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 1177
January 18, 2006
ISSN 0259-9864
Editorial: Electoral violence
Politics: Relegated peace agreements
Economy: Democracy is a must for economic development
Electoral violence
To a certain extent, given the social context, it is normal that violence influenced the current electoral campaign. Just before its official beginning, the first signs of public violence were shown. Destruction of propaganda, saturation and lack of respect for public and also private places, candidates and political leaders insulting each other, aggressions against party headquarters, physical aggressions and even murders against political militants. Electoral violence is also the way in which the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) decides whether to favor or to disfavor any political party, according to the convenience of the political parties that rule the institution. The political leadership always pleads innocent to the acts of violence, or promises that it will investigate them, or states that it has not given such instructions to its militants. All of them claim to favor a pacific and civilized campaign. All of them claim to be respectful of legislation and to the other parties' rights. Some of them sign non-aggression pacts. All of them urge each other, through a curious and useless decree, to have a democratic behavior. Anyway, the constant and growing acts of violence deny these false postures and statements.
Officially, the police and the General Attorney Office fail to recognize those
acts, nevertheless they are contrary to the fundamental rights of the people,
the political parties and the society. There is no authority in the country with
enough power to accuse a politician, taking him to the judge and punish him, in
case of being found guilty. Most of all when this politician is at the command
of a leader who also is the president or the Interior minister. The parties are
above the legislation, the same legislation they decreed and all of them
apparently defend. In a typical and useless reaction, they have proposed to
punish those who commit violent acts during the campaign with more year of
imprisoning, but this legal disposition won't stop them, as the increasing of
the imprisoning term does not stop other felonies.
The political militants' behavior, as the population's behavior, can not be
other than violent. Since a long time ago, Salvadoran society, including
governmental officers and politicians, do not respect, nor fear laws. In an
increasing way, Salvadoran society has understood that the one and only way to
survive in the country is to do without laws and authorities. This goes without
saying that there is no authority with enough power to enforce laws. This is how
violence and impunity articulated themselves in order to create a vicious
circle. Political leaders and militants can not perform electoral propaganda
without violating the primary law. They are convinced that the better instrument
in order to gain more votes is to use violence against their adversaries. One
has to remember that both the parties and the government itself live to win the
next elections, and, with a few breaks, the country lives in a permanent
election, given the short term that the public officers have. This explains the
great importance that political environment and media attach to elections.
Candidates and party leaders often show themselves to media in order to expose
their plans if they are elected. These plans are disproportionate for the post,
which is explained because they only want to get more votes and the candidates
are not interested in fulfilling their promises. As no one ask them for
explanations, they can make any kind of false promises with impunity. The
attitude does not make much sense, because the polls show that most of the
electorate has already chose for which party is it going to vote for. This means
that whatever the candidates and political leaders do lacks of importance for
most of the electorate. Many of those persons, who have not already take their
decision, will do so when they are in front of the ballots. However, electoral
publicity does not lack of importance for media, because it represents an
important income. Consequently, these media give generous spaces to both parties
and candidates in order that they explain their electoral promises, while these
media find how to fill their news programs without important information.
Media's focus tends to be sensationalistic. The statements of politicians are
presented in an apocalyptic tone —as sports news—, when this one is nothing but
one of many elections. Judging by the tone of the greatest media, it seems that
the future depends on what the society chose. But in the real life, whoever
takes office has little leeway, due to the scarcity of financial resources, to
the lack of knowledge of situation and to the commitments they have to fulfill.
Mayors, in the other hand, have more freedom, but not as much as they claim.
However, candidates and leaderships do not pay any attention to these
conditioning factors during their public interventions.
Anyway, politicians and media always refer to this process as a civic
celebration. Violence and impunity prevent that. In any case, this is a violent
celebration, which is a contradiction. It is also impossible to interpret it as
an expression of civility. In the other hand, the propaganda bombing,
overwhelming and lacking relevance, is something hard to stand for the consumers
of media businesses. It is not strange, thus, the scarce interest of the society
in the competition between political parties.
