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 1169
November 9 2005
ISSN 0259-9864
Editorial: Political Fanaticism
Politics: About the election of the new Attorney General
Regional: The conclave of disagreements: The Fourth Summit of the Americas
Political Fanaticism
According to Manuel Seco, in his Diccionario del
Español Actual (The Modern Spanish Dictionary), a “fanatic” is the excited and
the intransigent follower of a person or a doctrine. On the other hand,
“fanaticism” is defined in the same dictionary as the attitude of the fanatic.
In this context, the political fanaticism would be an intransigent attitude of
excitement for a party or for a political doctrine. Other characteristics can be
added to this notion: a fanatic tends to demonize the adversary; has feelings of
intolerance and violence (that is, the practical intention to hurt someone, or
sometimes even to destroy something, whenever other people show that they have
different ideas); manichaeism can also be added to this list. This is how
political fanaticism –as well as other kinds of fanaticism- is an extremely
dangerous factor not only if the intention is to make democracy actually work,
but also if the objective is to achieve both a civilized and a pacific
coexistence between the citizens.
In El Salvador, political fanaticism has always existed, it has been a constant
since the period of independence to the present. There have been moments –for
instance, in the late Seventies and throughout the Eighties- when political
fanaticism was particularly intense. After the Peace Accords were signed,
political fanaticism has been kept alive not only during the electoral periods,
but also at times when some sort of political conflict has come along. The
electoral period that ended in March of 2004, with the election of Elias Antonio
Saca as the President of El Salvador, was quite a good example of this
situation: the fanaticism of the right-wing did bring out its worst vices
connected to an anti-communist intransigence. To hunt their adversaries down and
murder them were the only things that the fanatics did not do.
In the present political conjunction –with an open electoral process-, political
fanaticism has already begun to walk into the conscience and the minds of the
citizenry. This is a fanaticism that, although it has stronger roots in the
right-wing –in their spokespeople with a higher degree of fanaticism-, it is not
the exclusive property of this area of political beliefs. Fanaticism is also
part, in its very own particular version, of the left-wing, specifically of the
FMLN when it comes to certain followers of the party.
In both cases, the present kind of fanaticism is the product of the events that
took place before and during the civil war. Without a doubt, there are new
features to it, but the fundamental stigmas –in both the FMLN and the fanatics
of the right-wing- remain the same: the right-wing, from the perspective of the
left-wing, is seen as a group of Capitalists, thieves, and abusive people. On
the other hand, from the perspective of the right-wing, the members of the
left-wing are seen as Communists, as the enemies of the country, and as the
followers of a totalitarian regime. What is new now? The left-wing has added the
adjective of Neo-Liberals to their opposition; while the members of the
right-wing no longer associate the left-wing with the Cuban expansionism (which
in its own time followed the Russian expansion as well). Now they associate the
left-wing with the allegedly disrespectful attitude that Hugo Chavez adopts when
it comes to deal with the Bush administration, and the actions against the
initiatives of the ALCA.
Another characteristic shared by the fanatics of both the right-wing and the
left-wing is the one that divides the reality into the good ones and the bad
ones. From the perspective of the fanatics of the right-wing, everything ARENA
does is good –and not only positive-. On the other hand, everything that the
FMLN does is wrong –and not only negative-. Most of all, the “evil” sense of the
FMLN comes out when the members of this party criticize ARENA or when they
refuse to accept the decisions made by the Saca administration. For the fanatics
of the right-wing, the “good ones” are all of those that support both ARENA and
the Saca administration; and the “bad” ones are all of those that, even if they
are not members of the FMLN, criticize and refuse to accept the decisions of the
right-wing. According to the fanatics of the right-wing, this internal “evil”
sense of the FMLN also reveals itself when the recent history of the country is
examined, especially the period of the civil war.
According to the right-wing, the war was unleashed by the FMLN, all of the
destruction was the left-wing’s responsibility; all of the suffering and the
pain of all those years are the exclusive responsibility, according to that
vision, of the FMLN. The other side of the coin is the goodness of the
right-wing and its allies (the death squads, the army); “thanks” to them, El
Salvador was “saved” from the claws of evil. For the fanatics of the right-wing,
the murders and the massacres that the death squads and the army committed do
not count; the destruction of houses and cultivations do not count either.
Neither does the departure of thousands of families, caused by the bombarding
and the strategy of destruction of the land, sponsored by the government of the
United States, during the first years of the war.
