Marzo 28, 2007
Proceso 1233

 

An urgent debate about the institutional performance

It has been a month since three Salvadoran congressmen, their driver, and four arrested policemen were killed in Guatemala. At this point the investigations have not come up with any definitive results, but the critical environment created by these crimes has had a dramatic and a negative effect on the Guatemalan institutions involved. The society would be very much at ease if this legitimacy crisis actually promotes a serious and an honest debate about the institutional behavior in Guatemala; a debate able to restructure the institutional performance according to the demands of a democratic State of Rights.
            A challenge such as this one is not only for Guatemala; El Salvador should consider this option as well. The attention should not be exclusively centered on what is going on in Guatemala. No one should overlook the institutional problems of El Salvador. The first topic of discussion would have to be the institutional performance of the public security system and the system of justice. It should include a debate about the tasks, the structure, and the philosophy of organizations such as the Ministry of Governance, the Ministry of Security and Justice, the Attorney General’s Office, and the National Civilian Police. The most important politicians and social leaders should publicly examine the performance of these institutions in order to overcome the difficulties found. They should examine not only its regulation systems, but also the way in which they select the people who will occupy the leading positions.
            The environment is too authoritarian to be democratic. The consequences of overlooking these problems will have a disastrous effect on the society: a repressive strategy of public security unable to solve the problem of violence; incompetent public officials that go from one public position to another; the tranquility of the highest circles of criminality, aware of the fact that the justice system will not even touch them.
            The public officials usually rotate positions inside the State and inside ARENA, in the case of the present government. Many of those who have failed to achieve an efficient performance are placed, by decision of the president, in other offices of the State or in ARENA. With this relocating system the State cannot get rid of the incompetent public officials. They go from one public position to another. President Saca should stop rewarding incompetence. This goes against the common welfare constitutional commands.
            Another important institutional field of debate has to do with the administration of the public resources. How transparent is this process? Are people able to closely follow the procedures involved in it? The Comptroller’s Office should be the nucleus of this discussion. Impunity, crime and an authoritarian line of behavior are all elements that keep affecting the weak institutional performance of the public security system and the system of justice. The public and the private corruption levels have increased in the heat of an inefficient public administration. A considerable amount of money is going straight to private pockets, and there are too many “dark” expenses on governmental propaganda to overlook the role of the Comptroller’s Office and its connection with this questionable behavior. The Comptroller’s Office is not closely following the actions of those who administrate the public resources, that is why the level of corruption has increased. How long will this situation be out of control?
            A report of this deficient administrative performance is still a taboo inside the Salvadoran public circles. No one reports an incompetent political performance or a questionable administration of the State’s resources. Important public officials come and go from one position to another, then they retire to give it a rest, and they make their comeback. The society is not even aware of what they are doing, no one knows about their mistakes or about their accomplishments; there is no information about their income or about their personal companies either.
            This is the traditional way of doing things inside the public circles. The consequences for the society are critical: abuse, arrogance, corruption, incompetence, and a generalized state of insecurity. The solution is to strengthen the institutional performance, but this can only be possible with the redefinition of the institutional structure. A democratic debate should be the nucleus of this redefinition. This is one of the most crucial challenges for El Salvador –and for all of the Central American societies, except for Costa Rica.
            To postpone this debate and go on doing things in the traditional way will only affect the Salvadoran society. Businessmen, politicians, and the organized civil society should all get involved. That is why it is urgent to discuss the kind of institutional performance that we have, about its weak aspects, and about the necessary institutional reconfigurations.

 

Bush and his tour in Latin America

The economic interests of the most powerful nation in the world always prevail; they even come before its political interests. The way the United States adopts a certain decision making process and the way it designs its foreign policies lack an ethical criterion. The foundation here is a cost-benefit analysis.
            That is why it should not seem odd if behind the American invasion to Iraq and Afghanistan there is a plain commercial interest in obtaining and administrating the sources of petroleum in that region.
            In its relation with Latin America, however, the political interests have prevailed because this has been the area where the United States has had more control of since the days of the Cold War. Along with this political influence, this country has also been interested in establishing commercial links, in order to make its presence stronger and have even more power in the area.
            In the last years, several countries of Latin America have become the strategic allies of the American administration. Gradually, and with the approval of the neoliberal Latin American governments, free trade is now one of the most important trends in the region. There are bilateral agreements that, as expected, have more benefits for the United States than for the domestic economies of the Latin American partners.

