Please, send us your comments and suggestions
Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
E-mail: cidai@cidai.uca.edu.sv
Universidad Centroamericana (UCA)
Apdo. Postal 01-168 Boulevard Los Próceres
San Salvador, El Salvador, Centro América
Tel: +(503) 210-6600 ext. 407
Fax: +(503) 210-6655
Proceso is published weekly in Spanish by the Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI) of the Central American University (UCA) of El Salvador. Portions are sent in English to the *reg.elsalvador* conference of PeaceNet in the USA and may be forwarded or copied to other networks and electronic mailing lists. Please make sure to mention Proceso when quoting from this publication.
Subscriptions to Proceso in Spanish can be obtained by sending a check for US$50.00 (Americas) or $75.00 (Europe) made out to 'Universidad Centroamericana' and sent to the above address. Or read it partially on the UCA’s Web Page: http://www.uca.edu.sv
For the ones who are interested in sending donations, these would be welcome at Proceso. Apdo. Postal 01-168, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Proceso 1151
June 29, 2005
ISSN 0259-9864
Editorial: The Neo-Populism of the media
Politics: The political pulse of the Legislative Assembly
Economy: The CAFTA: will the United States help Central America
The Neo-Populism of the media
Since the democratic regimes were established in the
West as the less destructive political regimes, the debate about its strong
features and its shortcomings was more frequent. Many goals have been conquered
since the time when Alexis de Tocqueville wrote “Democracy in America” (1832),
and with the present studies of academics such as Juan Linz, Robert Dahl,
Giovani Sartori, and Arend Lijphart. Many things have been said about democracy.
In Latin America, the discussion about democracy has been particularly intense
since the eighties, when, by the hand of authors like Guillermo O’Donnel, Manuel
Antonio Garreton, Fernando Calderon, and others, the wear and tear of the
authoritarian regimes brought the subject of the democratic transition to the
front of the stage.
Even if all of these authors do not have the same opinion about democracy, as a
political regime, there are some characteristics that make it different from
other political regimes, and that give to it a particular appeal. A democratic
regime is not based in the irrevocable power of a chief or a leader, or in the
decisions of a civilian-military coalition, or in the absolute power of an
institution. A democratic regime demands the participation of the society, as
well as debates and public criticism. A democracy demands the presence of the
society in the public spaces: a space that evaluates, examines, and criticizes
the sociopolitical problems, a space that creates and proposes reasonable
alternatives to resolve these problems in an acceptable manner, considering as
well the interests of the minorities.
Without a solid and a well-articulated institutional foundation, ruled by the
rights of the citizenry, a democratic regime trembles because of the
authoritarian attitudes of those that have the power, or by the irruption of
uncontrollable civilian demands, which are a mechanism to control the abuse, the
irresponsibility, and the personal favors that come from power.
In the Latin American debate there are diverse issues at stake, not only because
of the political changes created by the crisis of the dictatorships, but also
because of the political situation that we had before the arrival of the
military power. The studies about transition were influenced in the beginning by
a definitive optimism about democracy in the future of the countries that were
beginning to deconstruct the mechanisms of power that were the legacy left by
the authoritarian regimes. Later on, when the consolidation issue was discussed,
that optimism eventually vanished and there were more skeptic positions and a
pessimistic perspective about democracy in Latin America, something that was
justified by the experiences of Peru, Argentina, and Venezuela.
In the nineties, it was clear that in the Latin American political transition
there was not only the heavy authoritarian inheritance, but a legacy that
existed even before the military regimes took control of the situation:
populism. It was not that authoritarianism and populism were both replacing some
of the incipient democracies in Latin America; on the contrary, they were giving
to them a texture of their own, making them a “democracy of a delegation”, in
which, according to Guillermo O’Donnel “the person who wins the presidential
election has the authority to rule the country in any way this person believes
it is more convenient; this person can only be restricted by the critical
reality of the existing relations of power and by the temporary limitations of
their administration period. The president is considered as the incarnation of
the nation, and as the one that defines and guards the interests of that
nation”.
In the case of the populist inheritance, it was not –and it is not- a copy of
the traditional populism –the one of Peron or Lazaro Cardenas-, but it was a
modern version of it, offered to the public through some media that did agree
with that kind of administrations. Since the nineties, several Latin American
countries have followed a sort of a Neo-populism in the media, based on which
the presidents of the country are sold to the public –following the scheme of
the democracies of a delegation- as the lord and the master of the society’s
destiny, that is, as the one that will guarantee and make the decisions that
affect most of the citizens.
