father who were very old at that time, and in order that they would be
present at my ordination as a priest.
            You know the Jesuit province is organized with five 1` small
nations in Central America, from Guatemala to Panama. I lived one year
and a half in Guatemala, a year in Salvador. In 1961 I was naturalized
in Nicaragua. I had a Nicaraguan passport until Somoza took it
away. At that time I was an economic advisor of the Panamanian
government working on the Panama Canal treaty negotiations so I took
the nationality of Panama.
            I maintain my Panamanian passport, but I consider myself a Central
American citizen. I have been living in all these countries. I have
been involved in reform in El Salvador, working with my Jesuit
colleagues in Guatemala. For me, Central America is a nation.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            So your spiritual formation is
very clear then. Has that resulted in an attitude toward the faith
that differed from your childhood faith?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            I was very traditional in my
faith when I was a child and even when I became a Jesuit. But what
moved me to become a Jesuit was my experience with shantytowns,
immigrant towns in the Basque country. People from Andalusia, from
Galicia, the poorest part of Spain came to these towns and were living
in incredible conditions. Every Sunday for more than three or four
years I went with two or three Jesuits to help build houses to teach
these people. I think that was the experience that converted me to a
real Christianity, the experience that induced me to be a Christian,
and also to imitate two or three of these Jesuit priests that I saw
working for so many years with these very, very poor, oppressed
people.
            Later my experience in Cuba, in Ecuador with the very poor
Indians, and in Panama with the campesino movement in which Father
Hector Gallego, a martyr, was killed in 1971. That experience changed
my life. I realized that as Jesuits we had spent four hundred years
teaching, assuming, that the rich people would be the creators, the
builders of a new society. I realized that we were absolutely
wrong. That these people will receive some training, some Christian
feelings, but that they will not fight against a society that they are
the builders of. I consider that only the oppressed can build a new
society. The rich have no interest in a new society because they are
the owners of the present society.
            Then at the beginning of the 60s, before Medellin*Medellin, Colombia, where the Latin
	    American Roman Catholic Bishops in 1968 changed the
	    historic alignment of the Church with the dominant class,
	    and took an 'option for the poor.'

and after, there
was a generation breakthrough in the lives of many Jesuit priests,
nuns and laymen in Latin America. We said what Monsignor Romero said'
"I was converted." We found a new way of reading the gospel, a new way
of praying, a new way of looking at the different values of
society. That was a real conversion. We went to work with the poor,
trying to convert the poor and the funny thing is that the poor
converted us.  
            From 1969 to 1971 I did undergraduate studies, and later on
post-graduate studies, at Cambridge University. It was a fascinating
experience, but very hard because I had in my background in Latin
America the sufferings of the people and here I was living in that
incredible, marvelous town of Cambridge. I really had to convince
myself every day that that was useful for the poor. And that was my
full commitment. I was thirty years old and the only thing that forced
me to carry on five years work in economics was my purpose to give a
new tool, a new instrument, to the poor of this part of the world. And
now I realize that they were five worthwhile years.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            Xabier, as an economist you
have been the motivating force behind a research institute that is
based here in Nicaragua but is for all Central America. At a workshop
held in Holland, that group has recently (June of 1983) issued this
Alternative Policy for Central America and the Caribbean. Could you
talk about the main points in the Alternative.
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            The basic one is the logic of
the majority. We realize that the logic of capital, the logic of
transnational companies has created underdevelopment, exploitation,
poverty, misery and nowadays, a social and political explosion. This
logic doesn't solve the problems of the majority in this part of the
world. Everybody nowadays talks about the basic needs, but they don't
talk about a new logic. The basic needs can be accomplished through a
very paternalistic way: "We the rich will provide some things."
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            Sounds like you're talking
about Reagan's Caribbean Basin. . .
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            . . . Initiative. The key point
of the logic of the majority is that we need a new historical subject
to build a nation. And this historical subject will not be the rich,
will not be the transnational companies, will not be the logic of
capital, but will be the logic of the majority of people--illiterate,
oppressed. Let's put all the power, the resources, the land, the
education, the health, in the service of the majority. I think that
this is the key purpose of a social revolution. And I think the
Sandinista Revolution has taken the logic of the majority as the basis
of the new society. It is becoming a term of reference for many, many
small poor countries of the Third World.
            Our proposition is: Let's satisfy basic needs. Let's satisfy even
artificial needs but with a logic of a new society, a much more
egalitarian society. Instead of having a trickling down effect, let's
have a trickling up effect. Let's start building an accumulation
model, a growth model that is based on the needs of the population,
the priorities of the majority. And we think that this is real
democracy. Other-