For the fanatics of the left-wing, things are completely different. For them,
nothing good can be expected from ARENA or from the government. Anything they
promise (or do) has to be negatively judged without no contemplations at all. No
one has to wait to see if what they have promised will not work or if it will be
harmful for the situation of the country; the evidence is not necessary, because
nothing good can come from either the government or ARENA. To wait for the
evidence, to consider that, in an act of prudence, it is advisable to examine
the evidence to judge any political actor, is seen, when it comes to ARENA and
the government, as a symptom of complicity with both of them, and, in general,
with the right-wing. For the fanatic of the left-wing, the only guarantee that
someone is not involved with the right-wing is to see that person immediately
rejects anything that might come from the right-wing. And this attitude of the
present also existed in the recent past: the war, the crimes, and the
destruction was the fault of the right-wing. The political ambitions of the most
important members of the guerrilla or the crimes they ordered do not count.
Neither does their authoritarianism nor their intolerance.
The fanaticism of the right-wing as well as the fanaticism of the left-wing do
follow the slogan “either you are with me, or against me”. In the case of the
fanaticism of the right-wing, the enemies of ARENA are all of those that do not
see the FMLN as an enemy. On the other hand, for the left-wing, those who do not
see the government or ARENA as the source of all evil can be nothing but the
friends of the right-wing and the enemies of the FMLN. In either case, the
enemies have to be treated as such: in the post-war period, the insults, the
denigration, and the threats became –since there is not more of a drastic
solution- the favourite resource of the fanatics of both sides. For them,
democracy –the little democracy that the country has- is one of the worst
abominations. And this is because it makes them coexist –whether they like it or
not- with the enemy.
About the election of the new Attorney General
The country has just came out of a conjunction dominated by
the socio-natural disasters, and has stepped into another situation in which the
electoral campaign starts to gain importance. The campaign will occupy the
attention of the media and will overflow the level of attention of the public
opinion, setting aside with this, probably the most critical problems of the
society. One of these problems is the election of the new Attorney General.
The person at the head of the Attorney General’s Office (FGR, in Spanish) has,
by constitutional means, the mission to promote justice in favor of the victims,
and strengthen the law in the country. Therefore, the Attorney General has to
promote, either with the every-day routine, or by responding to a specific
petition, the action of justice, the investigation of crime, and the promotion
of the pertinent penal actions. In addition, and most importantly, the Attorney
General has the duty to support and protect the victims of any crime, so that
they do not become victims again because of a revenge.
In an authentically democratic society, the Attorney General becomes the
defender of the rights of the citizenry. The Procurator of the Human Rights1
should fulfill this task as well, but in a different direction. The Public
Defender of the Human Rights has to take care of that specific area, while the
Attorney General will be responsible to guarantee a process of justice for the
citizenry. The reinforcement of the institutions created to represent the
population before the presence of the political powers should be accompanied by
a citizenry that is conscious of its rights, and capable to follow a process in
order to defend them.
The duties look good in theory, but the problem is how to actually take action.
To a great extent, the fact that an elected public official is able to fulfill
his responsibilities is something that has to do with his personal, his ethical,
and his professional profile. Another important factor is independence. If the
Public Defender is an official that does not owe any favors to the political
parties, he can act with more freedom. It is different when the public official
of this branch feels obliged to favor the parties that supported him during the
election process.
In El Salvador, the procedure to choose the Attorney General can only guarantee
the subordination of the new official to the interests of the most powerful
sectors. When this election is the product of a negotiation between the
political parties, they are not looking for the honesty of the new official, but
for his qualification to defend certain interests: the ones of the wealthiest
circles and the ones of the political power.
The profile of the new Attorney General
The Constitution establishes the requirements that any person who aspires to
direct the FGR has to meet. These requirements indicate, among other aspects,
that the Attorney General has to be a professional of the juridical sciences,
and someone who has “worked for a period of six years in the judiciary office”,
or someone that has been authorized to perform the exercise of the law for eight
years before the election. This would fulfill the professional profile of the
Attorney General; as for his ethical profile, it has been established that this
official has to “have moral values and be extremely competitive”.
The law does not get into details about how to identify the degree of morality
and professional performance of the new Attorney General. In the Honduran
legislation, for this case, they demand a series of requirements that have to
prove how qualified a person is for this position: the academic studies, the
publications, the acknowledgements, the teaching experience, among other
factors. In the case of El Salvador, there are no parameters to verify the
qualifications of those who aspire to fill this position.
The same things happen with the moral aspects. They do not demand any documents
of solvency from the Internal Revenue Service, from the Comptroller’s Office,
from the Attorney General’s Office, or from the Human Rights Office. Probity,
honesty, rectitude, the three characteristics that can define the “notorious
morality” factor are three elements that can be perfectly identified. When these
parameters are not established, it is easy for anyone to meet the requirements
of age and the professional ones as well in the race for the Attorney General’s
Office. All that a person needs is to count with the support of the official
party in order to successfully achieve his goals.