Relegated peace agreements
Last weekend, some papers remember the peace agreements that were signed in 1992. Some approaches were focused in "discovering" the "private details" behind the negotiations between the government of Alfredo Cristiani and the former guerrilla of the FMLN, from the perspective of the governmental negotiators, who are presented as the main supporters of peace. However, beyond a few public commemorations —like the FMLN's— that were not as relevant as in past years, peace agreements has been relegated from the political agenda, assuming that they were fulfilled and El Salvador is living other moment.
Some analists and researchers labeled the post-agreement era as a "transition".
From an optimistic approach, based on the peculiar enthusiasm for the time, some
assumed that that transition was directed toward the democratization of
Salvadoran society. The opposition was right in assuming that the Chapultepec
agreements were just the grounds on which society would have to build a
democratic order. However, other sectors, linked to the traditional power
groups, did not share this point of view and saw in the agreements the highest
degree of political concessions they can made.
This difference between perspectives and the arduous reconfiguration of
political correlation caused tensions. Finally, the transition was not directed
to democracy, but to a moment in which the political and economic powers pretend
to lead the country toward a new authoritarianism. In this authoritarianism,
some formal elements of the peace agreement can coexist —i.e., political
pluralism and freedom of speech— with the concentration of power in hands of the
ruling party.
It is important to ask whether the agreements were really the starting point
toward a democratic society or not. The ruling groups made an effort to
neutralize the institutions that were created or reformed in order to limit and
regulate the exercise of power, such as the Attorney General's office and the
Ombudsman. Additionally, some efforts were done to weaken parliamentary
opposition.
From consensus to imposition
An important point established by the peace agreements was the search of
consensus as a mechanism to solve the social, political and economic problems.
Consensus among the politic and social forces was opposed to armed violence and
was constituted as a way to avoid new conflicts in the country.
"Consensus" was the in-fashion word during the subsequent months to January
1992. Everyone spoke about consensus. But consensus ended in two ways. First of
them was the failure of the Economic and Social Consensus Forum. The Forum was
created so the government, the private entrepreneurs and the labor sector could
negotiate economic issues. Entrepreneurs and the government turned the Forum
useless. In second place, the strengthen of party influence in public issues,
which consolidated the hegemony of ARENA party.
How did this phenomenon occur? The most relevant characteristic of the peace
agreements was the conversion of the FMLN guerrillas into a political party.
This conversion gave the FMLN the chance to participate in the elections for
public posts. The FMLN conceived its electoral participation as a way to reach
the political and social transformations that it could not reach with the armed
struggle, neither with the results of the peace agreements.
Little by little, the importance of political parties turned exacerbated. The
FMLN, which had an important support form social movements, contributed to
weaken these movements, using its cadres and resources to strengthen its
electoral strategy.
In this way, the interlocutors within a hypothetical consensus were less. It was
assumed that the party of the social organizations, the FMLN, represented its
demands. At the same time, the right wing eroded the power of the social
movement. In the other side, the organizations that the social movement created
in order to support peace negotiations were also weakened. So, a "third force"
—according to the thought of Ignacio Ellacuría—, leaded by sectors that were not
subordinated to the bands in conflict, lost viability.
A campaign which ignores the peace agreements
The political parties that used the peace agreements for its own benefit are now
the most interested in their burial. The agreements —that were conceived as the
basic social, political and economical changes that should be performed in order
to initiate and consolidate the democratization— pose a serious challenge for
political parties. This challenge is the demand for putting the particular
interests aside, in order to construct a social coexistence based in dialogue
and inclusion.
The current political campaign ignores the peace agreements. The political
platforms do not mention the transformations proposed by the agreements.
Political parties try to ignore that El Salvador has a weak institutional system
and that its population is affected by a generalized insecurity: citizen
insecurity, social insecurity and economic insecurity. There is a divorce
between the political platforms and the real problems.
Political platforms as, for instance, ARENA's Legislative platform and the
Municipal government plan, are centered in the combat against crime centered in
repression and in a weaken judiciary power. Its conception of development is
reduced to the physical infrastructure improvement. And its economic development
strategy is subordinated to free trade agreements. The ARENA platform does not
take into account the need to strengthen democratic institutions and citizen
participation in public decisions. It does not offer dialogue and consensus in
order to face national issues. The content of these proposals shows how the
political parties pretend to turn the page of the peace agreements without
solving the problems that these agreements were intended to solve.
