Modification in electrical service charges was presented, beginning in January, as a fact. In this new scheme of things, costs for electricity to small and medium-sized consumers are considerable while costs to big consumers will be diminished. The congress people who approved the law permitting the privatization of the distribution of electricity are said to have been surprised by the increase. The FMLN--correctly--threw the responsibility for what happened in the face of their fellow congress people. Meanwhile, the General Superintendency of Electricity and Telecommunications (SIGET) alleges not to know--or does not want to know--news of the increase.

Both flagrant lies and a covering-up of information about this matter have come to light. When the law was approved, no increase in the price of service was discusseded--in fact, those presenting the bill insisted--and all were assured--that the costs would even be lowered. All of this was alleged in exchange for noticeable improvement in quality. Now it is alleged that the quality will get better and, as a result, demand for service will also increase; it will therefore, it is now argued, be necessary to increase costs. On the other hand, the importance of suppressing the subsidy once offered to small consumers is discussed; but we are urged to forget about calculating the discount available to big consumers. And this is not even to mention other subsidies and privileges which the government continues to offer to big capital.

SIGET did not present all of the information at its disposal when it alleged not to know why an increase went into effect in January, when it is known to all that these increases were decided upon at the end of last year with the help of technical advisors from Argentina.

To present the modification as a given is another imposition not helpful in restoring confidence in a government which declares it wants citizen participation. President Calderón Sol had to come to the rescue of the Superintendency, explaining that these are eminently technical decisions. The law which produced SIGET, it was declared, would be a technical instrument and its decisions, therefore, would be presented in the same way: as therefore necessary and unquestionable. The country would have no recourse but to admit defeat when faced with this exercise in perfection which, as the president promised, "should not be seen as a tax, but as a benefit offered in a competitive way". Put this way, the ARENA government is sacrificing the people on the altar of the neoliberal market economic model.

There are two things lacking in this state of affairs. The first is protest by the private sector which customarily worries a great deal about inflation. An across-the-board price increase in electricity will immediately and universally affect inflation. If the real concern is about macro-economic indices, they would have made the same kind of fuss when the mayor of San Salvador announced an increase in municipal taxes for the richest of the rich. Perhaps their silence is due to the fact that electricity will cost them less, given that private businesses (in which they perhaps consider investing their accumulated savings) will be more effective that way. These concerns could also be due to a perception that the elimination of the subsidy to the poorest is in accordance with their liberal ideas, which maintain that the value of a service ought to be completely paid, above all by those with the scarcest resources.

Other considerations lacking in this scheme of analysis are the proposals presented in the BASES FOR A NATIONAL PLAN, in which transparency and honesty are spoken of, as well as the obligation of the state to offer public services and to be vigilant so that the basic needs of the population are satisfied, as well as be diligent on the issue of sacrifices the financial sector ought to make, about the limits of the market economy in order to assign resources equitably, and awareness of the need to review the concept of privatization. None of this appears in the public debate on the issue at hand. Moreover, it is surprising that in the administrative group there is a minister who affirms that part of the problem is that the population wants to eat better with fewer resources.

Faced with an avalanche of protests and, above all, faced with the threat of a legislative debate to review the Law for the Privatization of the Distribution of Electricity, President Calderón Sol took a step backwards. After emphasizing the technical nature of the decision and the evils of subsidies, he ordered the subsidies to remain in place throughout 1998--which will keep the electricity bill of the majority of the population from ballooning. Now then, this, we will recall, continues to be a technical decision; the new charges established for 1998, in this formulation of the argument, are also a result of a technical decision. All will, therefore, continue the same. The very existence, not to mention the application, of subsidies is contrary to neo-liberal doctrine, but they are, all other things being equal, necessary. There nevertheless continues to be a deafening silence about rolling back the increases made effective in January.

All of the above does not mean that the government has changed its opinion about privatizing the distribution of electricity. Doctrinaire principles guiding this process continue in place. Theoretical formality is maintained, but, in practice, the state will pay the increase to the distributers so that the population will not have to do it. The government is convinced that when the distributers compete "fiercely" for the market, the process will tend to diminish. What is more probable, however, is that these players will make a deal and vary the price imperceptibly only to comply with the formality of competition, therewith becoming yet another deceitful monopoly.