This situation undermines the independence that the Attorney General has to work
with. During his administration, it is obvious that he will have to face
contradictions with the powerful sectors, since there will be times when he will
have to choose between serving justice or protecting a certain circle’s
interests.
In this sense, just like the guidelines about the role of the Attorney General
indicate, dictated by the 8th Congress of the United Nations about the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Delinquent, the States of the
different nations should guarantee that the “Attorney Generals are able to
perform their professional duties without being intimidated, without obstacles,
without being harassed, and without any interferences that might be considered
inappropriate, or that might have to do with an unjustified risk of committing
either a civil or a penal crime, or any sort of crime”. On the contrary, all
that is left is to choose between bribery and something worse. This was what
happened to the procurator at the time, Mario Zamora Rivas. Since he was on the
side of the victims, the Salvadoran State did everything but to guarantee that
he would perform his duties without any intimidations, obstacles, harassment,
inappropriate interferences or unjustified risks. Zamora was murdered by
paramilitary groups, and his case is recorded in the report of the Commission of
the Truth.
A balance of the performance of Artiga
It is important to discuss some of the characteristics of the present Attorney
General, Belisario Artiga, in order to see up to what extent he has managed to
fulfill the mission established for the Attorney General. In a few words, the
Attorney General has to guarantee that justice will be served to the victims.
Has Artiga accomplished that mission?
When Artiga occupied his position as Attorney General, he announced that he
would take under his wing certain emblematic cases that later remained
unpunished: the one of the Jesuit priests, murdered in 1989; and the one of the
child Katya Miranda. However, this official let the people’s expectations down.
Artiga refused to reopen the first case. And, as for the murder of Katya
Miranda, no progress was made in this case either. That was how, along his
period, several cases turned into failures: the case of the fraud of
FINSEPRO-INSEPRO, where they ended up liberating after a few years the person
that was mainly involved in the case, Roberto Mathies Hill; the embezzlement in
FEDEFUT (The Federation of Football); the Guth-Zapata case, in which the retired
general Mauricio Ernesto Vargas was involved; the case of phone espionage, are
just a few examples.
This week it was revealed that ARENA supports the reelection of Artiga for the
Attorney General’s Office. These news have to do with the declarations made by
President Saca, who indicated that he needed a Legislative Assembly that “allows
him to govern” without making much of a discussion out of the decisions made by
the Executive authority. It can easily be seen that ARENA has the intention to
have a total amount of power through the control of different institutions. With
the Executive authority, the Legislative power, and an Attorney General’s Office
in the hands of the official party, in addition to a strong presence in the
media and in the economic field as well, the country is at the verge of
totalitarianism.
The conclave of disagreements: The Fourth Summit of the Americas
Last week, the Fourth Summit of the Americas took place in
Mar de Plata, Argentina. The slogan of the summit was “To create employment
opportunities, to face poverty, and to strengthen the democratic governance”.
The presidents of 34 countries of the hemisphere attended in order to look for
solutions to the unemployment problems of the region. Some of the presidents did
attend with the purpose of reactivating the creation process of the Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas (ALCA, in Spanish). This subject was not in the
official agenda of the summit, but it was approached by the President of Mexico,
Vicente Fox, the President of the United States, the one of Canada, and 24 other
countries that joined the debate. The countries of the MERCOSUR were against the
motion, as well as Venezuela. By the end of the Summit, they issued the
declaration of Mar de Plata, which enclosed the different opinions about the
ALCA.
After the Fourth Summit of the Americas, the presidents had all made statements
that highlighted the different opinions about the ALCA. For instance, the
Mexican President, Vicente Fox, criticized the position of the Argentinean
President, Nestor Kirchner, for not supporting the reactivation of the ALCA.
Kirchner reacted to that comment, and said “Let Fox take care of Mexico; the
Argentineans voted for me, and my duty is to look after the Argentinean people”.
It is important to remember that it was Fox who opened the “box of Pandora”
during this summit, when he brought up a subject that was not in the official
agenda. The initiative of Fox was criticized by the President of Brazil, Lula da
Silva. He said that he had attended to the summit to look for solutions to
resolve the problem of unemployment, and not to deal with the ALCA issue.
Among the positions about the ALCA, the one of the Venezuelan President, Hugo
Chavez, stands out. He considers that such project should be totally forgotten.
The President called the ALCA a colonial project that intends to impose itself
in the Latin American countries. Differently from Chavez, the Presidents of the
countries of the MERCOSUR consider that the ALCA could be viable in a context
that would respect the “differences in the development levels and the sizes of
the economies”.
