The case for the beatification of Msgr. Romero has been in proceedings in Rome for more than a year now; but it has not advanced as rapidly as expected. Obstacles in the process have emerged which have required the gathering of more information. According to Msgr. Rosa Chávez, the primary opposition to the beatification of the martyred archbishop is to be found not in Rome but in El Salvador. That opposition comes from two sectors.

On the one hand, opposition comes from those sectors who do not recognize him as a good shepherd who consecrated himself as a defender of his sheep from the threats of the wolves of injustice and state violence. The former killed them slowly; the latter destroyed them instantly. Nothing which could place in danger the well-being of a people for whom he was charged with being pastor was unknown to Msgr. Romero. But this sector noted that the Archbishop was partial to the victims of poverty and violence and identified that partiality as politically inexcusable and so accused him--and still accuse him--of being naive, weak and easily influenced--when, that is, they do not accuse him of being a leftist and even a communist. For some, Msgr. Romero was responsible for the war.

Those who defame him include bishops--peers and survivors--who, aware that their alliance with power is questioned, reject the ministry of Msgr. Romero, who was so merciful during his lifetime. And now, after his martyrdom, these same who defame him are opposed to his being officially recognized by the Church as an exemplary pastor. That would seem to indicate that they themselves were not exemplary pastors, because they abandoned the flock commended to them and because, anxious to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, did not concern themselves when Caesar took what is God's: the life of the people.

On the other hand, there is another, more agile, sector which also opposes the elevation of Monsignor to the Catholic altars, but who, faced with the determination of Juan Pablo II to beatify him, find no other remedy than to accept what appears to be inevitable. They have not, however, remained inactive, but have, instead, dedicated themselves with stupefying celerity to assimilate the martyred Archbishop into the established order of power. This process of assimilation is tantamount to stripping away from Msgr. Romero that which projected him nationally and internationally as St. Romero of America: his prophetic dimension. They are intent on silencing his words which, as a two-edged sword, penetrated deeply into all hearts, laying bare what was in them. They work towards a forgetfulness of the strength of his ministry as Archbishop which caused the structures of the established order to tremble and, at the same time, united the Salvadoran Church as never before. In this sector, as well, there is more than one bishop, more than one priest.

This opposition is even more dangerous because it is less apparent. With ostensible innocence they propose to take Msgr. Romero out of history so that, should he be declared a martyr of the Catholic Church, big capital and the official circle of ARENA will not feel so uncomfortable. It is not difficult to imagine the authorities of the ARENA government heading up the Salvadoran delegation to the Vatican on the day when Msgr. Romero is placed on the altars. It would indeed be paradoxical that those attendant upon the assassination of Msgr. Romero should present themselves to St. Peter without having confessed their sin and without having sought pardon.

Although this sector is not openly opposed to the beatification, so as not to dissent against apparent wishes of the Pope, it still exerts itself to strip away the historical dimension of Msgr. Romero so as to convert him into a harmless beatified bishop inoffensive to the powers that be. So it is that they emphasize the piety, devotion and orthodoxy of the martyred Archbishop, which no one can place in doubt; but they did not kill Msgr. Romero for any of those qualities, but because he was a prophet. It is curious how they strive to separate Msgr. from the Theology of Liberation, which they consider to be aberrant. Their blindness leads them to ignore what is evident: that Msgr. Romero was faithful to the teachings of the Church as they are expressed in Vatican II, Medellín, Puebla and the social doctrine of the Church. The theology of Msgr. Romero was very traditional, but it was not traditionalistic. This sector does not want a Theology of Liberation martyr.

The strength of Msgr. Romero's words is rooted in their power to denounce a palpable reality and to announce the utopia of the kingdom of God. As a pastor, he was concerned to free his flock from the wolves and idols that wanted to destroy it. Msgr. Romero heard the cry of the people and accepted the mission which God gave him: that of the liberation of the people.

A devout and pious archbishop who champions orthodoxy is not required to undergo personal changes. For this sector, Msgr. Romero will always be the same; for them he did not experience a conversion or any important change throughout his life. Archbishop Romero will always be the same Father Romero, a simple, humble parish priest from San Miguel. But those who think in this manner are mistaken. They forget that Msgr. Romero, as any Christian faithful to God, traveled a particular course. It is true that he was always the same Romero, but he was never the same. What is admirable is how he let himself be led by God's Spirit.

