The increase in the price of electrical energy has prompted a resurgence of the debate around privatization. Opinions concerning electrical energy can be divided into two positions: those who see in privatization the ideal and exclusive mechanism for modernizing some of the economies which are frankly regressive, with the subsequent rejection of any type of state intervention; and those who see in privatization one of the great ills of humanity, given that--as is the case with the increase in costs of electrical energy--the great majority of society, who can only obtain help through a state benefactor. These extreme positions pose the following dilemma: either the road to economic development lies through privatization, in the absolute absence of the state; or the road lies through heavy state interventionism, which establishes--as it assumes an active role--the rules of the socio-economic game.

The most varied positions emerge when tempers heat up. Of course, those who hold high the banner of privatization and the suppression of the state, supported by the neoliberal offensive, do not hesitate to declare their theses to anyone who will hear them. But even more, they do not hesitate to present themselves as the heralds of a new age for the country: an age dominated by efficiency and low production costs.

On the other hand, the most radical critics of privatization maintain--in closed circles--their express rejection of privatization, a position they justify by exhibiting cases which illustrating the evils associated with it. Although they do not say so openly, their goal is to recreate a welfare state, a state which intervenes and plans the economy and subsidizes social demands. The bottom line is that one can only totally reject privatization when, either implicitly or explicitly one accepts that state ownership is the most viable alternative for social and economic development. For those who discredit privatization not to bet on this alternative would imply that they have nothing to offer in its place but the harshness of their criticisms.

The two positions we have presented here are part of the debate on privatization. They have one thing in common: they do not appear to take historic reality into account, in either its past or present manifestations. Those who blindly throw their lot with privatization forget that it is (or ought to be) an instrument for economic modernization, which should, at the same time, be coherent with the national development project with which the state, necessarily, is charged. Privatization only makes sense if one inserts it into this logic; to the contrary, one runs the risk of making it an end unto itself. So now, to enlist plans for privatization into a national development project presupposes that one must take into consideration the specific social and economic conditions of El Salvador, which are distinctly different from many of the same aspects in Chile, Brazil or Argentina. On this point governmental advisors err on the side of an exaggerated oversimplification when they aim to superimpose on El Salvador experiences from other countries with higher levels of social, political and economic development.

Those who opt for state intervention forget that the Salvadoran state continues--for more than long enough now--to be burdened with ills which ought to have been corrected by now. Excessive bureaucracy, parasitism at the labor level, corruption--and not only in the public sector, though it is present here at intolerable levels--and expenditures which do not produce results are, among others, some of the evils which have justified the harshest criticisms of the state. For those who stand for frontal rejection of privatization to propose state subsidies does not exactly hit the mark: on an economic level, it would be difficult to maintain subsidies (always taking into account the ever-growing nature of social demands) without serious impact on the productive apparatus. At a social level, the lethargy and conformist attitudes of the population who receive the benefits undermine their creativity and work potential. At a political level, populist and demagogic postures give way to corporate linkages between governments and their social "clients", a phenomenon which lends itself to political chicanery and blackmail on both sides: governments demand loyalty from their clients in exchange for favors received; clients, in turn demand favors in exchange for loyalty, and so is created a nefarious vicious circle damaging to democracy.

Given this situation, one cannot allege ignorance of the defects of the Salvadoran state in its present condition. Even less could one propose that the state ought to continue in activities which, until now it has carried out or with which it strengthens itself while maintaining the same structural configuration. But to recognize the faults and defects of the state is not tantamount to calling for its abolition, which would, from all points of view, as well as for sociological and historic reasons, be impossible.

What is called for is a radical reform of the state, a reform which would not only make its institutions more efficient, but would allow it to respond on all counts to those social demands which it is within its power to resolve, because no one could respond better than the state. But it is precisely here that the state is revealed not to be the best prepared to administer resources or channel services; and it is here on this point that alternative mechanisms must be sought. And one of these may be privatization.

Rather than posing these two alternatives as mutually exclusive, the most reasonable position would be to seek a way of articulating privatization and state intervention coherently in a project for national development. This would presuppose a recognition of the limitations of both alternatives, but it would also recognize that properly channeled, they could contribute decisively towards economic modernization with social equality. In the discussion which now concerns us, as in so many others, it is best to seek intermediate terms.