This way of both conceiving and administrating power, even if it is supported by
an electoral mechanism, it does throw away one of the most important beliefs of
democracy: the institutions’ role as mediators. This happens because in the
populism of the media of our time, the institutions are overlooked in the media
because of the presence of the presidency, which steps over the demands of the
institutions. The idea that they try to sell is that the president is someone
who is “close” to the people, and that the people’s concerns and frustrations
(or even their joys) are compatible with his own perspectives, that the
president is somebody independent, and that therefore, he can do things faster
(respecting the rules and the procedures) than anyone else.
The populism of the media is a terrible menace for democracy. And that is
because when technically the importance of the institutions is overlooked, a
discretional and an abusive behavior become the rule of the political power.
When that abolition of the institutions is nothing but an illusion sold by the
media, as it happens in El Salvador, the supreme will of the president turns
into promises that will never be fulfilled, or that, in order to come true, they
have to ignore the prevailing institutional mechanisms, which the publicists of
the government end up blaming for being obstacles for the president to resolve
the people’s problems.
The political pulse of the Legislative Assembly
While the news and those who make the news in El Salvador
keep talking about the polarization between ARENA and the FMLN, the pulse of the
political life surreptitiously moves towards the smallest parties represented in
the Legislative Assembly. Many of these so called “parties” are actually nothing
but a group of three or four people, dissidents of some political movement,
generally from the FMLN, people that stand out because of their intentions to
become the rivals of their former comrades.
The stubborn ideology and the authoritarian attitude of the leaders from the
FMLN are the most important ideas used by those that have left the party. As
always, the media have fully covered their departures. However, the founders of
the new Frente Democratico Revolucionario (Revolutionary Democratic Front, FDR,
in Spanish) are being careful enough when it comes to make any decisions that
could make it look as if they are close to ARENA.
They intend to take the power away from the FMLN, and, at the time, they count
with enough political force to show what they can do. In fact, “thanks” to the
last dissidents, the FMLN does not count anymore with the key of the 56 votes,
which allow the party to block the political decisions of the Executive power,
such as the approval of international loans, the general budget of the nation,
or the designation of secondary-rank officials.
Until now, those who left the FMLN ended-up adding their votes to the ones of
the right-wing block. Based on that, the leaders of the left-wing party would
accuse them of selling themselves to the interests of the economic power and
betraying the interests of the poorest sectors of the society, until now, this
discourse has worked. All of those that have left the FMLN with the intention to
create new parties with a left-wing tendency have failed. Their decision of
supporting the legislative measures promoted by the right wing have sealed their
death certificates.
That is where the new strategy of the new rebels comes from. They are trying not
to identify themselves with ARENA so that it does not seem as if they have a
pact with the right wing. That is how they think that they can stay alive,
politically speaking. Willing to conquer an electorate that is not used to see
its leaders making pacts with the right wing, Ileana Rogel and her group have
the difficult task of convincing the unhappy voters –with the present leadership
of the left-wing party- that they can fight for the same ideals.
This group has refused to approve the designation of the members of the National
Council of the Judge’s Office (CJN, in Spanish) and the reelection of the
present Attorney General of the Republic, something that ARENA wanted. This is a
sample of what they intend to do, and that might be why the direction of the
FMLN has not launched a defamation campaign against its former members. After
the first declarations because of the departure of Ileana Rogel and her people,
the direction of the FMLN has not touched this issue again. However, it could be
convenient to seriously wonder if there is a future for these dissidents of the
FMLN.
At the moment, it could be said that it will be very difficult for them to
create this alternative to the left wing. History has taught us that those who
have left the important parties have watched their political popularity grow
weaker. The dissidents of ARENA, as well as the ones of the FMLN have had that
bitter experience.
It is clear now that it is not enough to have a certain kind of personal
prestige to get out. The former mayor of San Salvador, Hector Silva, had this
experience during the last presidential elections. He politically failed,
despite the fact that the opinion polls had pointed at him as one of the most
solid candidacies in the fight for the presidency. In that sense, regardless of
the sympathy awakened by Ileana Rogel, it would be necessary for her to
understand that it is not enough to have the support of the press, especially
the support of the media that belong to the right wing, in order to gain the
trust of the electorate, those that have historically given their vote in favor
of the FMLN.
That is why it is necessary to combine a serious organizational work with a
strong political coherence in the Legislative Assembly. The self-denominated
anti-authoritarian block of the left wing, taking advantage of the electoral
force it counts with –is a key factor for the approval of the public policies
that require a qualified majority- will have to show its intentions.
In this sense, the election of the Attorney General and the approval by the end
of the year of the general budget of the nation will work as a good piece of
evidence. On the other hand, it will be difficult to justify the reelection of
an Attorney General that has revealed his incompetence and his biased attitude
in favor of the most retrograde thesis of the right wing in matters of the
application of the law and the combat against crime. In addition, the fact that
ARENA seems to be making out of the reelection of this character a point of
honor should make the people pay attention to this matter. This would be a good
occasion for the FDR to take distance from the official position. On the
contrary, it will offer a good opportunity to the leaders of the FMLN to
identify them with the right wing.
