Dominicans protest suspended elections to defend democracy, 2020

The citizens of the Dominican Republic first elected Danilo Medina President of the Dominican Republic (DR) in May 2012. Despite the Constitution prohibiting second terms, consistently high polling during Medina’s first term compelled Congress to pass an amendment in 2015 allowing for his 2016 re-election. As the 2020 elections approached, it became clear that Medina hoped to stay in office for yet another four years. Medina’s decision to run for a third term diminished his public support and created tension with former president Leonel Fernandez, who planned on running as well. 

Both Medina and Fernández belonged to the Partido de la Liberación Dominicana (PLD). When Medina eventually backed out of the race, he endorsed another candidate, Gonzalo Castillo, instead of Fernández, creating a factional divide within the PLD party. When Castillo won the 2019 primaries, Fernández claimed that the elections were unfair, primarily out of disappointment with Medina’s endorsement, and he subsequently left the PLD. Instead, Fernández ran as a member of the Fuerza del Pueblo party (FP). The presidential race became a three-way split, between Fernández (FD), Castillo (PLD), and Luis Abinador (Partido Revolucionario Moderno, PRM). Abindaor and Fernández proceeded to ally with one another, deciding to back whichever of the two received the most votes. This political reorganization created the public uncertainty that led to protests in 2020.

The Central Electoral Board (Junta Central Electoral, JCE) scheduled municipal elections for 16 February 2020, but they were halted by the Board after only four hours. The JCE cited issues with the automated polling stations; voters reported that they could not view candidates from parties other than the PLD. Over 60 percent of the country could not see all the parties on the ballot. Four thousand government positions across 158 municipalities were on the ballot, and the presidential election was only three months away. The JCE told many voters, who had been waiting in line for hours, to go home, and the Board invalidated any votes already cast. By suspending the elections, the Medina government inflamed Dominicans’ pre-existing concerns. Many citizens viewed their democracy as fragile and easily threatened by foreign interference or bureaucratic incompetence. Castillo’s PLD party had been in power for most of the past two decades, and oligarchical families held influence behind-the-scenes. The DR’s history of strongman dictatorships and U.S. imperialism shaped a population that took its election integrity seriously. If the government set a precedent of freezing elections, future votes could be in danger – including those in the upcoming presidential election. Civil society organizations accused both Medina’s office and the JCE of complicity in election fraud.

Dominicans responded to the freeze of municipal elections immediately by taking to the streets on the same day. Students constituted the majority of the participants. At first, people protested in the capital, Santo Domingo. The Plaza de la Bandera was a central hub for rallying due to its proximity to the JCE offices. The protestors demanded the removal of all members of the electoral board, local and international monitoring groups to oversee the execution of the postponed election, and the release of JCE report comprehensively explaining the election suspension.  In order to pressure leaders to address the potential corruption, protestors took up space with their voices and bodies outside the building. Many drew attention by banging on pots and yelling coordinated chants; others banged on pots from their balconies. On Tuesday, 18 February, police released tear gas on the demonstrators, but this action failed to discourage the protestors. 

While the government remained adamant that technical issues had stalled the election, they unsuccessfully attempted to diffuse the protestors' frustration by rescheduling the elections for March 15. The rescheduled elections were to involve only paper ballots, which raised new questions about how the presidential elections would proceed effectively in May, as this would extend the processing time. The government’s response did not address the main concern of the protestors – that the ruling PLD party committed fraud through collusion with the JCE. As this was the first election in 18 years in which the PLD was not leading the polls, in part due to its internal fracture the year prior, technical issues were not an explanation that Dominicans were willing to buy.

Thus, the protests continued on a near daily basis. The demonstrators at the Plaza de la Bandera emphasized the campaign’s demand for accountability through the resignation of JCE members. Protests expanded to other areas, such as Santiago, near the provincial government offices. Thursday, 28 February marked the Dominican Republic’s Independence Day, which added another symbolic layer to the protestors’ demands for democracy. Those demonstrating in the plaza wore black to grieve the death of their democratic institutions and demanded answers for what happened on the 16 with the malfunctioning polling systems. This time, demonstrators wielded bugles, banners, and created a traffic shutdown during rush hour.

The protests spread beyond the Dominican Republic’s borders. In New York City, 400,000 Dominican-Americans registered to vote in the DR employed similar protest methods, including obstruction of traffic. Dominicans in Philadelphia and Chicago also participated. At this point, many public figures in and out of the nation vocalized support for the protesters’ demands. For example, on 22 February, artist Rita Indiana reposted an image of a protestor and used the slogan hashtags designed by the campaign. 

In the beginning of March, the Dominican Republic’s Economic and Social Council (Consejo Económico y Social, CES) in the Dominican Republic released a statement commending the civilian activists and acknowledging its own part in preserving political stability. Accordingly, the CES committed to participating in dialogue with and providing consultation to civil society organizations, particularly those led by youth activists. When the rescheduled elections took place on March 15, the PRM-FD alliance dominated the ruling PLD party. The PRM emerged victorious in major mayoral races, which increased public confidence and momentum leading up to the presidential elections. The campaign succeeded in demanding that a third party observing group – the Organization of American States (OAS) – be involved in the investigation of February 16. News outlets broadcasted the vote count on March 15, and two days later, the OAS released their audit report. The report concluded that the voting machine malfunctions were a result of technical mismanagement, and the JCE subsequently fired their IT director. Many JCE board members retained their positions. Although the OAS did not declare political sabotage, the campaign resulted in close, third-party surveillance of the upcoming elections as well as unprecedented political losses for the ruling party.