One too often hears, these days, that so and so is speaking in the name of "the country we all want". Press columnists, politicians and state functionaries do not miss the chance to appeal to that ideal in support of their analyses and projections, or to justify their actions in a particular state of affairs. Moreover, it would appear that, today, one does nothing that is not designed to build that country we all desire. But why, we might ask, this overly generalized tendency towards promoting a collective ideal? Probably because it produces a hopeful state of mind to think that efforts made now, taken as a whole, are all aimed in the same direction.

It is, perhaps, that the idea of a beloved country embodies for all precisely the presumption that a definitive agreement now exists with regard to the direction this country ought to take. Peace has been won and the Bases for a National Plan have been set down--what else is there? Nothing other than to begin the task of carrying the country along the path laid out. One forgets, in this way of posing the problem, that no such agreement exists, that it is to think in utopian terms to allege that the various sectors of Salvadoran society share a vision concerning the destiny of the nation. One could, at most, affirm that the greater part of Salvadorans wish for a better country and wish, as well, to better their own situations and quality of life. One can accept this, but, what does it mean to say 'better'? And what is to be done to achieve it? This is what one must be asked when one speaks of "the country we all want".

In order to illustrate the disagreements which could arise when one tries to answer these questions, the polemic concerning the administrative reordering of the national territory might serve as an example. According to the document Bases for a National Plan, such a reordering is "indispensable" in order to achieve a "profound public decentralization", necessary, in turn, to achieve the "modernization of the country". Politicians have spoken widely of their desire that the country should be modernized but they have, nevertheless, protested beforehand against the initiative of those who took it upon themselves to draw up the proposal which summarizes national problems. It has not yet been clarified as to whether the disagreement of the mayors on this point in the document has to do with what is best for the country or not.

At any rate, the current discussion with regard to the reordering of the administrative units of the national territory presents all the symptoms which might convert it into one of the many cases where the interests of the country are abrasive to the private interest of the politicians. This very frequently happens and, for all the rest, is fully contradictory to the idea which is summarized in the expression "the country we all want", given that to be sure that we all want the same country, we would have, all of us, to be disposed to sacrifice certain private privileges for the common good.

Another very illustrative example might be presented here. Last Thursday, March 5, an editorial published in El Diario de Hoy cited a U.S. author who affirmed that "the best thing the government could do for the economy is leave it alone....it is not what the government does that produces prosperity, but rather what it does not do: if it does not raise taxes and if it does not regulate, the economy grows". In the lines that follow, the editorial prides itself on demonstrating the economic benefits of the policy of state non-intervention, introduced by the Reagan administration. And, finally, it opposes development of what it calls "sloppy social sentimentality"--which is to say, the article assures us that it is impossible to think of conciliation between economic development and social assistance by the state.

This could not be more out of sync with the banners raised today by everyone having anything to do with politics. Representatives of the different parties--including ARENA--proclaim that they are committed to the rooting out of poverty, and that in order to achieve this it is necessary to take palliative measures. Many are of the opinion--because it would be naive to think that the vision presented by the writer of the editorial of El Diario de Hoy is one of a kind--that concern for the wellbeing of the majority of the population is a completely unproductive "sloppy sentimentalism" which undermines development.

These two examples should be sufficient--because all the other examples which could be presented are of the same nature--to illustrate that the affirmation that we all want the same El Salvador is either naive or simplistic--or even deliberately deceitful. We now accept the idea that we all desire the same country could be supported by the supposition that we all want something better--although we have already shown that "better" could lead to practical and conceptual labyrinths requiring difficult solutions. So now, it is important to show that the idea under discussion presupposes, as well, a unitary vision of the concept of nation, that it presupposes a firm conviction that "the country is a whole" and that "national destiny is one".

