The dirty war against the gangs continues

The external bet that Flores made

The summit of the Presidents and the members of the government of the American continent, celebrated in Monterrey, Mexico, on January 12th, is a clear sample of the present political situation. According to the news that come from Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil, the government of these countries announced its doubts about the issues presented by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. The President of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, promised that that he would knockout his opponent in Washington. Lula da Silva said that he was not interested in the meeting if the main topic was the security of the United States instead of the growing poverty levels in the continent, something that he considers his most important concern. Hugo Chavez, from Venezuela, did not hide his sympathy for Cuba, despite the declarations of the American President who sees in the regime of this Caribbean country his worst nightmare in Latin America.

Many commentators have observed that the tone of the declarations made by the presidents in Monterrey point at an important transformation in the relations with the United States. After having a submissive attitude, many States of the continent would have decided to question the dogmas of the consensus of Washington. The President of Argentina did not hesitate to mention the responsibility of the multinational financial organizations that give more importance to a speculative economy and the interests of the investors above the welfare of the people and the social stability. Lula da Silva, the President from Brazil, stated that it is time to end with injustice in the continent and put the economy at the service of the people.

Several presidents and officials talked about their doubts in reference to the endless compliments that were made about the alleged advantages of the free trade. They talked about the negative effects of the subsidies established for the companies of the developed countries. But –as a sign of a clear blunder in the agenda of the Bush administration-, they also talked about how the idea of establishing deadlines for the end of the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement Area of the Americas was overlooked. The text of the declaration at Nuevo Leon is a reminder of the need to activate “the structure and the calendar adopted to conclude with the negotiations on the expected dates”.

What was the position that El Salvador adopted during the summit? Did President Flores support the efforts of some of his colleagues to humanize the orthodox bets of the Neoliberal economy? Contrary to what might have been expected, considering both the social and the economic situation of the country, the Salvadoran President defended the Neoliberal perspective, the multinational financial organizations, and the developed countries. Flores stated that “when I ask myself how many of the problems that El Salvador has have to do with globalization, the international organizations, or with imperialism, I find none. These problems are either natural or the product of a bad administration of our country”. He said that it was necessary “to look inside and seek solutions”.

Beyond the critics that have been made in former occasions about the attitude and the declarations of the Salvadoran President at these international forums –his pompous discourses about a country that is continuously developing itself make a contrast with the poverty and the adverse situation of thousands of Salvadorans who have to emigrate to improve their lives-, it is convenient to mention the similarities between these aspects and the internal duties of Flores. In this sense, his declarations (for the external image) and his internal behavior are congruent. The bet for the Free Trade Agreements has been the political option that Flores has defended ever since he arrived to the Presidential House. As a result of that attitude, El Salvador already counts with free trade agreements that connect the country with Chile, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and the United States. The Free Trade Agreement with the United States still has to be approved by the Congress of both countries.

There is no doubt that the treaties obey to a political bet (the social problems are resolved through the free trade) and have a specific political behavior. It is not possible to set aside the authoritarian character of the Flores administration. The President lives the Neoliberal experience as a dogma of faith, he understands that it is necessary to impose it at all times. That is why Flores takes all of the opportunities he has to speak about the alleged myopia of his political adversaries, whom he calls “sleepless idealistic people”. Flores invites the rest of the Latin American presidents to wake up from their dogmatic dreams, their dreams about an alternative for an imperial Capitalism.

The apparent contradiction between the critics that Flores makes about the social dogmas and his strategies (both equally authoritarian) to impose his Neoliberal vision is not a problem for him. He believes that he is fighting in a good manner and that he has chosen the best alternative. He thinks that history itself will demonstrate the veracity of his approach. In this sense, Flores is not only a defender of Neoliberalism, but he is also part of the tradition of Latin American Presidents that usually see themselves as prophets willing to impose their perspective preaching in the desert, a desert full of citizens that do not understand his opinions.

This is the only way to find the origin of the continental dreams of the Salvadoran President. Flores probably would like to bring to the other countries of the continent the welfare that, according to him, the economic Neoliberalism has brought to El Salvador. The Secretariat of the Organization of American States is, without a doubt, the best place to fight for these objectives. That is why Flores wishes to direct the hemispheric organization. In this sense, more than a personal bet, it is necessary to mention the noble desire (as delirious as it might be) to contribute to straighten the pathway of the brother countries. This is how the reason of his discourses and the preaching tone used to address himself to his colleagues can be understood. According to Flores, El Salvador is the clearest example of the miracles that can be achieved through Neoliberalism, and the need to stop blaming imperialism for all the problems.

The present political configuration of the continent indicates that it will not be easy for Flores to be chosen as the next Secretary General of the Organization of American States. Beyond the support that the Costa Rican candidate has, it is necessary to notice the growing hostility of the Latin American political leaders for the ideas defended by Flores. While he voluntarily presents himself as the leading spokesperson of Neoliberalism (also connected with the interests of the multinational companies and those of the United States), in the rest of the region the dogma of the market is seen with suspicion.

While the Salvadoran President presents himself without hesitating as the prophet of the measures dictated by the multinational financial institutions, all of the continental forums question the negative effects that those measures have on the poor.

In summary, while the Salvadoran President bets for the authoritarian imposition of the market, in the rest of the continent people speak about the need to transform democracy into more of an open concept. A concept full of contents, a democracy created through the social vindication of those who are part of the region’s excluded groups.

Because of all of the aforementioned reasons, and in spite of his friendship with the President of the United States, Flores will become part of history as a politician who was held prisoner by his delirious dreams, a person who intended to encourage Neoliberalism in the continent.

