Abril 18, 2007
There are many reasons why it is not easy to have an opinion about the present situation of the University of El Salvador (UES, in Spanish): the different interests that collide inside the UES, the relationships of power among its different organizations (the unions, the students, the institution itself), the passions involved, and the fact that there are several sectors willing to turn anything into an ideological conflict. There is always someone saying that those who do not belong to the UES have no right to get involved in its internal problems, especially when people do not have enough information about such conflicts. Others say that some people just take sides and that such actions in the end only create more confrontation.
These perspectives should not be ignored. To talk about certain issues without having much information could just make the situation even more complicated. It is not reasonable to take sides without being informed. Ideological sympathies are not all. The key aspect here is to evaluate what are the issues that affect the whole community that belongs to the UES, and think how to make the UES a stronger institution. Every citizen should reflect upon the situation of the UES because this is the most important university of the country. Its problems do not exclusively affect the teachers, the students or the staff; they affect the whole country. However, there is a certain patrimonial behavior inside the UES. And because of that, some sectors believe that they own the destiny of the institution. Moved by that false perception, they think that they can paralyze the activities of the University every time they believe that it is necessary to do so. They also think that the UES has to be subjected to such dispositions. This is not about how fair or how unfair such actions might be when they alter the rhythm of this institution. The problem is that some people keep altering this rhythm as they please and whenever they please. They rule a University subjected to their own demands. And even if we were talking about fair demands, they are the demands of just one particular sector of the UES. The whole University is subjected to the decisions made by a portion of its members. There is an attitude of indifference, obedience, and passivity inside the UES. At the same time, the society outside the UES has already gotten used to basically watch the decisions made by certain specific groups, such as paralyzing the whole campus overnight just to put pressure on those who have to hear their demands. Except for the authorities of the University, the different pressure groups inside are the ones responsible for paralyzing this institution whenever they please. This reveals the organizational weakness of the most important university of the country, as well as the absence of an actual commitment with the development and with the integral growth of the UES. Those who interrupt the activities of the University are definitively deteriorating the character and the institutional strength of the UES, in more ways than anybody could even begin to imagine. A paralyzed university becomes their privileged instrument to put pressure on the community regardless of the character of the demands. The individual interests become more important than the general objectives of the society, they interrupt the work of the professors and the research activities with demands that sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate goals of the UES. They are deteriorating the credibility and the image of the University, because the perception of the society, whenever these crises occur, is connected with images of chaos and anarchy. The point here is not to hide the demands. The point is that those demands should be discussed without affecting the development and the institutional growth of the UES. It is extremely important at this point to count with a reform able to control and deal with the disagreements between the sectors of the community at the UES, in order to avoid these frequent episodes of institutional instability. The most important aspect here is to redefine the organizational identity of the University of El Salvador. There certainly are ideological problems that come from the past that have to be resolved and left behind. The necessary redefinition of the University has to put an end to these constant interruptions; that is, to end with this “paralysis” mechanism considered as a way to put pressure on the authorities. Extreme measures are not always the best alternative to resolve a disagreement. It is necessary to consider the consequences of such actions. Instead, it is crucial to explore the possibility of strengthening the institutional profile of the UES, because right now this “patrimonial” attitude is only deteriorating the internal level of performance and the public image of the University.
The institutional rhythm in El Salvador does not have much to do with the rhythm of politics or even with the actions of the political parties. The country is two years away from the presidential elections, and the political parties are already building their electoral strategies. Usually, a portion of the tactics used by the political parties has to do with the announcement of the names of those who could be the official candidates. Certain members and chairmen of ARENA, the PCN and the FMLN have spoken about the people who could become the “chosen ones”.