wise propaganda dominates the market, not the real
needs of the population.
            Non-alignment is another very important aspect in our
Alternative. Our international relations have been linked to the
United_States in a sort of umbilical cord. Seventy to eighty percent
of our technology, our production, our exports and imports were linked
to the United_States. Then the pattern of production and consumption,
the model of United_States' society was transferred to the very poor,
underdeveloped small countries.
            When we are talking of non-alignment, we are talking of
diversifying our dependence. We are very small, poor underdeveloped
countries. We cannot be independent, but we can diversify our
dependency and maintain one-quarter of our relations with the United
States, one-quarter of our relationships with Europe, one-quarter of
our relations with the rest of Latin American--especially with our big
neighbors in Latin America such as Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela,
Colombia. And the quarter that is left is the non-aligned
countries--the African and Asian countries (the South-South relation)
and the socialist countries including Russia, Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria. Instead of walking with two legs--one big leg with the
United_States and one with the rest of the world--let's have four legs
and walk as a mature animal. This diversification of dependency is
part of the non-alignment and it creates the basis for an
international plurism and is the way in which we can break our
dependency from the United_States without breaking our friendly
relations with it. We will treat the United states as we treat the
rest of the world. We cannot be independent countries in the backyard
of anybody.
            I think there's a possibility of having a much more friendly,
efficient, productive relationship between these small countries of
Central America and the US people. The problem is that
you have your own oligarchy there that doesn't agree with this
model.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            Let's talk about popular
participation. What do you mean by democracy?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            I don't think there can be a
human model, a Christian model, unless there's a democratic
model. What does democracy mean--in a very developed society such as
the United_States and in a very undeveloped society?
            Democracy has an important component of economic participation. I
don't know why--and I asked David Rockefeller in our last meeting--in
the Inter-American Dialogue--why democracy in the United_States stops
at the door of the factory. Because we think, in terms of the
productive system, there is no democracy in the United_States. We
think that democracy has to start in the productive system. That is
why in Nicaragua we have built 3,500 cooperatives. And the people
decide what to produce, decide and discuss the cost of production,
decide what will be the price. And there's a tremendous fight between
the ministry of planning and the cooperatives--that's democracy.
            The basis for democracy is literacy, the satisfaction of basic
needs and a sort of national identity in order that elections will not
legitimate oppression. In the last forty years in Central America we
have had more elections than in any area of the world. Elections here
have justified and legitimized oppression. Elections may be a tool of
anything. When you have a terrorized country like El Salvador or
Guatemala, elections will represent terror and fear.
            Elections should be tools of democracy. First you have to build
democracy in order that the elections can be a representation of
democracy. In Nicaragua the constitution gives us six years (from 1979
to 1985) in which to hold elections. In the first year after the
Revolution we began a literacy campaign. A year later we had decreased
illiteracy from fifty-five percent to twelve percent. In our health
campaign we have eradicted polio and almost eradicated yellow fever
and malaria. We have been able to decrease infant mortality forty
percent without doctors, without hospitals--only through popular
mobilization. Literacy and malnutrition are not technical or financial
problems, they are political problems.
            For me it is a legitimate sign of the democracy of a country when
the government provides 150,000 machine guns to defend the country,
the people take the arms and there is no shooting, no killing in the
streets. The people return the arms to the government after
training. Can you imagine Pinochet distributing arms to the Chilean
people? This is the only country in Latin America where the US
Ambassador can walk at night without bodyguards.
            At the moment I consider, without any doubt, that the main enemy of
democracy in this country is the administration of Ronald Reagan. The
war might make it impossible to create the basic conditions for
elections. It is a very difficult problem to solve.
            You ask me, "Is the Sandinista Revolution a Marxist revolution?" I
will say, "No." "Is it a Christian revolution?" I will say, "No." "Is
it a nationalist revolution?" I will say, "No." Because it is a
mixture of these three. This is a very nationalist revolution Sandino
symbolized the nationalism of this revolution. Obviously, this is a
Marxist revolution in the sense that a lot of Marxist thinking is
going on, and not the European Marxist thinking of Cold War, a much
more Creole Marxism--much more Latin American, with lot of indigenous
roots in the culture and history of Latin America and with lot of
Latin American thinking--philosophers, poets. This is a Marxism of
poets. And this is also a Christian revolution.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            This is such a central fact
that I am surprised that the press and the politicians of the US
ignore it.
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            It is very good when thousands
of Chris-