In reference to the approval of the budget, without a doubt, this is more of a
difficult issue. It will be necessary to negotiate specific and visible matters
with ARENA in exchange for their support to the budget. In addition, the
right-wing party will have to try harder to accept that the changes that were
going to be introduced would be specific achievements of this group, and this is
a difficult task. ARENA has never seemed willing to share political credits with
its allies. Not even the PCN has counted with these favors. In addition, with
the next elections, a party that is just beginning will hardly get any credits.
The main challenge of these new political movements has to do with an
organizational issue. It has been proved that one of the tricks of the parties
that have led the political life of the country in the post-war is the structure
they count with at a national scale. In this way, they cannot only identify the
local leaders that can carry their message, but that can also –and this is the
most important factor- move the crowds when it comes to vote. A considerable
share of the continuous failure of those that have tried to create new political
organizations is due to their incapacity to face the administrative problems of
the country.
It is difficult to predict anything new in the case of the dissidents. It seems
that they do not only count with the human and the material resources to create
such an important structure; but that time is also against them. In less than a
year the elections will take place, and in such a short time they will not be
able to resolve such critical problems.
In the mean time, they have taken away from the FMLN the key of the 56 votes. In
a way, their decision will be favorable for the leaders of the left-wing party.
They will not only be paying attention to report any behavior that could be
interpreted as a betrayal, but they will also get rid of the need to behave as a
constructive opposition, willing to make counter- proposals to its adversaries
when they cannot go beyond their votes. That is how ARENA will not be able to go
on with the campaign that states that the FMLN is an obstacle to improve the
lives of the Salvadoran people.
The CAFTA: will the United States help Central America
A few days ago, the intense discussions about the CAFTA
were concentrated in two areas of the American Congress. On June 14th, there was
the first voting rehearsal in the Financial Committee of the Senate. Back then,
the result was 11 votes in favor, and 09 votes against the project. A day later,
they organized another rehearsal in the Committee of Media and Arbiters of the
Chamber of Representatives. This time, there were more votes at stake. The
results were 25 votes in favor, and 16 against.
In the Committee of the Chamber of Representatives, they expected this event to
be more aggressive due to the fact that many of the congressmen supported the
position of the business associations and unions that were against the project.
However, the results were completely different, and in the second day of the
rehearsals, the CAFTA was presented as an attractive agreement for most of the
congressmen of North America. The results of both days indicated that the CAFTA
counted with a freeway in the Congress of the United States. In spite of the
favorable results for the interests of the American Executive power, President
Bush invited the congressmen to vote in favor of the CAFTA, since this would be
an important device to promote the economic and the social development of the
region.
The new way for the approval of the CAFTA
The final race for the CAFTA in the American Congress began this week. If a new
voting event in the Financial Committee of the Senate indicates that the CAFTA
can arrive for the final voting to the Congress, it can be expected that the
discussions and the lobbying among the congressmen are concentrated in the
Chamber of Representatives. It seems that in the Senate a majority is already in
favor of the treaty.
There are also international institutions, such as the World’s Bank (BM, in
Spanish) and the Inter-American Bank of Development (BID, in Spanish), that have
shown their support to the agreement. It can be noticed that the ratification of
the free trade agreement between Central America and the United States is
something that does not exclusively concern the citizens of the affected
countries, but also the different international institutions that support, as it
has traditionally happened, the interests of the United States.
Some of the political and the religious leaders of the United States (along with
the leaders of the unions) sustain that the CAFTA will affect the poorest
workers of the region due to the small achievements in labor legislation that
these countries have. For them, it is possible that by establishing the treaty,
the series of abuses that are already present will be intensified. However, some
of the public officials of the United States’ Government do not think the same.
Stuart Eizenstadt, a former sub-secretary of State for the Clinton
administration, indicated that “in this legislation there is protection for the
workers. There are fines for violating the labor regulations in the involved
countries. If they do it like this, there is money to help the countries apply
their own labor regulations”. For those who support the position of the White
House no one has to fear because of the small achievements in matters of labor,
since the Congress of the United States just added another $20 million (a total
of $40 million already) that will be destined to strengthen the labor laws in
Central America.
Another battle field for the Republican and the Democrats is the consequences of
the CAFTA as far as the immigration process is concerned. For the Executive
power of the United States, the agreement will be a mechanism that will
contribute to reduce the immigration level of Central America. In this case,
Eizenstadt mentioned that “each study has demonstrated that the CAFTA will
generate an income of $5,000 million and hundreds of thousands of jobs,
something that will release some of the pressure of the immigration from Central
America”. The Democrat congressman Raul Grijalva thinks the opposite. According
to Grijalva, there is a direct relation between the commercial agreement and the
illegal immigration. In other words, the commercial agreements, instead of
favoring the less developed countries, they intensify poverty, something that
increases the immigration level to the United States.