It would perhaps be superfluous to say that David Escobar Galindo is the principle exponent of this unitary conception of nation. With some frequency this author has lamented the reticence of certain groups in accepting this globalizing perspective. On this point, Mr. Escobar Galindo has noted that it is not a question of "diluting or undermining diversity", nor is it a question of the absolute predominance of one of the parties sought. For him, it is rather a question of integration of the parts into a "plural whole". And this is true; we share the idea that national destiny is one because, definitively speaking, what happens in the country in the future will affect all of us. For this same reason, it would be ideal for the most representative sectors of society to achieve minimal integration which would require that whatever planning and implementation undertaken should aim at satisfying the majority.

Frankly, the problem is that the country is not a unified whole and is still far from being one. It is clear that there is unity in some spheres delineated by sociologists and anthropologists--although even among these one can detect serious fissures. For good or ill, there are customs and symbols which unite us and there is a way of being which, as Salvadorans, we all share. Nevertheless, certain fundamental aspects are also present, upon which the country has not been able to agree, and which are composed exactly of those points which have impeded our achieving that unity which Mr. Escobar Galindo defends as something already accomplished. One of these aspects has to do, precisely, with what it is that must be done with the country.

It would clearly be ideal if a consensus on this point already existed, a consensus that we all want the same thing and that we would be disposed to work towards the same objective. Being realistic, however, this is not going to happen. How can one convince those who defend free enterprise and reject "sloppy sentimentalism" that to work towards rooting out poverty is the most convenient road for the country, when they believe precisely the opposite? How can the politicians be convinced that the good of the country should be more important than their own interests and that they should act accordingly? How can one say, definitively that we all want the same thing, if we do not all share the idea that what is best for the country is to integrate it and so become a unified whole?

The importance of the effort currently being made in order to gather opinions and integrate projects is undeniable. There is no doubt that this is something that must be done and that no one has done before. It is likewise undeniable that only moderate positions which are concerned to listen to and resolve the problems of the majority can contribute towards converting El Salvador into a more habitable country where social differences do not undermine human dignity. But one must not allow oneself to be carried so easily away to utopia: one cannot assume that bases have been laid which do not exist. "The country we all want" implies the question about who we are and if it is, in fact, true that we all want the same thing. Could this be possible at the present moment in the democratic transition?

The day when one remembers, demands and celebrates the rights and importance of women's participation in society just passed. International Women's Day was celebrated on March 8, and the event was hopeful for many activists who advocate and hope for the betterment of the unstable situation of women. They marched in a display of allusive banners, batons, ribbons and sound equipment, holding high the representative color purple. Caravans marched on March 6, 8 and 9 in memory of the 146 women who, in 1911 were assassinated in New York for demanding better working conditions. Moreover, participants in the celebration spoke in favor of the results of the National Policy on Women.

Simultaneously, and not by coincidence, the Festival of Women in the Arts was celebrated in Cuscatlán Park. It was a particularly distinctive way of validating the presence of the feminine population by means of artistic spectacles. And so, with a great deal of difficulty and very little help, Salvadoran women presented themselves and their position in society as individual people and collectively as well, who not without arduous effort and a variety of obstacles, are climbing up the rungs of the ladder to occupy new arenas and, above all, to call to public attention the ancestral situation of crisis which women in all areas of public and private life are passing.

The development and promotion of programs and events which we are concerned with have their root in the interest, work and loyalty of many women in the feminist movement and, moreover, in social and financial support of the NGO's and the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women (ISDEMU), created in March, 1996 in response to the more and more pressing need to address the rights of women. ISDEMU is an important initiative because it implies a significant step towards the evolution of the vision of gender at state level. One should not lose sight of the fact that they are the entities with certain power and influence which have the capacity to allow a proposal or, in this case, a project to aid women in achieving a better way of life to succeed or fail.

In fact, without looking too far back in time, ten years ago the Salvadoran administration did not place--nor thought to place --on its agenda the goal of promoting the development of women. During these decades, this was the case principally because, during its most basic expression, even including the most important and decisive projects, the government was led and controlled by and for men. That is to say that to oversee the creation of and compliance with "norms of organization and functioning on the basis of principles of democratic representation" was the task almost exclusively of men. It fell to men to decide if social conflicts were resolved or remained hidden. Even now, although women's access to decision-making arenas has become more flexible, limitations which the feminist movement must confront in this country, in many aspects, are much the same as ever. The first obstacle to be resolved is to place the admission of projects and actions of the three most determinant powers of the nation on the agenda.