tians from all over the world come to this country and they
see the vitality and the originality of this church. The new ways in
which the people pray, the new way in which the church is organized,
the new role of women within the church, the new role of laymen within
the church. Obviously, some people in the church, some members of the
hierarchy, see all this as heresy. But I think that what is going on
here is the maturity of these Christian people who are very poor and
they are getting a new maturity in the Christianity. This revolution
has been one of the most important spiritual experiences of my life. I
think that the kingdom of God is not something that will happen in
heaven, but something that we have to start building on this earth as
the human beings that we are.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            In this report on an
Alternative Proposal you state that "the United_States commitment to
preserving its hegemony in the region has given the struggle for
social justice in Central America an anti-imperialist character." What
you've just described, will the United_States agree to it?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            I would say that the majority of
the people in the United_States will agree if they get knowledge of
what we mean with that. These countries of Central America are the
countries in the world that have suffered more intervention from the
United_States than from any other part of the world. Twenty-eight
military interventions. In the case of Nicaragua we were occupied
twenty-five years by US marines. Then, they left us the gift of
Somoza.
            The breakthrough in Central America is a historical
breakthrough. The small countries in Central America are fighting for
independence, for sovereignty, are trying to break down this model of
banana republics. The problem is that this social revolution against
the five percent rich people, the oligarchies in these countries, in
order to create a much more equal and just society, at the same time
it is a social revolution, it is a geopolitical revolution. Because
this five percent, the oligarchies in these countries, the military
are the natural allies of the US interests in the region.
            We will not become part of any bloc. Not the Soviet Union, not any
bloc.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            How can you avoid that?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            That's difficult. But this is
our definition, our project. And I will say that the Soviet Union at
the moment has been generous. Cuba has been generous with us. The
pressures that these governments have created on Nicaragua is minimal,
I will say nil, in relation to the pressure that has been created by
the United_States, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            Xabier, if we go back to the
years before 1979, I knew Nicaraguan people in exile and others who
were studying the Bible. It was easy to find signs of hope for the
struggle in those years because they could see in the biblical message
that God is on the side of the oppressed. Then in 1979 the victory
came here and in my several visits in the two or three years after
that it was so easy to feel the joy and exuberance. The people seemed
to feel that the victory gave vindication to their hope. Now, it's a
very different situation. We're under the pressure of aggression from
the United_States. Would there be in the biblical message any sign of
hope if the United_States overthrew the revolution?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            I recommend you do two things
that helped me very much. The first would be to go to a militia
training and see how the militia does the military exercises. Look at
the eyes of these people. Do you see hate in the eyes of these people
or happiness, confidence, hope. Do you see camaraderie? You see how
the social relations change in militia training. And how the people in
the middle of this very difficult situation, this US intervention, are
happy, they don't fear. They are confident that they can destroy an
intervention in this country.
            I don't consider that this revolution can be destroyed at this
moment. This revolution may be corrupted in some years. The US marines
may come here. They may occupy Managua. The majority of the people
will go to the mountains and a fight of three, four years will occur
and after that a victory will occur. My fear is not US
intervention. My fear is the problems of internal corruption. That
this revolution will lose the originality, the freshness, the
commitment to the people, the participatory democracy. I fear the US
marines may produce a lot of suffering and destruction. But I feel
that this revolution cannot be destroyed as a social
revolution. Maybe, as it is happening nowadays, Reagan is
consolidating this revolution, and unifying the people. Polarizing the
people that are not happy with the revolution--the rich, some members
of the Church hierarchy. But I will say that a substantial majority,
from seventy-five to ninety percent, are behind this revolution.

            The problem of a revolution is that it is human. The problem of a
revolution is internal, another story.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            So this is not the kingdom of
God?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            No. It may be part of the
process to build the kingdom of God. And I believe in that. But the
sin is within us. But it may be part of the process of building
justice, and equality among us and with the rest of the world.
          
          
            Kirkpatrick: 
            What would you say to
Christians within the United_States?
          
          
            Gorostiaga: 
            That this is an incredible
opportunity to establish Christian relations between your people and
our people. I consider what is happening in Central America something
very important for the United_States. I consider that the Reagan
Administration and some economic and political leaders in the United
States are trying to cut the relations between this new phenomenon and
the US people. Distorting this phenomenon. Presenting this revolution
as totalitarian, as Marxism-Leninism in the worst sense of the
phrase. Because I consider that maybe for the first time there is the
possibility of having Christian relations between the churches here
and the churches of the United_States without paternalism. And more
than that, maybe even a teaching position from our side with relation
to the US church. Transforming the old relation of colonialism. I
think the vitality of these churches, the conversion of these churches
is essential for the United_States. And also, I think this is
biblical, as you have said, the poor, the rest of Israel is
here. Maybe in twenty years you will have to come back to missionize,
but at the moment I think we have a role to preach to the rest of the
world, to Europe and the United_States. I think that the genuine
Christianity is here, more than in the very developed rich nations of
the world.
          
          
            Recommended Reading
          
          
            Ministers of God, Ministers of the People: Testimonies
of Faith from Nicaragua by Teofilo Cabestrero. Published by
Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New_York 10545. Interviews with Ernesto
Cardenal, Fernando Cardenal and Miguel d'Escoto.
          
          
            Christians in the Nicaraguan Revolution by
Margaret Randall. Published by New Star Books, Vancouver,
Canada.
          
          
            On his most recent visit to Nicaragua (November, 1983)
Dow Kirkpatrick spoke with Xabier Gorostiaga, chief economist of the
Sandinista Government, Jesuit priest and head of the Central American
Institute for Economic and Social Research. In the following
interview, Gorostiaga talks about the formative influences upon his
commitment to Central America and about the Alternative Policy
for Central America and the Caribbean, a report recently
issued by the Institute as a result of an international policy
workshop held in The Hague during the summer of 1983.
          
        