Even if every electoral event usually creates expectations among the politicians and the society, the 2009 elections are especially important. The extraordinary character of these elections reveals itself in the fact that these are general elections –that is, all of the public positions of the different levels of the government will be defined- just like it happened in 1994, when the so called “elections of the Century” took place. At the same time, the 2009 elections are one more opportunity to make changes in the Executive power. In this sense, ARENA intends to take advantage of every chance to remain as the official party and consolidate the possibility of a fifth presidential period in order to keep promoting its neoliberal projects. Their initiatives have not produced the widely advertised social development allegedly encouraged by the “invisible hand”; instead, this party’s actions have only increased the level of social differences. On the other hand, for the FMLN these elections are an opportunity to showcase its political experience. However, beyond any achievement, the presence of a left-wing project inside the Executive power could turn into a chance to launch an alternative political project able to promote an equitable development of the society. A fifth presidential period for ARENA will only be favorable for the business and the financial elites, because this is how they are free to keep working with a free market model; to reduce the size of the State even more as far as its functions and responsibilities are concerned; to keep the system of justice as a passive and as an inoperative institution; and to weaken the democratic institutional profile promoted by the Peace Accords. Therefore, it should not seem strange if the official party uses its demagogical tactics, its campaigns of disinformation and fear, or even if it promotes certain social measures –of questionable effectiveness- to gain support from the voters and somehow make sure that they will remain inside the most important governmental areas. When examining who has anything to lose in this case, there is an evident answer: the population in general, those sectors that do not belong to the most influential circles or to the economic elites. The level of social inequality would therefore increase with the policies usually implemented by the right wing party. On the other hand, if in 2009 the FMLN wins the presidential elections, and if it improves its public profile in the legislative arena as well as in the municipal areas, it would manage to achieve one of the most important victories in the history of the country. The FMLN would become the first left wing party inside the Executive power. This would be a positive situation for those majorities that have been affected by the economic and the social gaps. However, in order to win the elections and be willing to show its commitment with the people, the FMLN has to have the right presidential formula and a clear viable governmental program able to connect with the needs of the country. Good intentions and eloquent speeches are not enough to rule a country; precise public policies and gook skills to negotiate are the key elements to deal with a presidential administration. These are some of the challenges that the political parties will have to face in order to become efficient governments. The 2009 elections might create a breaking point because they might eliminate several of the traditional governmental mechanisms. That is why it is necessary to design an ethical and a democratic political project with a wide perspective of the society. However, the 2009 elections could also become the instrument to preserve the economic project promoted by the right wing in El Salvador. The possible candidates The rules of the democratic game gave the FMLN in 1994 its first opportunity to compete for the presidency of the country. The year 2009 will be the end of the first cycle of these new rules; however, 2009 will also be an opportunity to transform the system. That is why the FMLN is working to create an environment of public opinion that might allow it to get the attention of the citizenry. This political party has revealed at least six names of its possible candidates, one of theme will be chosen to run for president in 2009. However, the FMLN indicates that the party’s internal procedures established in its statutes will be the filter to select the official candidate. The list of names includes: Sigfrido Reyes, the spokesman of the party; Salvador Sanchez Ceren, the chairmen of a legislative fraction; Violeta Menjivar, the Mayor of San Salvador; Carlos Ruiz, the Mayor of Soyapango; Oscar Ortiz, the Mayor of Santa Tecla; and the journalist Mauricio Funes. On the other hand, ARENA has mentioned the name of Cesar Funes, the present director of ANDA, among other possible candidates that might come from the local business sector. As for the PCN, it seems that it will promote the candidacy of Will Salgado, the present Mayor of San Miguel, regardless of his peculiar governmental style, his scandals and his disrespectful behavior. The announcements of the FMLN have unleashed certain reactions, mostly connected with the possibility of launching Mauricio Funes as the party’s official candidate. Certain members of ARENA and the news media that usually follows the trend of this party are already trying to discredit the public image of Funes as a possible candidate. However, Funes has not made any public statements about this subject. He has basically said that those decisions have to be made by the FMLN. In the presidential political systems of Latin America, it is common to see that certain political figures predominate. The parties traditionally chose the candidate with the best smile and with a good disposition to hug as many voters as possible. This tendency, considered as the weak spot of any governmental perspective, has been definitively favorable for the political parties, since the presidential candidate is usually the center of attention of the electoral process. However, this political trend focused on the personal image of a candidate prevents the political parties from understanding that even if the people from the media might attract many votes, the most important criterion to evaluate an alternative should be the governmental projects created by the political institutions. It is not enough to make the voters’ attention revolve around the most attractive candidate. In order to see the most favorable political choice it is necessary to check the proposals, to have an analytical perspective of the Salvadoran reality, and to design viable solutions. Even if the average citizen, due to its political culture, does not usually analyze the political proposals to decide who to vote for, it is necessary that the parties realize that electoral formulas are not enough.
|