The government opted, then, for maintaining the subsidy for two reasons. The first is situational. In a pre-electoral year it is not convenient to increase the cost of living for a population whose vote ARENA desperately needs. The second reason is structural in nature: after having sold the electricity distributers under conditions established by the Law of Privatization, they cannot change them now--and even less on such a crucial point as the free determination of prices. ARENA cannot permit the Legislative Assembly to revise and modify the law. This is, nevertheless, precisely what the FMLN is trying to do.

Finally, it is not clear where the money to pay the subsidy will come from. President Calderón Sol assures us that it is only 50 or 60 million colones, which can be squeezed out of CEL. But the Treasury Minister, Enrique Hinds, declares that we are speaking of an amount closer to 310 million--260 million of which are already budgeted. The accounts square, but, with a budget deficit at the current level, how can the government come up with this amount of money from one day to another?

The deceit, the insensitivy to the conditions of life of the majority of the people and the indifference demonstrated by the government to its own proposals call dangerously into question the credibility called for in the BASES FOR A NATIONAL PLAN.

Violence in the family is, unfortunately, one of those problems that, in spite of its dimension, frequently calls forth vague explanations supported by myths and beliefs that the society elaborates about the family. It is possibly that the simplistic responses offered by public opinion about the problem of physical and psychological aggression suffered by women and children on a daily basis, hide a generalized fear of confronting them. Let us not forget the deeply rooted conviction that private problems cannot and should not be aired publicly constitutes an ineluctible resistence which rears its head when a phenomenon such as violence in the family is to be confronted.

Men and women know, intuitively, that making public the violent situations they live with on a daily basis would imply exposing themselves to being questioned about them--questioned in the most intimate aspects of their lives and, with this, touched in the most sensitive fibres of their privacy. It is not very probable that men and women are ready to deal with criticisms or suggestions from third persons about the way they should behave inside their families, because it would be dificult for them to be willing to modify the modes of conduct to which these modes of behavior respond. The social concept of the family is so deeply rooted that the roles assigned to each sex are perceived as naturally predetermined functions which men and women are obliged to act out.

Perhaps the most frequently asked question when the topic of violence in the family is taken up is: Why do women tolerate mistreatment by their husbands and even accept it as an acceptable element in their daily lives? When this question is permitted as a topic for discussion it is usually assumed that it is the woman's own fault that she suffers mistreatment. "It is her fault because she allows it", it is said, or "if they allow it, it's because they like it". These are expressions that clearly exemplify the perception of many with respect to physical and emotional violence in the family. But this reading does nothing more than reflect stereotyped conceptions developed around the roles that men and women ought to assume in the establishment of a home.

To blame the woman is nothing more than the perpetuate the conviction that it is she who must maintain the family equilibrium. In this mode of thinking, the woman is in charge of providing all necessary care for the satisfaction of the physical and emotional needs of the members of her home in such a way that everything is okay in it. But of course, in this conception, the woman's needs are not taken into account, given that it is assumed that the personal realization of the women ought to be found in the harmonious functioning of the family. And, as a result, it is she who ought to do everything in her power to make it possible, including that which is detrimental to her own physical and mental well-being. If the family's stability is disturbed, or never chrystalizes, society finds that the woman is the only one responsible for the "breakdown"; that is to say, it will be she who breaks down.

But to assume that women have all of the responsibility for the mistreatment to which they are subjected implies--in addition to the foregoing--the idea that violence in the family occurs only in "some isolated cases". It implies assuming, naively, that violence in the family is an optional affair which happens only to those who permit aggressions from their husband. This does not mean, however, that women are to be made into victims nor is the object to justify their toleration of mistreatment. It is a question of clarifying that the problem of family violence is not limited to a few particular cases. That there are violent men and women who accept this violence as such a general fact that it would be erroneous not to admit that we are dealing with a social problem. We live in a society that not only tolerates, but even supports and, in many cases, reinforces violent conduct inside the family.