In spite of all the differences, some presidents expect to polish the rough
edges about the economic integration in the sixth ministerial reunion of the
OMC. This meeting will take place in December, in Hong Kong. The countries of
the MERCOSUR are expecting to know what is the position of the United States in
reference to the agricultural subsidies. The negative attitude towards the ALCA,
adopted by several countries is due to the fact that the United States is not
willing to make any concessions when it comes to the subject of agricultural
subsidies, and the protection of several products and industries where some of
the Latin American countries are more competitive.
An examination of the economic aspects
According to the Declaration of Mar de Plata, it seems that the presidents of
the region agreed with one aspect: to consider that only by resolving the
problem of both unemployment and the informal job market they can fight against
poverty in Latin America. According to the document, extreme poverty affects
millions of people in all of the countries of the hemisphere. Approximately 96
million of inhabitants of all of the region’s countries live in extreme poverty.
In this context, the presidents agreed to reduce the extreme poverty levels by
50% for the year 2015. They agreed to achieve these goals in the context of the
Summit of the Millennium, back in the year 2000.
The first part of the declaration refers to the economic problems that have
characterized Latin America in the last years: a low economic growth, poverty,
unemployment, inequality, hunger, and social exclusion. As an antidote to those
problems, the countries agreed to generate a sustainable economic growth based
on the implementation of solid macroeconomic policies –prudent fiscal and
monetary policies, appropriate regimes of exchange rates, an adequate set of
actions in reference to the public debt- able to keep a high index of
development and an environment of open employment opportunities. The presidents
also agreed to establish and equitable distribution of the benefits provided by
the economic growth, stimulating as well the growth of the income level and
improvement of its distribution level; to fight in order to reach a secure
nutritional level, and to create new sources of employment.
Since the main topic of the summit was unemployment and the informal market of
jobs, the document also contains the commitment of the participants aimed to
implement the regulations of the International Organization of Work (OIT, in
Spanish) in their respective countries. In addition, some of the sections in the
document indicate that the countries will promote the creation of “compensation
policies”, which will intend to benefit the unemployed and the informal workers.
The document also focuses on the importance of creating and developing the small
and the medium business companies (PYME, in Spanish) as an instrument to fight
against unemployment. In all of these considerations, the free trade and the
foreign investments both played a role that was not at the top of the list of
priorities.
The fundamental reason for the summit was to reach agreements in order to
“create sources of employment and confront poverty” in all of the countries of
the hemisphere. Based on the slogan of the summit, the countries only decided to
face unemployment and poverty through “traditional policies” of an internal
nature: stable macroeconomic policies, policies aimed to certain sectors in
favor of the industries, especially aimed to the PYMES, and the observation of
international laws about employment and other economic activities. The free
trade was never a fundamental aspect of this summit. The agenda of the summit
changed when President Fox insisted on talking about the reactivation of the
creation process of the ALCA.
The vision of Bush and Fox
Three of the presidents that attended to the summit played a very important role
in the promotion of the ALCA: George Bush, Vicente Fox, and Ricardo Lagos. The
Presidents of the United States, Mexico, and Chile seemed to find in the slogan
of this summit the ideal opportunity to speak about the economic integration of
the region. Why? According to the position adopted by Washington, free trade is
the economic activity that allows the free transaction of goods and services
between the countries, and that, at the same time, encourages both the national
and the international investors to open new companies. In order to do that, it
is necessary to count with a qualified labor. This means that the investment in
more business companies brings along with it new employment opportunities.
The presidents of the United States and Mexico, taking advantage of the summit,
presented the ALCA as the ideal solution to resolve the problems of the
hemisphere. The President of Chile, in spite of supporting the integration
project, had more of a moderate attitude. This was due, perhaps, to the fact
that the other two countries that reject the project play a very important role
with Chile in their relations with the international politics: Brazil and
Argentina.
Considering the proposal of President Fox and the apparently coherent vision of
Washington, it is important to know why the countries of MERCOSUR and Venezuela
do not agree to relaunch the ALCA. Everything seems to indicate that the
position adopted by Washington is coherent with the needs of the less developed
countries: before the presence of problems such as unemployment and poverty,
free trade seems to be the ultimate antidote.
It seems that the countries that reject the ALCA think that many of the
initiatives imposed by both the World’s Bank and the International Monetary Fund
during the Eighties and the Nineties had negative effects on the society. Those
measures that at one point seemed coherent enough and “economically rational” to
confront poverty, in the end turned out to be inefficient. That is why these
countries are willing to make decisions with a higher degree of autonomy,
without forgetting about the sense of pragmatism that the international politics
demand.
Tel: +503-210-6600 ext. 407, Fax: +503-210-6655 |