|
The
offer of ARENA
Those who aspire
to be chosen as the presidential candidate of ARENA have an ambiguous
attitude about the present government. They are aware that its deficient
administration determines the electoral preferences of the population, which,
at the moment, are not favorable. However, they do not dare to talk about
the mistakes to avoid making specific promises. They cannot just say that,
if they arrive to the Executive power, they will continue with the present
policies. They, with the exception of one, do not dare to take distance
either. At times it might seem that they are promising to offer a different
kind of administration, since, on the contrary, it would not be possible to
establish the difference between their proposal and the one of the present
government. However, their discourses are so much alike that it is difficult
to guess what is the new offer. It is clear that several aspiring candidates
are more ambiguous than others, but continuity is the common denominator of
their offer, despite the negative balance that the Flores administration
shows.
The faces might be new, but their discourse is not. They all talk about
getting closer to the people and about negotiating with the diverse sectors.
They all talk about the poor and about the social policies. They all talk
about the importance of a debate, about being open to the critics, and about
the contributions of the citizenry. But none of them offers a specific plan.
Their discourse even seems identical to the one used by Flores during the
beginning of his campaign. However, what seems paradoxical about this issue
is the contradictions that the whole process involves. During their public
and their private careers, none of these aspiring candidates got close to
the poor, they never defended their cause or promoted a debate about their
situation. Now they insist that they will promote and accept the critics the
critics that they have formerly rejected, they promise that they will not
privatize the public health system when not too long ago they demanded its
immediate privatization. Now they say that they are worried about the
absence of a social policy. However, not too long ago, all they cared about
was to increase the number of assets of the business elite and to repress
the social protests caused by the absence of that social policy. None of
them seem to have a specific plan for the presidency. It is just more of the
same with a few contrasts.
If ARENA can only offer the same, it has no other choice but to use Anti-Communism
as a campaign issue. However, Anti-Communism is not a governmental program,
because instead of getting the voters closer to their ideals, they push them
further apart, and it creates fear; that campaign does not create jobs or a
fairer distribution of wealth; instead of developing social programs it
represses those who are discontent. The country needs something more serious
than Anti-Communism. However, it is an issue that has advantages for ARENA,
since it saves it the effort that would be needed to elaborate an efficient
governmental plan with an emphasis on the social matters, and the party
easily avoids making a specific commitment with the population. If Anti-Communism
is the best that ARENA can offer it will have an outdated campaign, promoted
precisely by those who have insisted on concentrating in the future. Anti-Communism
is not an electoral campaign issue and it will not do any good to the
country, because it will exacerbate even more the polarization and the
political violence. This type of campaign will not be a guaranteed success
for ARENA, because when the population is tired or simply angry because of a
vitiated administration and the lack of credible promises, that is enough to
decide to vote against that party.
ARENA’s Anti-Communist crusade shows how improbable it might be that the
governmental party accepts a change. It seems as if its members do not
conceive that another party, especially not the FMLN, can replace them in
the Executive power. If something like this happened, it would be a total
catastrophe. That is what several politicians and a number of unknowing
business companies affirm. If ARENA and the business elite sustain that the
FMLN is a grave risk for the country because a left-wing administration
would mean to change the capitalist system for a socialist one, a regime of
freedoms for a regime of slavery, a state of democracy for a state of
Communism, an environment of peace for an environment of class struggle,
security for terrorism, good for evil... The logical conclusion is that in
the case of wining the elections it will be necessary to prevent them, at
any cost, from taking over the Executive power. In the present context, this
discourse would be aimed to gain more votes for ARENA. But the implicit
logic of this argument can lead to think that, in the case of wining the
elections, and given the dangerous objectives that it represents, it would
be necessary to prevent the FMLN from taking over the Executive power. From
a democratic perspective, this is a very serious statement.
The dangers of the FMLN have been also emphasized by the Embassy of the
United States. It has not only clearly demonstrated its electoral preference
for the party in the government, but, in a way, it has also asked the
Salvadoran population not to vote for the FMLN. This direct intervention in
the internal affairs of El Salvador, which goes against the elemental
aspects of diplomacy, can only be described as imperialism. The government
of this country does not seem to care anymore about being called imperialist,
because it is determined to defend the interests of its business companies
at any cost. However, ARENA as well as the United States’ Embassy both speak
about democracy and free elections. It is clear that these declarations have
to be understood in the context of what is convenient for them.
That is how what should be the change of government has become a crucial
election between two ways to organize the society, the economy and the state.
The parties have turned what should simply be the continuity or change of
policies into a matter of fundamental values. ARENA and the FMLN should make
an effort to abandon a Fundamentalist position and moderate its actions, so
that a change of administration were not understood as a change of system.
The elections are nothing but a procedure to choose those who will
administrate the country. In this sense, the change of government should
stop being a matter of life and death. The procedure to change or modify the
system is the national consensus.
|
