Julio 11, 2007
Proceso 1249

A concerning national scenery

In the present situation of the country –a period that began with the events of July 5th of 2006- the different conflict axis are now revealed with a particular strength and by creating a tense sociopolitical environment that could be the beginning of a spiral of violence and a series of tragic consequences for the Salvadoran society. The exaltation of certain behaviors, intransigency, fanaticism, and manipulation are elements that do not help relieve the tensions. On the contrary, such attitudes increase this tense environment, and that is why prudence and moderation are not the factors that are regulating the framework of the public debate. Right now, it has become almost impossible to handle a debate strategy, because the excluding discourses prevail, and they divide the reality into the good ones and the bad ones, into friends and enemies, into democrats and communists, into terrorists and anti-terrorists.
            Those who have the loudest voices are those who have placed their bets on a sense of sociopolitical polarization, out of which they intend to get certain personal benefits regardless of the consequences this might have on the social coexistence. Prudence and moderation are sadly missed. Without them, it is not only impossible to deactivate the tense sociopolitical scenery, but –beyond all that- any democratic project for the nation is practically unviable. Moderation and prudence, however, should not be seen as an evasion mechanism or as a couple of ideas that allow us to search for a simple sense of neutrality. The situation in El Salvador is just too delicate to evade the problems with academic language games. To be moderate and to be prudent does not mean to avoid a critical stance before the problems of the country or before the presence of the actors involved in this tense situation. In other words, to act with prudence is to defend the interests of the society and not the interests of a particular political sector. From that social perspective it is necessary to analyze, among other factors, the performance of the political parties, the governmental administration, the institutional performance, and the role of the media.
            The present national conjunction demands a critical interpretation of the main mechanisms that led to its configuration. And this means that there were many elements that were blended throughout the post-war period and that became evident during the Flores administration. These elements affected the national life as well with the arrival of the Saca administration in 2004, and now they have all exploded after all this time. Now their most dangerous features are just out of control.
            During the last couple of years of the Flores administration, the nation did see the authoritarian behavior of the State specifically in actions of the public security system. The “Iron Fist Plan” revealed that the State was following a logic that initially intended to fight against the gangs. However, its vision of the national security went beyond the boundaries of its own meaning, in the style of the authoritarian regimes that predominated in Latin America during the sixties and the seventies.
            The Saca administration inherited the authoritarian public security plan of the Flores administration; a way of perceiving the left wing as an obstacle that has to be removed at any cost, the social movement as an illegitimate institution, the presidential authority as something that is beyond the law… All of these perceptions are beyond any sense of public responsibility, and beyond ethics.
            The “Belloso case” has turned into the best opportunity to measure the efficiency of the filthiest authoritarian mechanisms that had not been used like this ever before. That is why the arrest of Belloso has been used with many purposes:

To feed the anti-terrorist speech of the government, and this means that Belloso has become, under this perspective, the quintessential terrorist.
To articulate the actions to which he is allegedly connected to (carrying and firing a gun, participating in a public demonstration, conspiring against the government, manipulating and ideologically indoctrinating young people) into a strategy aimed to destabilize the country, a strategy that counts with the support of both the social movement and the FMLN, being the FMLN the one institution mainly responsible for such strategy.
To create an environment able to legitimize the punitive measures that will be used against the social movement, which has been already labeled as a terrorist and a destabilizing group.

In this context, the bet for democracy becomes both a political and an ethical need. Something that demands a commitment with the deactivation of the present sociopolitical tensions –which are not only encouraged by the government and the largest media companies, but also by the FMLN. It also demands the disarticulation of the authoritarian structure that both the right wing and ARENA have designed and which, at the moment, the Saca administration is using out in the open.

The social protest according to ARENA
A year ago, a demonstration organized by students near the campus of the University of El Salvador ended with the confrontation between the members of the Unity of Order Maintenance (UMO, in Spanish) and alleged students. A year later, Mario Belloso, the man accused of killing two police agents during the riot, was arrested, and both the government and the media have taken advantage of this situation to launch a campaign against the FMLN, and exalt the image of the police.
            A year ago as well, a couple of well-known militants from the FMLN were murdered in Suchitoto. An investigation process was never opened to take care of this case, in spite of the political connotations of the homicides. And just in this municipality, President Saca announced on July 2nd of 2007 his proposal to decentralize the water services. This action can be understood a s a provocation from the government in order to make seem this case as something unimportant, just like it happens when ARENA launches its electoral campaigns in Izalco, where one of the worst massacres of the Salvadoran history took place.
            The presidential act in Suchitoto became an important event because there was a demonstration against this official presentation and its message, and then the police showed up to repress the protest.
            It seems that there is no connection between these events; however, the widely advertised arrest of Mario Belloso and the arbitrary and violent intervention of the UMO in Suchitoto materialized the way in which the authorities use their power when it comes to deal with the social protests and take political advantages of such events. With these actions, the government manages to create a favorable environment to obtain electoral profits and discredit the political opposition.