In spite of those differences between the Republican and the Democrats in the
American Congress, many experts consider that Bush has won the battle in the
senate. This opinion is different from those that indicate that the government
still does not have on his side the vote of the Republican congressmen. This
would mean that a margin between 10 and 13 votes in favor would be necessary to
win the activation of the project in the final voting event.
Other positions
In the international context, the BM and the BID have been constantly supporting
the interests of the government of the United States. The BID worked hard in the
committees of the Congress a few days before the voting. Back then, Enrique
Iglesias, the president of that bank, indicated that the CAFTA would be the top
of a considerable amount of structural reforms that had been made in Central
America. In addition, with the treaty, the region would have more opportunities
for the economic and the social development of the population.
To support the treaty, the BM recently presented a report titled CAFTA-RD:
Challenges and Opportunities for Central America. In this report, the BM
indicates that the free trade agreement between the United States and Central
America will help to increase the economic growth rate of the region. For the BM
the countries that sign free trade agreements have an economic growth of 0.6% in
the annual GNP during the first five years. The report indicates that after that
period of time, the GNP of a country is approximately 3% higher as a result of
the agreement. The document mentions that, with these indicators, in Central
America there would be half a million people that would not be poor by the year
2010.
The commitment of the United States with Central America
On June 23rd, George Bush spoke once again about the CAFTA. For the President,
as well as for Robert Zoelic, the Secretary of Foreign Trade, the agreement
fundamentally has a political dimension. For both of them, the agreement would
be helpful to consolidate the incipient democracies of the region. With this
perspective, Zoelick would have criticized the businessmen of the textile sector
and the ones of the sugar industry for rejecting the CAFTA due to its selfish
interests. For Zoelick, the businessmen that reject the treaty were acting
against the economic and the democratic stability of the countries that will
receive the benefits of the commercial agreement.
The Executive power of the United States is also interested in presenting a
different perspective of the treaty: a political perspective. President Bush
said “we all urge the Congress to approve the treaty because North America is
interested in strengthening the democracy of those countries and promote
prosperity in our hemisphere”. However, in the mind of the American President,
this can only happen by establishing a system of free trade with the Central
American countries. That is, there is no other way to strengthen the democracy
of these countries than to let the free forces of the market work. That is why
he also said that “the CAFTA is offering a historical opportunity to get ahead
with a free and a fair commercial system that will favor all of the parts
involved”.
It is clear, in this context, that for the White House, the CAFTA is a
fundamental aspect to consolidate democracy in the region. This means that the
economic freedom is just as important as the political freedom. However, inside
this discourse, it is necessary to be very careful with the concept of economic
freedom. In this country there has been an inadequate behavior in the business
sector as far as this concept is concerned, and if the CAFTA represents more of
this kind of freedom, the Salvadorans should be against the treaty. The “system
of freedoms” (economically speaking) that has worked in the country has only
been favorable for a few people.
Is economic freedom the same thing as political freedom?
The discourse used by the White House officials is a liberal discourse. This
tends to blow out of proportion the actual dimension of the benefits that the
performance of a free market system has over democracy. In fact, they intend to
demonstrate that in order to have a free democracy there has to be a system of
free market. This perspective tends to forget that a market system can work to
only favor the minorities that hold the power, that the same system can promote
the concentration of the income and, that it can be based on an unlimited
deregulation of the markets, and this can be a negative factor for the
consumers.
In this context, the growth of the markets through the creation of new areas to
make business –such as the CAFTA- can consolidate, in the end, these negative
aspects produced by that free market system. The market should not be understood
as an abstract feature of prices and amounts –something that the prevailing
economic theory does-, and understand that it is a place where the interests of
the businessmen (producers) and workers (consumers) meet. In most of the cases,
even in the developed societies, this relation of interests not always takes
place in a pacific manner, but through mechanisms of pressure that involve the
political circles.
That is why it seems odd if the free trade system is now presented as the
mechanism that will guarantee the democratic stability of the countries. It has
been forgotten that 300 years ago a liberal economist, Adam Smith, who also
believed in free trade, admitted the difficulties that free trade brought along
to the political circles: a continuous sense of tension among the workers and
businessmen to determine the salaries. In addition, in the economic field, he
admitted that even the prosperous societies, based on economic freedoms, could
reach a critical situation of economic stagnation.
Tel: +503-210-6600 ext. 407, Fax: +503-210-6655 |