|
They have lost their direction
A person from a prestigious
American University had to come and tell them that with the way they conduct
their country, their economy and their politics they will not achieve the
goal they want to reach. In other words, he came to tell them that they had
lost their direction, in the language of the President; or that they were
not competitive, in a standard language. That is the same thing that the
UCA, in its different publications and interventions, has been saying all
this time. The knowledge of the national reality is not a privilege of the
famous North American professor. The difference is that they accept that
observation from him, even if they are not happy about it. They do not only
accept that observation, but, in addition, they pay him a considerable
amount of money to come and tell them the truth about the country in which
they live and which they exploit.
In a synthesis, what he told them is that they are not competitive, because
it seems that they believed, by mistake, that the productivity of a country
rests on the macroeconomic index and not in the business companies; because
they forgot about the micro-economy, a fundamental aspect of the economic
development; because they do not produce, and to export, they have to
produce high quality goods and actually use the new technologies; because
they do not train their workers and, in addition, they offer them very low
wages, creating only more poverty; because the economic activity and the
wealth are concentrated in a very small group of people; because the members
of this group enjoy many privileges, blocking a real local, vigorous and
wide competition among themselves. If they do not know how to compete in the
local environment, they will not be able to do it internationally either.
He warned them about this purpose. The first advice was that they should put
their feet on the ground, because the free trade agreements do not
necessarily mean more competitiveness. The competitiveness can only be
accomplished if they reverted the former observations. He thought that they
should also stop believing that being competitive meant to turn the back on
agriculture. The second indication was that without a national agenda and
without a development plan they will never succeed. However, that agenda and
that plan should share a fundamental vision of the country and its problems,
not only performed by the present government, but by the business companies,
the syndicates and the intellectual sector. Therefore, it is necessary to
work in order to achieve a wide consensus, which until this day has been
avoided by the different ARENA governments.
He also told them not to have any false expectations believing that
development and prosperity were at hand. He warned them and told them that
in order to get there it was necessary to make a permanent effort, as well
as to have state policies and not only governmental policies. In other words,
that the policies that lead to that goal cannot respond to the beliefs and
the wishes of the presidents, but to a wide consensus and a national plan, a
specific agenda connected to the national budget.
Therefore, it is necessary to establish again an institution qualified to
plan the direction they will take. To believe that the recent investments
made in the country are the beginning of a solution is another false
expectation, because those investments have come attracted by privatization
an not by the interest to create new industries and produce new exporting
goods, and because they are investments that seek inexpensive laboring,
which only creates more poverty. In other words, the maquila is not a
solution to the challenges of the economic growth, the sustainable
development, nor the solution to end with poverty. He also told them that
they cannot keep disdaining the cultivation of science and technology, they
have to get closer to the universities, since the country has to count with
a national strategy to develop the scientific and the technological fields,
two basic aspects of the sustainable development.
He told them that they cannot excuse themselves behind the existence of a
political opposition that would block the development process. That is what
the dialogue and the consensus are for. They cannot use as an excuse the
catastrophes either, because disasters happen when the available resources
are use inadequately. Ultimately, he told them that they were doing exactly
the opposite to what they should be doing to reach the goals they wanted to
achieve.
The top of the mountain, therefore, is not as close as President Flores
thinks. While he keeps insisting on taking the same route, his "invitations"
to "double the efforts", to "use all of our optimism", because "we will
conquer our mountain", "the top of the development process", "through the
route of freedom", make no sense. The former two governments made similar
invitations, and after thirteen years of struggling with the course of the
events, the country is still far away from the top of the mountain. It is a
distant place for most of the Salvadoran population. The hopelessness –to
lead a human and a decent life in El Salvador- generated by the absence of
real possibilities is an uneasy feeling, as the President said in his speech.
The Salvadoran population made its own decision a long time ago. They
abandoned the guidelines that those governments offered and chose it own
route, the one that takes them to the North. With great courage, the people
take the enormous risks of this clandestine itinerary. Most of the people
who intend it accomplish it. Those who are returned, keep trying as many
times as it is necessary. That is how the smugglers of illegal immigrants
are better guides than the ARENA presidents. The example of those who go to
the North is more of a reflective thought than the one of the mountain
climbers, at least for most of the Salvadoran population.
Despite of all the observations, the professor's critics were welcomed.
President Flores himself reacted immediately, saying -with too much ease-
that he had paid attention to them. Many people considered them as positive
advise. It is not clear though why these observations are positive now when
the analysis of a local university was not good enough for them. Maybe it is
because these comments are made by a distinguished professor of a well-known
university of the North, paid with a considerable amount of money. In any
case, the important factor is that they realize how inadequately they are
administrating the country, and to start working immediately in order to
correct the prevailing actions.
|