If it is true that to deny the participation of the woman in a relationship of violent interchange would also be to ignore one of the fundamental parts of the problem, it is also to ignore one of the fundamental aspects by depositing in her all of the responsibility for that violence or by adopting a point of view in which the aggressor is guilty and she who receives the aggression is the victim. This formulation of the phenomenon would lead us to sterile reductionism. It is true that, for aggression to exist, there must be an aggressor and victim. Both participate in the configuration of a pathological relation. Therefore, both are equally responsible.

So then, the family context does not exhaust the possibilities for explaining the phenomenon of family violence. The question as to why women accept being mistreated does not allow us to see the fact that the phenomenon is more than an individual psychological problem which is part of the social ambience and should be conceptualized as such. It is not only a question of verifying the subjective reasons why a woman tolerates a violent exchange with her husband, it is also a question of determing the social conditions which permit the reproduction of the patterns of conduct which are expressed in relationships of this kind.

The family is very commonly conceived of as "the basic cell of society". "Cell": a closed universe which functions under specific norms which are established within it. According to this schema, the sum total of many closed nuclear units--or, many families--constitutes a society. Laws which contemplate the family and rule over its operativity in institutions charged with "protecting" it are conceived on the basis of this false premise. This conception, moreover, contributes to seeing the family as a private entity which accepts no intervention of any kind from the public; this implies a very rigid conception of the family. It conceives only of a nuclear family made up of a father who is a provider, a mother who is a housewife and the children who are a product of this union.

This schema ignores the fact that, far from being an isolated entity, the family is a social institution. It is not that society is a result of family activities; it is rather that family relationships are expressions of the way in which society is organized. When it is said that the problems of society are a result of a crisis of the family, one omits to take into consideration that the family is one of many institutions in which social crises are manifested.

The fact that violence in the family crosses all social strata and all educational levels and persists even in couples belonging to groups close to the left--who defend revolutionary ideas or promote social transformation--suggests that patterns of conduct which guide the behavior of men and women in the family are profoundly rooted in our culture. So it is, then, that, far from being an autonomous unit in society, the family and norms which guide conduct inside the family actually circumscribe social and cultural parameters.

Although the Constitution of El Salvador recognizes the obligation of the state to protect and guarantee the well-being of the family, in practice--and in the specific case of violence in the family--traditional conceptions of the family impede the review by public entities of its internal workings, not only because those involved resist receiving help from persons who are not in their family nucleus in order to resolve conflicts, but also because, many times, the persons designated to offer support to the couples (psychologists, public functionaries, journalists, etc.) hold, as their only point of reference, this conservative scheme of things which permeates society in family relationships.

For example, we could take the case of women who turn to the General Ombudsman of the Republic (PGR) to demand child care payments for their children when there is no other way of obtaining the payments from the fathers. In the first place, the fact that the great majority of those demanding payments are women says a lot about the way in which men assume their role as fathers. These fathers definitely do not feel obliged to respond economically for their children, much less share the tasks of education and care with the mother. The difference, when compared with maternity, is that, in this mode of thinking, the woman has found her "realization" in life; paternal responsibility is seen as optional and does not appear on the list of priorities for men's activities. On the other hand, many men resist making their child support payments, visiting, in this way, punishment on the women. They know that whatever prejudice or problem which minor children might suffer will directly affect the mother. For an irresponsible father, children have no value per se except as a product of their conjugal union. Once this union ceases to exist, the bond with the children loses its significance for him and the possibility of maintaining a relationship with the children becomes truly remote.

The fact that child care payments become the subject of a legal demand is an expression of the ease with which men forget their paternal responsibilities, violating, in this way, the right of minor children to be aided by their fathers. Legal demands for child support payments, then, have much to do with violence in the family in the sense that the resistence of men to participate in sustaining their children is, in and of itself, an act of violence against the family. Moreover, according to data from an investigation conducted by Las Dignas on the question of child support apyments, 49% of the women making the demands suffered physical or psychological abuse from their husbands. Nevertheless, there are very few cases in which this was the cause for divorce. This is not only evidence of the high index of violence to which women are exposed when they become part of the home, but also of their willingness to tolerate it in order to maintain the equilibrium of the family

