What was most surprising about Nicaragua's Nov. 6 election was not that President Daniel Ortega was re-elected after a highly questionable electoral process, but that his victory got a seemingly unconditional blessing from 34-country Organization of American States chief Jose Miguel Insulza.
On Nov. 7, after Ortega was proclaimed the winner with nearly 64 percent of the vote, Insulza was quoted by the OAS election observation mission as saying that "in Nicaragua yesterday, democracy and peace took a step forward."
Really⢠I asked Insulza in a telephone interview. Do you honestly think that?
Most independent observers agree, for starters, that Ortega's re-election is unconstitutional.
The Nicaraguan Constitution specifically bans sitting presidents from seeking re-election. It also bans any president who already served on two occasions from seeking a third term; Ortega has already served on two occasions.
But, in a near surreal maneuver, after failing to win enough legislative votes to overturn the constitutional mandate, Ortega took advantage of a solidly loyal Supreme Court in 2009 to win a ruling declaring the constitutional ban unconstitutional.
Steps he had taken since then made the entire process "illegal and unconstitutional," according to Carlos Fernando Chamorro, the former pro-Sandinista journalist who edits the respected independent newsletter Confidencial.
Supervising was a pro-Ortega Supreme Electoral Council whose members' terms had expired and which had presided over fraudulent 2008 municipal elections, Chamorro wrote.
Several independent election monitors have verified government "interference" in issuing of voting credentials, which left tens of thousands unable to vote. And there were "flagrant violations" of laws that prohibit use of government funds for electoral campaigns, Chamorro added.
Asked about the OAS quoting him as saying democracy had taken a step forward, Insulza told me, "That was an error."
He said the OAS electoral observation mission had included that quote in a press release about a phone call he made to Ortega after the election. Insulza later asked that the quote be removed from the statement, and it's no longer part of the press release posted at the OAS website, he said.
"I considered it to be a mistake, because the OAS secretary general is not supposed to issue an opinion about an electoral process until the OAS electoral observation mission has issued its report."
OK, but did you say it or didn't you, I asked. "It was an interpretation of something that was said during my conversation with Ortega," Insulza responded.
As for his general sense, Insulza told me the election was a "demonstration of civility" by the Nicaraguan people and "the result was clear."
My opinion: The OAS mission made a bad mistake by not offering a more comprehensive view in its first statements about the Nicaraguan election. Comparatively, the European Union observers mission said it was supervised by "electoral authorities with very little independence and equanimity."
The OAS mission's original press communique, which Insulza is partially recanting, is being promoted by Ortega and his international allies as alleged evidence of an immaculate victory. That will make it even easier for Ortega to grab even greater powers and remain in power indefinitely.
We can only hope the OAS final report will reflect Nov. 6's true nature: a relatively normal election day, with a clear result, but preceded by a highly tainted process that makes Ortega look like a new version of Nicaragua's infamous late strongman Anastasio Somoza.
The final OAS report will be hard to take seriously unless it concludes that -- contrary to its previous communique -- democracy and peace have suffered a setback in Nicaragua.
Andres Oppenheimer is a Latin America correspondent for The Miami Herald.