The priorities of the Bush administration


Since September 11th of 2001, the Bush administration focused its foreign policies on the national security system. The fight against terrorism has been leading the way, even if “the fight against terrorism” is a very vague remark. This way of handling the foreign affairs focused its attention in the countries of the Middle East, since the main objective here is to “save” this region from an authoritarian culture and from a religious fundamentalism.
            This was the day when Latin America was set aside without the possibility of any cooperation efforts, except for the promotion of commercial agreements in the region and the connection with those values that promote the fight against terrorism.
            In fact, the region was an ally to justify the fight against terrorism at any cost. The presidents of Colombia and El Salvador, faithful followers of the decisions made by the White House, even added this subject to their political agendas. Along with this fight against terrorism, El Salvador has revealed its total support to the United States by sending and keeping its troops in Iraq, in spite of the general discontent.
            Migration is also an important topic in the relationship between the United States and Latin America; however the discussions in reference to this issue are unfortunately superficial. The cold way in which this subject has been handled has intensified, in part, the deterioration process of the public image of the Bush administration among the Hispanic sectors that live in the United States. The lack of attention to the immigration issues has been naturally accepted, but also approved by the Latin American governments that follow the interests of the United States.
            For instance, the presidents of Mexico and Central America do not seem actually interested in demanding adequate migratory policies or more benefits for the community of illegal aliens that live in the United States. All that these governments have done is to unconditionally support the measures taken in regard to this issue.
            In that context, the American agenda is always the most important subject in the relation between the United States and Latin America. It would be enough to examine the tour that George Bush had in the region. Back in 2002, the American President went to Peru, Mexico and El Salvador, the purpose was to look good in the news media, an American President concerned by the problems of the area.
            Migration and the fight against the drug dealers became in that year the slogan of the presidential visit. In spite of the propaganda –and the expectations of several sectors- these issues were not discussed in a serious manner. On the contrary, at least in the Salvadoran case, this visit was useful in the beginning to show the alleged –and shameful- support of President Bush to the Flores administration, in order to acknowledge his governmental performance.
            This visit created the mood to start discussing a trade agreement between El Salvador and the United States, a strategy advertised as the ideal economic policy mechanism aimed to improve the social conditions of the population, something that we are still waiting to happen.
            The interests of the United States have always been protected by the asymmetric relation it keeps with Latin America. And it is because of those interests that the Bush administration reacts with palliative measures. The democrats have now more presence in both the Senate and the Congress and a higher degree of control; however, the Latin American support to their administration became weaker after the implementation of unpopular migratory measures. Now it is understandable why the advisors of Bush gave a second glance at what they consider their backyard: Latin America.

The two meanings of the tour


After a long period without “holding hands” with the region, in March, Bush began his tour in Brazil, and Uruguay; Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico were next. He wanted everyone to see that his intention was to collaborate with these countries in order to improve the social development levels. However, it would be very naïve to consider that these visits actually intend to accomplish such an objective. This is just a strategy to win the support of the Latin American population, even if the present critical situation of the region is actually due to the implementation of the measures recommended by the United States and its intervention in the area.
            This tour is basically focused on obtaining economic benefits for the United States. This country intends to establish a trade agreement with Brazil –and take advantage of the production of ethanol as an alternative source of energy (instead of petroleum)- and the possibility to start a free trade agreement with Uruguay. Both measures intend to increase the performance of the American economy, and the benefits will go to the businessmen of that country.
            With this tour, the United States would also expect to counteract the intentions of the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez: to implement multilateral relations with the countries of the Andean area and Brazil, in order to create an alternative to the American proposals. The American economic project would be affected if Chavez manages to go ahead with his multilateral relations strategy.
            It is because of this fear that the political interest in Latin America re-emerged, especially now that some of the countries in the area are under left-wing administrations. It seems that Bush, after the failure of the policies aimed to Latin America, and the growing support to the left wing in the region, accepts that the political hegemony in his comfort zone is in danger. This also means that the economic interests of the American businessmen could be seriously affected, due to the decisions and the measures adopted by several governments in Latin America, which go against the neoliberal logic promoted by the White House.
            The strategy intends to establish trade agreements with countries that are not that close to the Bush administration, such as the case of Brazil and Uruguay. With countries such as Colombia and Guatemala, the American President intends to strengthen the servile relationship that these countries’ governments have always kept with the United States, in order to discuss the issues that concern the interests of this North American Country, such as the fight against the drug trafficking.
            In the case of his visit to Mexico, the most delicate issue was probably immigration; however, it was just superficially discussed. The presence of Bush was useful to legitimize the image of the new Mexican Government, headed by Felipe Calderon, elected after a confusing electoral process.
            If the idea of the tour was to get closer to the countries that have traditionally supported the American policies and its decisions, it is important to wonder why El Salvador was not included in this official tour, if in 2002 it was the only Central American country included in the visit to this area.
            This happened probably because the visit of the American President would have created an environment of protests, because of the first anniversary of the Free Trade Agreement, and because El Salvador is the only country that still has troops in Iraq as part of a political favor to the Bush administration.
            How did the different countries react to this tour? Hugo Chavez organized his own tour in Latin America. He visited Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Jamaica, and Haiti. In each of these countries, the Venezuelan President criticized the American administration and its tendency to interfere in the internal policies of the region. There were also several protests organized by the civil society and by several unions.
            Contrary to what the editorialist of one of the most important morning papers indicated, these popular protests against the tour of the American President are a legitimate way to express the people’s discontent with most of the policies implemented by the national governments, especially when such policies have been suggested, approved, and supported by the United States.
            With or without a tour, the truth is that the American Government will keep promoting the interests of the United States in Latin America, without seriously considering the problems of the region.

 

Other articles featured on this issue of Proceso:

    • A wide perspective on the problem of the loans
    • Terrorist salesmen?
    • The conflicts of the ISSS are still there
    • The ILEA in El Salvador (I)
    • The pronouncement of the Office for the Defense of the Human Rights on the pending loans