In conclusion, it can be said that, if it is true that state institutions exist to facilitate dialogue among family members or to make the rights and responsibilities which each person must exercise once this union is dissolved prevail, such state entities find that stereotyped ideas about the family are still impregnable. The patronizing or guilt-assigning attitude with which many PGR functionaries present themselves to the mothers who are demanding child support payments, together with the excessive bureaucracy which women must confront in order to carry out their demands, along with the negligence with which the courts, the National Civilian Police and other entities assigned to deal with violence in the family (especially when this has to do with high public officials or personalities important in national life) bring to light the social predominance of ideas about the family which are established on the basis of inequality and dehumanization.

Questioning traditional concepts of the family is fundamental for initiating the struggle against violence in the family. It is necessary for men and women to be conscious of the fact that these modes of conduct are learned modes of conduct. It is only in this context that they can be criticized and understood within a socially determined context so that the process of changing them can begin.

Women who, with much courage, have confronted a system which supports and protects aggressors and who have gone beyond social prejudices which typify them as weak, incapable and ever dependent on a man, in order to denounce the abuses of which they have been victims, are an example of the fact that if many of our ideological convictions are configured inside this society, these do not absolutely determine conduct. On the contrary, the social nature of these ideas which guide our conduct is precisely what makes it possible for us to change them and so adopt more just and equitable forms of living together.

The danger that privatization of basic services might be translated into limitless increases in payments for services has been observed and has actually materialized in almost all cases of privatization. This is due to the fact that, in general, costs for basic services provided by state companies are either subsidized or are not regulated in accordance with criteria for establishing profit, as is the case in almost any private enterprise.

Even including cases described as "great successes" in privatization, such as Chile or England, skyrocketing cost increases in payments for services or even noticeable deterioration in social security have been noted, as concomitants of privatization. Such, for example, is the case of privatization of pensions in Chile; these changed into a system of capitalization of individual savings which do not cover social contingencies. On the other hand, in the case of charges for services in England, privatization of the provision of water has resulted in a 300% increase in costs for services, which has, in turn, increased the search for a regulatory context which equalizes the distribution of benefits between businessmen and consumers.

In El Salvador, price increases for electrical energy services will enter into effect during 1998 coincident with the recent sale of three distributors providing electrical energy to private international enterprises. Obviously this would have clear implications for inflation and would diminish real income in the home, but it will also pose an additional problem owing to the aggressive nature of the adjustment in charges for services. As a result of the foregoing, it is interesting to examine the last series of events concerning charges for services--especially the characteristics of price adjustment and the subsequent decision to continue cost subsidies announced by President Armando Calderón Sol.

According to the General Superintendency of Energy and Telecommunications (SIGET), big consumers pay a price for electricity with which the low prices paid by small consumers are subsidized. These adjustments in charges for services aim to increase the quotas paid by the small consumers (which are currently subsidized) and diminish the quotas paid by the big consumers. According to Article 122 of the General Law of Electricity, there is a provision for an increase in prices every three months for residential users with a monthly consumption rate less than 500 kilowatt hours. A gradual lowering of the subsidies is proposed, until they are finally eliminated in November of 1999. Up to now, the state has assigned a subsidy of 262 million colones to small consumers of electricity. At the end of 1998, it is estimated that the price per kilowatt hour will jump from 0.39 colones to 0.86 colones, which amounts to an increase of 120% in the first year alone.

On the other hand, SIGET agrees that the sectors which consume more electricity will enjoy a reduction in the price per kilowatt hour, although without specifying the amount of the reduction. It is evident that this will constitute a fundamental benefit for big and medium-sized businesses and, especially, industry.

It is worth noting that this is not the only important increase in prices for services documented in recent years. Between 1994 and continuing up to the present time, a policy of increasing charges for services has been in place which exhibits the following characteristics: in 1994 costs were increased 30%; 1995 saw an increase of 25% and 1996, of 17%. The final accumulated increases projected are close to 86.9%.

