They differed dramatically from the style of rule of other military regimes in Central America. Whereas Anastasio Somoza, for example, chose to close off channels of mass participation, Torrijos dared to open them up (2).
Along with the various reforms and help he gave the lower classes, this is one of the main reasons Torrijos is considered the dictator with a heart . In essence, as Collazos succinctly puts it, Torrijos shifted the locus of power from the traditional elite to a new coalition made up of a rural middle class and an urban middle and lower class (48).
Another important aspect Torrijos program was his extensive agricultural reforms. By tapping into the underutilized land and labor in Panama he fostered economic development. He aided in the coalition of the National Confederation of Peasants Settlements, or CONAC, with the National Guard, which was not an easy task. Even though in the past they had been enemies, he reminded them of their views on imperialism, both of which were anti-imperialist– even though at times CONAC was not willing to sacrifice socialist goals for nationalist ones.
In his agricultural reforms, Torrijos tried to include the peasantry in ways that would not disturb the oligarchy. He stressed non-confrontation and class cooperation among the groups. He had a clientalistic relationship with the peasant settlements and because he was a charismatic leader who set the boundaries of their relationship: he provided them with land, credit and political identity in return for their political support (Priestly 65).
Perhaps the most important aspect of Torrijos program was his foreign policy. In order to maintain the support of most of the Panamanian population he had to maintain a hard line, anti-imperialist, nationalistic and specifically anti-American stance. He was obviously not Washington s boy as Somoza had been, but in a way he was more respected for his efforts to regain the sovereignty of Panama.
In 1973, Torrijos invited the U.N. Security Council to hold their annual meeting in Panama. At this meeting Torrijos introduced a resolution (to the surprise of the U.S.) calling for new treaties regarding the Panama Canal. Embarrassed, the U.S. vetoed the resolution, but this had such a great impact that Ford agreed to negotiate a joint statement of principles regarding the canal in 1974. As the U.S. administration changed, the treaties were put on the back burner. Torrijos used this time to lobby his Latin American neighbors and wrote to president-elect Carter to make the treaties his top priority (Pastor, Whirlpool 7). He also lobbied Congress and enlisted characters such as John Wayne to support the treaties. The new Panama Canal treaties which would hand over power of the canal to Panama were finally ratified on March 16th, 1978 by one vote. Through the process Torrijos developed a close relationship with President Carter, and a much friendlier one than the one that existed between Carter and Somoza.
Thus, the constituencies and programs of Somoza and Torrijos are extremely different from one another. Perhaps this was because Somoza really didn t have to put any effort into obtaining his power. His constituency was already there, and he had a firm grasp on power due to the loyalty of the National Guard. In contrast, Torrijos needed to make sure he appeased all classes in order to maintain power, thus he formulated a complex, yet what resulted in an excellent program for Panama. Priestly observes that:
Caudillos such as Anastasio Somoza have been unable to meet the political demands for both stability and popular participation without fraud or repression, nor have they been able and willing to risk their economic preeminence by presiding over economic reforms sought by social groups inside and outside their countries…the reformist experiment of Omar Torrijos represented a significant exception to this regional rule (117).
This comparison of the two proves even more significant once the downfall of each dictator is examined.
Once Chamorro was killed in Nicaragua, the opposition consolidated, and the businessmen of Managua organized and issued a public demand for Somoza s resignation. At this point, Somoza was well aware of the growing power of the opposition and announced his intention to leave the presidency and the National Guard at the end of his term. Although the U.S. under Carter continued its policy of non-intervention, Carter made it clear that Somoza was not in good standing with the U.S..
On August 22, 1978 the FSLN captured the National Palace and demanded more rights– one of their most important demands was the call for the National Guard to rebel because they realized that there was no way for their movement to succeed unless the National Guard was disbanded. Even Torrijos wanted to take action to remove Somoza, and made this comment in 1978:
The crisis in Nicaragua can be described as a simple problem: a mentally deranged man [Anastasio Somoza] with an army of criminals is attacking a defenseless population…This is not a problem for the OAS; what we need is a psychiatrist (Pastor, Condemned to Repetition 76).
Finally, after months of mediation between Somoza, the opposition, and the U.S., Somoza finally resigned on July 17, 1979.
When all was said and done, according to Claribel Alegr a over 50,000 people had been killed, 80 percent of which were civilian, and Somoza had run up a foreign debt of 1.6 billion dollars through his habit of looting the country. The only impression he left behind, what one could call a legacy was the image of an American-made puppet, a corrupt, oppressive dictator, known for stealing millions from his country.
Omar Torrijos downfall was not quite as drastic, and his legacy certainly has a much more positive light in history. In 1972, Torrijos had created a new constitution which gave him emergency powers for 6 years. In those six years he accomplished a lot, including the signing of the new canal treaties. However, once these six years were up, Carter encouraged Torrijos to hold elections. Thus, Torrijos gave up presidential candidacy to Aristides Royo, a co-negotiator in the canal treaties. He permitted exiles to return to Panama, political parties to reorganize, and even allowed the Inter-American commission on human rights to review human rights in the country, but the truth was that Torrijos let Royo run most of the government, but Royo could not prevent Torrijos from making policy or from conducting his special operations, such as aiding the Sandinistas (Pastor, Whirlpool 14).
Thus, Torrijos downfall was much more subdued and his legacy much more positive than Anastasio Somoza Debayle s. His programs united Panamanian society and greatly improved Panama s economic situation. But as Pastor states, perhaps Torrijos s most significant legacy was that he proved that Latin Americans could achieve goals in the U.S. by understanding the way Washington works (Whirlpool 16).
After analyzing some of the most important aspects of each dictator s regimes we see that although there are some apparent similarities between the two as far as the historical backgrounds of their respective countries, the time period in which they ruled and U.S. administrations they had to deal with, the differences between the two are far greater. Their subsequent legacies serve to show that perhaps if one does what s best for his country, they will appear in the best light throughout history.