We should add to these earlier points that the state and its form of government are intimately linked to the media. Although these are a power unto themselves, government interests directly influence the agenda and its regulations concerning the programming and its content. Just as with the government, the media constitute a determining factor with regard to what will or will not be presented for public debate. Moreover, the relation between the government and the media functions in the following way: originally these institutions of collective publicity were conceived of as guardians, protectors of the public against errors and abuses of government. Thanks to this concept--real or fictitious--the media is considered to be the fourth estate or power. It functions as the publisher of social norms which intercede between the government and its citizens. This, for good or ill, facilitates the relationship in which the power of the media goes hand in hand with the power of the state.

In this sense, both forces can encourage what could be the promotion and basic support necessary to move forward the struggle which diverse sectors are carrying out to give women the place they deserve in the family and in society. In the first place, because it is the government and its fundamental dependencies which have the greater capacity to impose attributions and designate the spheres in which one may act established by the Constitution of the Republic. Secondly, because the media, as the promulgators of values and as an instrument for forming behavior, has the full capacity to create a line of thinking favorable to the interests and aspirations of the female sector of the Salvadoran population. Taking into account the radius of its projection, especially in the case of television and print media, it would be easy to move key players and pieces, hold the various instances responsable, publish problems and involve other institutions in favor of a national women's movement.

Communications media are part of the daily life of the majority of Salvadorans. The media is read, listened to and seen on a daily basis. It is the media which informs and entertains the population. To influence the public with regard to the women's question would be a question of presenting a serious and efficient strategy denouncing rapes and abuse, opening up areas of social service for women, and much more. Evidently, before beginning a task such as we have just described, the media should review its programs and publicity in such a way as to allow for the elimination of all that denigrates women or that harnesses them in the frames of traditional hierarchies in which their role is that of the long-suffering wife, always ready to serve and please the man.

In view of the fact that the much desired equality of the sexes is the responsibility of the elite leaders, it is illuminating, for example, to examine the discourse of President Armando Calderón Sol on March 8 in the activity of ISDEMU. The president assured his audience that ISDEMU, as a state organism, was encouraging activities in support of Salvadoran women in all areas. He also mentioned some of the most significant advances of the said institution. In general, Calderón Sol declared that he was satisfied with the activities around the situation of women and promised to continue working in support of women. The optimism of the government is noteworthy in that it pronounces itself in favor of "bettering the condition of women" as an "irreversible process". All of this in obvious connection with the media which also demonstrated their involvement in the topic in that they presented and published a wide range and variety of reports and articles to raise consciousness concerning the importance of International Women's Day.

General Augusto Pinochet has just left the command of the Chilean Armed Forces. At the moment of his leaving military power, Pinochet could not contain his tears and, as he sobbed, had to resign himself to the bitter draught of leaving the post from which he did so much harm to the Chilean people. He received, in exchange, as a prize, the post of Senator-for-Life. What a great absurdity to offer such a tribute to a man who deserves to be in prison paying for his crimes against humanity. He is a murderer receiving honors which should be reserved only for those who have dedicated their lives to the rule of justice and solidarity. This is the height of madness for Chilean democracy.

But there may be some who, in spite of all--in spite of the murders, the prisons, the terrorism that the Chileans have had to live with--, that Pinochet moved the country's economic development forward, and that for this he deserves the recognition given him.

If we accept this premise, then we must also accept the premise that economic growth is a higher good compared with which all others--including human lives--are secondary. It would also be to accept that economic growth in Chile could only be achieved if it were to be accompanied by brutal repression such as that led by our now senator for life. Neither is acceptable. Human lives are not something irrelevant, given that they are what provide definitive meaning to the economy. Nor is brutal repression necessary for advancing economic development. These thoughts are only worthy of troglodytes such as Pinochet, Stalin or Hitler.