The symbol of the media
In the case of Belloso, the governmental authorities have made sure to take this event and showcase it as an example for the country in order to alarm the people and insinuate how much damage these actions can cause on democracy and on the social coexistence. Even if it is true that violence should have nothing to do with politics, especially after the war ended back in 1992, an isolated act of violence cannot be considered as an unmistakable sign of backing down or, even worse, as an attack against democracy.
            In this country, democracy, in spite of the loquacious discourses, is still an aspiration. Instead of a true sense of democracy, there are procedures to elect the governments –new rules of the game- and a fragile institutional performance. Both of these aspects are not enough to say that this system is a democratic one.
            The social coexistence cannot only be attacked with the use of violence, because the Salvadoran social tissue is the victim of the governmental inefficiency, corruption, the lack of tolerance, the rejections to a dialogue, and other frequent actions among the national politicians, regardless of their ideological inclination.
            When they complain with their dramatic ways about an isolated event and present it before the eyes of the public opinion as a sample of the actions of the political opposition, it is nothing but the portrayal of a dirty campaign. To all this it is possible to add the biased management of Belloso’s arrest, an event used by the police to make it seem as if they are efficiently doing their job. However, the effects of these strategies are undermined by a generalized environment of insecurity and the daily homicide rate levels, a reality that cannot be covered-up.
            It is impossible to automatically deduct that the FMLN was involved in the events of July 5th because of the relation that Belloso had with the left-wing party. In order to understand anything of the sort it is necessary to go ahead with the necessary investigations and follow the adequate legal procedures; and these tasks should just stay away from any manipulation schemes of the political parties.

An authoritarian attitude and repression
The repression against the demonstrators in Suchitoto clearly shows more governmental errors than anything else. The people revealed their discontent in a pacific manner, until the police began with their repressive actions saying that the demonstrators were blocking the official presentation of the government.
            In this sense, it is important to remind the President and the public officials that the citizens have the right to speak their minds about the actions of the governmental administration. In other words, under the ideological perspective of the right wing, citizens have the freedom to express their disagreement as long as they do it in a pacific manner. Does not the government rave about defending the system of freedoms of the individuals? Did not the right wing react against those who wanted to close the RCTV in Venezuela because they considered it an act against the freedom of speech, a reaction that was definitively questionable? Is it not to repress a public demonstration an action against the freedom and against the dignity of the people involved?
            The arrest of at least 13 social leaders has not been supported with enough evidence. Their arrest was an arbitrary measure, just like many of the videos filmed by the media reveal when they capture the moment during which these people were arrested. However, the media have negatively handled this event because the protest has been presented as a violent reaction that intended to destabilize the situation. Therefore, those who express their discontent can be called –and, above all, judged- as terrorists, according to the official logic.
            The intention of the government is to discredit the social protests, a right that the citizenry has. The message of Saca and his party seems to be clear: discontent is not allowed, because if one shows discontent repression will be the answer you will get. Anyone who participates in an organized public demonstration is automatically attacking the stability of the country and therefore creating an environment of insecurity and clear danger. This is a dangerous interpretation of reality, because it stigmatizes any disagreements, the kind of criticism that is necessary to make democracy work for any society.

The necessary disagreement
By repressing this sort of expressions of discontent, the Saca administration has revealed its most authoritarian feature. The public officials are not able to handle criticism when it has to do with their performance, and if such criticism is accompanied by a mobilization it suddenly turns into a subversive maneuver, from their perspective.
            However, this whole point of view is a mistake because it discredits beforehand any expression of disagreement, something that already has serious implications for the development of democracy in the country. The logic of the official party and the right wing paralyzes the social mobilization, a legitimate resource that belongs to the citizenry.
            In a pluralist political system, that sees itself as Liberal and which has democratic pretensions, just like the Salvadoran State defines itself along with its present governmental regime, the idea of a minimum level of consensus is usually a general rule assumed by the different actors. However, just like the philosopher Alberto Buela indicates, this idea of consensus disguises the necessary differences that have to exist not only in the perspective of the individuals, but in the different senses from which reality is perceived. In this case, more than a rhetorical consensus, what is necessary is to break up with the common things. It is necessary to have a different sense to look at things and to understand certain actions, that is, the necessary doses of disagreement.
            If the government keeps this tendency of repressing, condemning, and exorcising protests, the country will not be able to adopt the necessary democratic values such as tolerance and respect, and will not even see the need to include a set of favorable conditions for a pluralist political practice. In order to do that, it is necessary to have a political culture able to openly deal with disagreements, able to negotiate, and able to accept different opinions from different people in an environment of interpersonal trust. It is also necessary that the elites of the government improve their daily interaction with people, moderate their discourses, and work with ethics when it comes to politics. That is the only way for El Salvador to come up with new ideas and blend with the social organization system.

Other articles featured in this issue of Proceso:

The GNP per capita in the light of the most recent reports of the PNUD and FUNDE
The media, the advertising campaigns, and the ethical responsibility
The IUDOP Report: What does an electoral process need in order to be reliable?
The IDHUCA Report: Is justice shining in El Salvador yet?
Documents: The pronouncement of the congresswomen of the FMLN in the Legislative Assembly and the PARLACEN about the situation of the women that live in political imprisonment in the country.