From the beginning there has been important opposition to the new increases proposed for 1998; the opposition is especially strong from non-governmental organizations, small and medium-sized enterprises and even from political parties represented in the Legislative Assembly. The latter have noted the inconvenient nature of these measures, given that they affect the poorest sectors and could have an effect on the possibilities for the development of the country. Representatives of the Salvadoran Association of Industrialists (ASI)--theoretically one of the groups receiving the greatest benefits--declared that "although the cost of energy consumption for industrialists diminishes, we believe that this will not have a direct effect on lowering prices for products".

It is in this context that the Legislative Assembly approved, during its February 19 plenary session, the emission of a recommendation for SIGET to abrogate the executive accords which provide for an increase in charges for electrical energy. At the same time, this posture provoked reactions among the apologists for privatization and from private investors, who usually concentrate their arguments on the danger in changing the supposed "rules of the game" for privatization which would cause a lack of enthusiasm among private investors. Following this line of thinking, representatives of businesses which acquire the principal distributors of electrical energy, when they express their opposition to slowing down price increases, declared that freezing prices would also imply that SIGET might change the rules for competition.

In the midst of this polemic, the position of President Calderón Sol has been to suspend increases in prices and continue his policy of subsidies to consumers of electrical energy. The implementation of these policies will require the expenditure of 60 million colones. This measure could, for the moment, minimize contradictions between consumers and businessmen, but it does not amount to a definitive solution to the price problems which privatization generates.

Although, according to the Central Reserve Bank, an inflationary level of between 2.5% and 4.5% for 1998 already contemplates changes in the prices for electrical energy, what is certain is that these represent a deterioration of the family economy. Additionally, it is not wildly irrational to expect that the inflationary processes will accelerate even more than predicted as a result of price speculation--a business practice with deep roots in Latin America.

It is especially noteworthy that the government party should have taken a step back on the issue of prices at a moment when, apparently, it had successfully succeeded in advancing on the terrain of privatizing electrical energy distributors. One of the clearest reasons for this posture is the high political cost that any brusque and permanent price increase would have as the country approaches the electoral period preceding the 1999 presidential elections, a period which will continue through the year 2000 with the new elections for deputies and mayors.

What is especially evident since the beginning of the 1990's, is that privatization not only means a greater level of investment and fewer pressures on public finances, it also represents an increase in prices which, in the case, at least, of electricity, would be focussed principally on domestic consumers: that is to say, the majority of consumers of electrical energy.

Although it is the case that for partisans of neo-liberalism, subsidies, as a practice, imply more prejudices than benefits, it cannot be denied that subsidies can be instrumentalized to provide benefits for the most vulnerable sectors of society. Privatization, in spite of the fact that it has encountered very little theoretical and political resistance, demonstrates, as it advances, that in practice it benefits only foreign investors at the cost of increases in prices as well as increases in the general level of prices, which has a negative effect on the poorest sectors of the population.

Any proposal for privatization ought to include a consideration of an equitable distribution of benefits between consumers and big business as a way of reducing social costs, and so avoiding damage to the family economy which would result from the attempts to maximize profits for big business.

The recent debate on the polemical Environment Bill has revived the conflict between private sector interests and measures which would regulate the exploitation of the natural resources of our country. El Salvador is the only Central American nation which does not have a legal context for assuring the protection and conservation of the environment as a whole. This situation ought to presuppose the collaboration of all social sectors in the urgent drawing up and implementation of that legal context. But this is not the case, as some groupings such as ANEP, FUSADES and CASALCO--allies all of the ARENA Party--the Federation of Associations of Lawyers and even the President of the Republic have closed ranks against the possibility that such a law might be approved by a wide margin of legislative factions.

All of the entities declaring themselves in opposition to the bill base their disagreement on technical and judicial reasons--points in the text of the bill which lack clarity in the drawing up of the text--or on their disagreement on some of the sanctions which the law would impose. In particular, the private sector has wanted to make clear that its observations on the document have nothing to do with direct opposition to regulation of the protection of the environment. On the contrary, they note that it is necessary to contemplate rationalizing the exploitation of the environment, but without taking into account the implications it would have for future needs which require "sustainable development". In fact, part of the basic disagreements have much to do with just this type of development. But, if it is true that the national economy should focus on the establishment of a self-sustaining economic model, it is also true that the form of this objective lays aside one crucial aspect: the requirement that this model not be exclusive and that it benefit all sectors of society equally.