Pinochet's tears are a shame and a taunt for Chilean democracy. He does not weep--which would be just--for the thousands of dead for whom he is responsible; he does not weep because he is repentant. He weeps only because he leaves the institution which he utilized to advance his plans to exterminate the political opposition, the trade unions and the universities. He weeps because is leaving the power which permitted him to imprison and torture the Chileans in the National Stadium; he weeps because he knows that he will no longer lead the destiny of his country by force. But there are no sobs of repentance; nor are there tears because he is repudiated or because young people hate him. The tears are because he will no longer be able to burn those who repudiate and reject him.

Many of our military people--for whom Pinochet is a hero--must be happy with this series of events in Chile. They must say to themselves that naming him Senator-for-Life is a just prize for the man who eliminated communists from his society, those he called the "red leprosy" who threatened the free and Christian world. The only thing that many Salvadoran military men perhaps lament is that they were not able to eliminate the cancer of communism from this country, as much as they were inspired by the teachings of their hero to exterminate anyone who confessed to being a communist, a presumed communist, or friend of a communist who crossed his path. Because of the murders he has on his conscience, several of our military people are not worthy of the teachings of their master and model.

One might wonder when, as a prize for the tortures, terror and death they practiced, some do not ask to be given the title of "Deputies-for-Life". Many military people would be happy with this recognition. The great majority of them do not harbor the faintest thought of repenting or responding before tribunals for the crimes they committed.

While they await this recognition, many military people have begun to seek out on their own the honors and recognition which will make all forget their dark past. Some have gotten some university title or other and, when they can, a place in the bureacracy of some university. To others has been given the analysis of everything imaginable, for which space in our democratic communications media has not been lacking. There are those who have at their disposal even a Radio Corporation. And, finally, the most pragmatic among them have become respectable businessmen--with the capital accumulated by receiving insurance policies for dead soldiers, for example--,among whom one could not possibly suspect that they coldly ordered the most savage deaths on a daily basis.

In their hearts, our military people also sob as they remember the times when they decided as they pleased who deserved to live and who to die. But in their hearts they also laugh: they have not paid before the tribunals of justice for their crimes, nor have they publically repented for the evil they caused the country.

DISBURSEMENT. On March 11, the 262 municipalities throughout the country received the first disbursement of the 6% of the national budget assigned to them at the beginning of this year (equivalent to 110 million colones). The money was disbursed by President Calderón Sol in spite of the fact that the regulations for the Salvadoran Institute for Municipal Development (ISDEM), which will regulate the use of the money have not been presented in final form. The president reminded the mayors that the money ought to be invested for the benefit of their municipalities as the regulations--which will be presented next week--establish, which require that 80% of the funds be used for municipal improvement projects and the remaining 20% for administrative costs. The president of ISDEM, Mr. Martin Zaldívar, issued the first disbursement on March 13 to the 262 mayors and insisted that they should "maximize their resources in benefit of their own communities". On the other hand, some mayors expressed their disagreement with the reduction in the budget which implied the application of Decree 76 of the Law for the Economic and Social Development Fund (FODES). "We should prioritize the most important projects now because we have a smaller budget," said Jose Estrada, Mayor of Apopa. Meanwhile Manuel Aguilar, Mayor of Soyapango, declared that "this was all a political game by the Central Government in order to impact the municipalities led by the FMLN" (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 11, p. 37 and March 12, p. 6; EL DIARIO DE HOY, March 12, p. 46 and March 14, p. 14 and 38; DIARIO LATINO, March 14, p. 2).

DEMONSTRATION. A group of women from the National Council for Women (CONAMU), participated in a demonstration to protest the fact that women continue to be the "object of marginalization in the country", on March 9. During the action, the demonstrators denounced that the document, Bases for a National Plan does not mention women's rights. At the same time they denied the government's allegations which declared that female marginalization had been reduced by 54% and demanded of the National Secretary for the Family and the National Institute for the Development of Women greater participation in the drawing up of policies which are aimed at including this sector of the population (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 10, p. 18; EL DIARIO DE HOY, March 10, p. 16).