The poor are still a majority in El Salvador ( I )

The question cannot be avoided: Is there hope for the poor in El Salvador, given the economic promises of the presidential candidates? Are their plans good enough to get rid of the factors that cause poverty? This sort of questions are valid during the pre-electoral times, but before wondering about this it is necessary to clarify who are the poor in El Salvador. This is a key question because the different political parties seem to be obsessed to convince those who live in poverty that their governmental plans put them at the center of their objectives in both the short and the long term.

In fact, the reason that explains the present electoral campaign to attract the votes of “the poor”, is simple. The poor are still a majority in this country. This can be corroborated by just looking at the level of the poverty line and at the indicators of the Report of Human Development of El Salvador 2003: the dimension and the depth of poverty are overwhelming.

It is enough to look at the bottom line of the statistics. According to the General Direction of Statistics and Census (DIGESTYC, in Spanish), a 43% of the Salvadoran population lives in poverty. This index is high, but it has been criticized because it underestimates what it means to be poor (it only includes the income as the main parameter), and it uses outdated poverty lines. It does not analyze the cost of living, inflation, the lack of the bare essentials, and the low employment level. It also underestimates the impact of the remittances in the income level of the Salvadorans (without the remittances, the poverty line indicator would increase at least by 10%). And it establishes a basic food basket with an insufficient amount of products for both the rural and the urban sectors, hiding with this the actual cost of living, among other aspects.

If the most valuable resource of the country is the people, as the Development Program of the United Nations (PNUD, in Spanish) stated in 1990, that means that it is necessary to measure the economic advances of a nation in a multidimensional way (not only through the income level, but through the human development level of the inhabitants). This is not easy. However, this is a much more accurate strategy than to accept the false poverty level of 43% that El Salvador allegedly has when poverty is seen as just an income problem. Reality paints a whole different picture of this matter. The poverty line has a higher level, and this problem demands the increase of the GNP, the improvement of the productive efficiency, the improvement of the macroeconomic stability (which seems to be the Neoliberal philosophy of the three administrations of ARENA). To face such a task demands from a government a number of economic, social, and cultural policies aimed to put the people at the center, as the actual source of wealth of the nation.

Human development is understood, according to the PNUD, as the kind of development that tries to create a surrounding for the people to take advantage of their potential, lead productive and creative lives according to their needs and to their interests. In other words, the PNUD states that it is vital that the public policies of a government are able to increase the number of opportunities for the people, encouraging their personal skills. The problem is not about “having”, but about “being” or about “being able to”. People do not necessarily have to have more money or more material assets. The mistake that the government constantly makes is trying to measure the welfare of the population in terms of personal possessions or in terms of income. What matters here is that the Salvadoran population is able to enjoy the essential opportunities of the human development:
1. The opportunity to live a long, healthy, and happy life
2. The capacity to interact with the community
3. The capacity to promote the family values
4. The capacity to have access to new ideas and knowledge in an environment with freedom of speech and freedom of thought
That is why it is necessary to have economic, social, cultural and environmental policies and not a reduced perspective of life. The image of a poverty level characterized only by the level of income creates deficient public policies and hides the complexity of poverty.

The income is only one of the factors that determines the real opportunities of people. For instance, it might be that one person has more money than another one in terms of income, but it can also happen that this person who makes a higher income leads more of a complicated life because a considerable part of his income is used to pay for medical attention or because he is the only person who supports a family of ten (unemployment is a typical feature of El Salvador). The actual opportunities that different people have are influenced by a diversity of personal circumstances (age, sex, handicaps, health conditions, talents, skills, gender, marital status, etc.) and by both the social and the natural environment (epidemics, the level of pollution, the crime rate in the community).

If the objective were to improve both the skills of the people and the public policies, the government would not have to pay attention only to the material goods (the construction of houses, so many streets, so many beltways, etc.), or in the actions to increase the GNP per capita, since the welfare of the people does not only have to do with this. The perspective would be totally different. For instance, to provide people with the opportunity to make their own decisions and play a leading role in society; help the people to become active individuals able to build their own destiny. Other tasks to improve the life standards of the people have to do with the decentralization of the duties of the State, the increase of the FODES for the city halls of the 262 municipalities of El Salvador. The municipalities have to participate in the decision making process of those resolutions that affect them, having the opportunity to open new ways for themselves and for their own personal development.

The former ideas seem to be the antithesis of what the Neoliberal governments such as ARENA are looking for. What good is to have a park if you cannot walk by it because you fear that you will be assaulted? In that sense, what good is an “Iron Fist Plan” against the gangs if the young people do not have the opportunity to get a decent job, to enjoy creative activities, to educate themselves and explore their own skills? In Cuba and in Costa Rica they do have income problems, but the people are able to enjoy the parks, and they do not have to become part of a gang because there are public policies especially aimed to open new opportunities for the youth.

To have something does not necessarily enable you to do something. In addition, to have assets or to have access to them is not the key factor here, since it does not say anything about what a person can or cannot do. It could happen that the person in question might be mentally or physically handicapped, and therefore not able to use his or her possessions.

In contrast with the electoral slogan of the candidate that represents ARENA, Antonio Saca, “Let us speak with freedom”, it is not only about speaking with freedom, it is about actually listening to what people have to say. The people have to be able to make their own decisions, and be able to participate and make the important choices connected with the issues that are presently away from them. The Free Trade Agreement is a good example of the lack of participation in the decision making process in the country. The people are not able to participate in most of the events that will affect their lives. There are not too many opportunities for the city halls to increase their share of power, or for the young people who live in the rural areas to go to college.

True freedom creates opportunities. Therefore, it is necessary to have an institutional performance able to create those opportunities. In this sense, human development is freedom and that should be the bet of the future government of El Salvador.