Those who now oppose the passing into law of this Environment Law are the same as those who have benefited enormously from "sustainable development", for which they present themselves as defenders of that same development, which has meant that the country has lost important water, agricultural and forestry resources. It may be that the objections represented ought to take into account--before it is implemented--any legal contexts of this kind. But one should also not ignore the deplorable condition in which the natural resources of our country find themselves, in good part because the exploitation of these resources has not been regulated by entities or regulations which establish the way in which this exploitation should be carried out. Nor do they take into account the consequences that this exploitation has had--and the effects that it could produce in the future. Any negative response of any kind on such a sensitive topic as this could accentuate the generalized conception that the deterioration of the environment need not be one of the primary points on the agenda of public debate.

As opposed to what some news reports aim to promulgate, the root of the conflict is not only the contradiction between the needs for development and the punitive character of the law currently under debate. He who attacks the environment must assume the responsibility and pay the consequences. This point is not open for discussion, above all if we take into consideration, paradoxically, the fact that ecological crime is one of the gravest and (at the same time) most repeatedly not punished in our society. If the opposite side of the coin were to be accepted, it would be a given fact that the law would oppose this "development" necessary for our country's progress. Agreeing with this idea, some of its principal opponents have warned that the document currently under discussion is of a nature which could imply confiscation and that should it be implemented, the national economy would be affected, foreign investment diminished and the quality of life would seriously deteriorate. Taking this concern seriously, President Calderón Sol hurried to recommend the need for the implementation of periods of time (dispensations) allowing industries to achieve compliance by updating its technology and so minimize the negative consequences which such legislation would imply for national production.

The fact is that the private sector of the country has demonstrated its fear that the law would severely punish actions which harm natural resources. In recent days, we have seen all kinds of criticisms, reactions, justifications, petitions, rejections, options, etc.: all of which aim to hold back the passing of this bill into law. This tempestuous series of reactions by big business guilds has brought to light the latent concern of powerful groups represented by the official party since this party lost seats in the Legislative Assembly after last year's elections. Evidently, any protest they might make will find an immediate echo in the government party and, with that, a "justifiable" delay could appear to be necessary in the discussions on the bill. This might be the only viable resolution for those who feel themselves to be affected by the implementation of the legislation, given that the opposition has shown itself firm on the need to implement such a law as soon as possible.

Even the President of the Supreme Court, Eduardo Tenorio, expressed his disagreement with the observations which have been brought to bear in consideration of the document, at the last moment, given that the problem is not to be located in these objections. The disagreements are, rather, in his opinion, centered on the point in time in which these have been placed at the consideration of the legislative body. The necessary consultations have been made during the last three years when the first bill was brought under consideration by the commission whose competence it was. But it is only now that the harshest criticisms have been made of the document. In any case--and in view of the unconditional support that the big business guilds have extracted from the executive power, the implementation of the Environmental Law will still confront the enormous obstacle of a possible presidential veto. With this strong possibility developing, it would not be hasty to assume that the project will once again sink under the weight of another period of consultations and discussions which could have been considered and included much earlier.

Finally, neither does the petition presented by the private sector on the need to draw up environmental law on the basis of marketplace criteria appear to be sufficient argument to adduce the impossibility of its application. Market dynamics, to which private enterprise appeals as to a court of appeals for arbitration, have not been capable of impacting on the quality of life of most Salvadorans. On the contrary, these dynamics have contributed to a state of affairs in which resources are concentrated more and more in fewer and fewer hands and the productivity of our economy is determined greatly by a single sector: the service sector. Moreover, under the banner of a "free enterprise" economy, it has been suggested that one of the most polemical points which the bill proposes should be laid aside: in this, they refer to the need of the population to be consulted at the point in time in which actions placing the environment at risk are to be carried out.