HEARING. The Trade Union of the Medical Workers of the Salvadoran Institute for Social Security (SIMETRISSS) petitioned President Calderón Sol, in an open letter published March 12, to grant them an urgent hearing for dialogue concerning the demands that this union presented 11 months ago to the authorities of the ISSS. According to the trade unionists, representatives of that institution have refused to negotiate the proposals, even though these are "in the collective benefit", given that they include not only workers, but also those who have a right to service. In the document, the trade unionists argue that their "historic responsibility" has made them revert to "actions beyond those considered to be habitual" (DIARIO LATINO, March 12, p. 9).

SALARY INCREASE. President Armando Calderón Sol announced, on March 16, they he would propose an increase in the minimum salary to 1,255 colones per month. In accordance with the proposal, the minimum monthly salary will be increased to 1,255 colones. The objective of the increase was to avoid negative consequences for the workers' budget when the new pension saving plan goes into effect, according to which the monthly discount for those subscribing will be increased to 3% (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 17, p. 6; EL DIARIO DE HOY, March 17, p. 3).

OMBUDSMAN. The five candidates for the post of Ombudsman for Human Rights attended a session of the Legislative Assembly on March 16 to be interviewed by the deputies of that body. Those who attended the meeting were Eduardo Urquilla, Assistant Ombudsman for Human Rights; Francisco Díaz, Director of FESPAD; Luis Mendez leader of the NGOs; Marcos Valladares, ex-deputy and advisor for the PCN and Rosalia Tochez, ex-magistrate of the Public Audit and Controller's Office [Corte de Cuentas] and member of the PDC. The interview consisted of 12 questions drawn up by the Political Commission of the Assembly, with which they aimed to evaluate which of the candidates was most appropriate for the job. Francisco Diaz, speaking for himself, declared that the mechanism for election suffered from tendentious political party criteria, but he was present along with the others in the interview (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 17, p. 6).

PROPOSAL. The National Association for Private Enterprise (ANEP), together with other organizations of the private sector presented, on March 10, a proposal to increase municipal taxes in response to negotiations which this organizations is holding with the Mayor for San Salvador, Mr. Hector Silva. The document was presented to the Commission on Municipal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly by the leadership of the association, together with the presidents of the Salvadoran Banking Association (ABANSA) and the Salvadoran Association of Industrialists (ASI). ANEP proposes to increase by 80% (the equivalent of some additional 50 million colones of the actual returns, but without changing the current tax structure. The taxes would increase by three cents on every 100 colones of profits for all contributors as opposed to the provisions of the Silva proposal which calls for an increase of 36 cents for businesses with high levels of profits. Ricardo Simán, President of ANEP, expressed his availability to discuss the contents of the document with municipal authorities in order to reach a "consensus without precedent" between community and the sector which it represents. Simán said that the "imposition [of taxes] on profits ought to be implemented while simultaneously determining a new tax base". At the same time he recommended that property taxes be reviewed and that the administration of taxes be improved, that current expenses be contained and that priorities for projects be established (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 11, p. 4; EL DIARIO DE HOY, March 11, p. 30).

ARREST. On March 16, the Second Tribunal of the Penal Court decreed the provisional arrest of 11 leaders of the Medical Workers Union of the ISSS (SIMETRISSS). The judge in charge of the case, Mr. Carlos Flores Cisneros, considered that strong evidence existed that the 11 trade unionists were involved in the crime of collective abandonment of work because they acted as instigators of the unionists' labor strike lasting several days during the last week. Additionally, the resolution emphasized that those accused already had charges against them arising from a finding by the Fourth Tribunal of the Labor Court which had declared the strike illegal, although, in the opinion of this tribunal, the arrest warrant was not admissible. The penalty for the crime for which the 11 leaders are accused is up to four years of prison. The resolution recognizes that "some of the actions which SIMETRISSS invoked as the reason for the labor stoppage and the content of their demands involve social motivations", but it also holds that the strike placed the life and health of those insured in danger. President Calderón Sol, for his part, stated that he hoped that the controversy with the unionists "did not go any farther" and that the investigation and the ruling were the responsibility of the judicial branch of government in which the executive branch could not intervene (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 17, p. 4 and 5; EL DIARIO DE HOY, March 17, p. 6).