Democracy is a must for economic development
Last year, the UNDP and the National Private Entrepreneurs Association of El Salvador (ANEP) analyzed the economic situation of the country. The Human Development Report 2005 and El Salvador 2024: the Country that all we want, respectively, pose the need to make changes to the economic model. Although the documents have different focuses, both organizations claim that the low growth in the GDP prevents the economic development. Facing this problem, both organizations recognize that it is important to establish a national consensus in order to build a national vision in face to the future.
Both documents harshly criticize the government, stating the lack of
effectiveness in the economic politics of the ARENA's administrations. Some of
the criticisms are the following: the lack of sector politics in order to raise
the production levels, the foreign currency politics, the lack of security that
weaken both local and foreign investments, a deficient tax system, and the
institutional deterioration.
The economic system limitations
During the last years, the economic system marginalized and excluded most of the
Salvadoran people. The scarce progresses in social issues and the frail
stability of economic show how the model is losing strength.
Mistakes committed by the government are not reduced to the inadequate economic
politics, but are related to the deterioration in institutional conditions.
Beyond an economic analysis, the respect for rules and order in politics also
benefit the economy. Whilst the measures recommended by international entities
can only establish an initial balance in order to build a new economic
functioning, the institutions are intended to establish and enforce rules that
the economic and politic agents should respect. As these rules are built into
the political sphere, politics are a key factor in the long-term development.
In this sense, every decision from the Executive branch that does not observe
the democratic practices and the law enforcement is putting the economic
development off. El Salvador is not exempt from this problem. ANEP stated that
"the main cause of the uncertainty in Latin America is the great discretional
power of the Executive, that changes laws to its will and enforces the current
laws in an incoherent way".
Therefore, it can not be expected that the economic growth and development be
subordinated to a few economic measures and to the trade agreements, if
institutions that regulate productive agents are left aside. These institutions
strengthen themselves in a consolidated democracy.
The need for consensus
Against the governmental approach, it is necessary to establish a consensus with
the different social sectors in order to define what are the urgent tasks to
perform. As a consequence of this consensus, public policies would be
implemented. In other words, consensus is a priority. After the consensus, it
will be possible to define the economic and social mechanisms in order to make
possible a national approach based on consensus.
The achievement of consensus establishes new rules. Good results in the future
depend upon its observance. In order to achieve this consensus, the role of
politicians is very important. Nobel Prize Douglass North criticizes economists
for their exclusively technical approach to understand economic recession. The
fact that the economists are not able to propose solutions that go beyond a few
macroeconomic measures is something that attracts his attention. North says: "we
economists think that we are great guys —I apologize myself if I offend the
economists—, but the key factor is politics. Politics is the key factor, because
polities make and define the rules, insofar they create judiciary powers that
work, enforce the rule of law and the characteristics of law enforcement and the
quality of judiciary power, which are all critical parts for the system".
In this direction, the statements of ANEP and the UNDP make sense: in face of
the redefinition of the economic model, it is necessary to establish a new
"nation pact", based upon a consensus of the different sectors of society.
Currently, the problem is that no one backs the Executive's projects, because
all of them are imposed. No one asked the people whether they wanted to adopt
U.S. currency or to sign CAFTA agreement. Like these, there are many measures
that were performed without consensus. This affects this incipient democracy.
Salvadoran government should not expect economic development upon the basis of a
frail democracy and a weak institutional system. The consolidation of democracy
and economic development are two factors that should go together in order to
achieve an integrated development. It is true that, during certain stage, a
country may experiment high economic growth rates and high levels of investment
that increase production and productivity, but the benefits of this growth are
not sustainable in a long term, due to the scarce achievements of democracy.
Only in this way it could be understood how the high economic growth rates
achieved before peace agreements vanished suddenly.
In this way, the government and the political parties must understand that the
economic development that the country needs requires solutions to the people's
needs. The bad performance of politicians and governmental officers, and
antidemocratic practices like buying votes during the elections or in the
Assembly, attempt against democracy. In the same way, when the Executive branch
interprets law according to its interests, the struggles among the State's
branches, the lack of support for the Public Ministry and the scarce ability to
fight corruption are weakening democracy and preventing economic development.
Tel: +503-210-6600 ext. 407, Fax: +503-210-6655 |