The way things are going, it may be that the only observations that merit attention by the deputies could be those which comprise the technical and judicial aspects. These are precisely the points which have received the least attention. Hopefully these will not be the ones to be presented in the future as another possible obstacle for holding back on the implementation of such necessary legislation. It would be enough to hope for that, in what follows, sufficient and true attention might be paid to the recommendation by the Salvadoran Chamber for Construction (CASALCO) in the sense that, in order for the law to become a real instrument for development that the true and final concern of any environmental policy which implies the regulation of the development of the country should be the human person. Following this criterion, the final aim of development must be the improvement of the quality of life for all those who live in our country and not the private interests of those who, supported by institutionalized impunity, aim to reap the benefits of the exploitation of our natural resources.

RATE INCREASE. On February 19, the Legislative Assembly passed a recommendation petitioning the General Superintendency of Electricity and Telecommunications (SIGET) to abrogate the executive accords related to the increase in the rates for electrical energy so that the Assembly might have sufficient time to review and make the necessary reforms to the General Law of Electricity and the Law for the Creation of SIGET. At the same time, the majority of the representatives of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly requested the presence of CEL President Guillermo Sol Bang, of Eric Casamiquela, the head of SIGET, and of Eduardo Zablah Touche, Minister of the Economy, so that they might present explanations of the handling of the rates, costs of energy production and economic policies explaining the authorization for the increases. Meanwhile, the recommendation of the Assembly has been cause for some concern by the President of the Republic and some governmental institutions whose functionaries argue that this gives a negative signal to foreign investors and places obstacles in the way of efforts towards privatization. "It is puzzling to me," said Calderón Sol, "that political sectors are now rending their garments when it is they who have approved the law. They have studied it and they have been following it precisely because it is said that it must be removed from a political context" (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, February 2, p. 4; EL DIARIO DE HOY, February 20, p. 10 and EL MUNDO, February 2, p. 2).

MOBILIZATION. A group made up of both guerrilla and government army ex-combatants marched, on February 19, to the Legislative Assembly to demand compliance with the Peace Accords. According to the leader of the Armed Forces Association for Demobilized Persons (ADEFAES), Marcelino Castillo, the objective of the march was to pressure the Assembly to override the presidential veto of the Law to Pardon Agricultural and Bank Debts, and to prohibit the government from "filling its mouth [with words] saying that it is complying with what it promised". The leader of another organization, the Association of Agricultural Producers, Marcial Melendez, questioned the existence of a real plan for reinsertion into the productive life of the country. "As combatants, we were only taught to handle a gun as combatants; [now] that we are demobilized, we must remain with our arms folded. The reinsertion programs have failed," he said (DIARIO LATINO, February 19, p.3).

SUPPORT. On February 16, members of the ARENA youth group showed their support for Francisco Flores, who is positioning himself to be their party's presidential candidate in the 1999 elections. According to a spokesperson for the National ARENA Youth, Guillermo Magana, "we support our brother Francisco Flores as a pre-candidate for the presidency of the republic...we are satisfied that a young man is opting to assume the possibility to lead the country where change will be accomplished by young people" (EL MUNDO, February 17, p. 4).

RETURN. On February 19, Sigifredo Ochoa Perez, the National Conciliation Party (PCN) deputy expelled from that party, declared that he had consulted with the deputies and leaders of the ARENA party so that they would permit him to return to that political institution. Ochoa Perez clarified that he was in no hurry to return to that party. It is the leadership of ARENA which will decide on his reinsertion. "I have always been a conservative right-winger; my position has been clear and if there is any interest in my returning to the ARENA party, I will glady return," he stated (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, February 20, p. 5).

CLOSING. On February 16, Cecilia Gallardo de Cano, the Minister of Education, announced that five universities which appealed the decision to close down their installations have again received confirmation of the decision. "For five universities we have reinitiated the process of closing them down," she indicated; nevertheless, other institutions are still at the stage of hearings to permit the Ministry to understand their lack of agreement with the decision. For his part, the General Director of Higher Education, Adalberto Campos, declared that the ministry will fully comply with the Higher Education Law with respect to the closing of regional centers for non-compliance with minimal requirements and he stated that he was not in agreement with granting extensions (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, February 17, p. 12).