They are mistaken, as well, because they omit a fundamental dimension of his biography. Msgr. Romero always demonstrated a special sensibility for the poor, whether they were beggars at the Cathedral of San Miguel or in San Salvador. For this openness towards those most in need he stepped into the problem of the great majority of dispossessed and victims of violence. Msgr. Romero became their voice and they recognized that voice and so it was that he came to be their pastor.

It is for this that the Salvadoran people remember him with affection and celebrate him with joy in the temples, plazas and streets, without waiting for the official verdict of the Catholic Church. Although, doubtless, they maintain an interest in that decision. Msgr. Romero is a model for those pastors who want to be faithful to the God of Jesus and to the people who cry out for justice and liberty. But at the same time, this is an occasion for questioning among those who forget that they are pastors for a poverty-stricken people who have no unconditional allies in the established power structures.

Msgr. Romero continues to be a prophet even after his death. His life and works continue to be cause for conflict: for some they are motives for Christian rejoicing, but for others, cause for scandal.

The first polemic raised by the Bases for a National Plan arose concerning the proposal for an administrative reorganization of the national territory. On this point, the document indicates that "we are facing an atomized schema of administration.... This schema is no longer adequate because it provides fertile ground for an irrational use of resources; it causes difficulties for the implementation of strategic development projects in the communities;... it impedes the [development of a] broader vision of local development;... and ignores [the fact that] communication between all parts of the country has changed notably". According to the document, territorial organization as it currently stands is out of date on the questions of "demographic, geoeconomic and geo-political" changes which the country has experienced in recent decades.

It is sufficient only to glance at the general functioning of the mayors' offices to understand that, on this question the document is not mistaken. It is clear that the municipalities find themselves bogged down in a vicious circle of inoperability, corruption and political influence-peddling; and it may be the case that the praiseworthy projects which are indeed implemented represent only isolated efforts.

It appears to be evident that, in El Salvador, the municipalities face serious problems in complying with their obligations. These are problems which, not amenable to being reduced to their financial aspect, extend to the administrative, legal and planning aspects, etc. It should be noted that many municipalities--especially the smallest ones--have developed very little or not at all for many years. Moreover, of the 262 registered municipalities, 129 have less than 10,000 inhabitants in their jurisdiction, which is the minimum established in the municipal code for a municipality to be considered a municipality.

The dispersion and atomization of these localities and the inoperativity which this implies are undeniable facts. No one would be talking, now, about administrative reorganization of the national territory if these municipalities, as they are now distributed, showed evidence of efficiency and development. But what is certain is that the dispersion of efforts not only seems not to be contributing much to the development of these localities, it actually obstructs such efforts. From this one can draw the obvious conclusions: something must be done about it. And on this point, the mayors and those who support this new proposal are in agreement. The problem begins when the question of what is to be done and how is posed. The mayors' associations have sounded the alarm over this idea of territorial reordering, fencing with arguments of doubtful validity in order to justify rejecting it: they fear "inter-municipal wars", they allege that this is not the moment to carry out such an initiative, that they prefer decentralization rather than the elimination of municipalities....

It is around this last point more than any other that the polemic wages. The possibility that a good number of municipalities might have to incorporate with others is what puts the mayors on alert. That the territorial reordering could be the occasion for "inter-municipal wars" is very difficult to believe because, how can an imminently administrative project which, on the surface has nothing to do with party lines, cause harm to the inhabitants of the municipalities?

On the other hand, it must be asked if not now, when is the moment when El Salvador could begin to implement significant changes? Why is it that now could not be the moment seriously to consider a territorial and administrative reordering which could overcome the current obsolescence. And, finally, the thorny point as to how it is possible not to believe that the resistance of the mayors in thinking of the possibility of reducing the number of municipalities is owing to anxieties produced by thoughts of having their quotas of power diminished? True it is that decentralization is a goal--and an important goal, at that--, but why resist territorial reordering?

This is a point still open for discussion. One must say, however, that the proposal by the Commission for Development for an administrative and territorial adjustment is not, nor could be, the definitive solution to the problems of the municipalities. One ought, nevertheless, to consider it as one of the elements favorable to the development of the municipalities and, as such, a proposal to be evaluated. In this sense, the central point of the polemic ought to be municipal development and not the number of mayors' offices which such and such a party might lose. All in all, what would be better? That municipal power continue to be dispersed, reduced to its minimal expression, appealing to badly-understood local roots? or that the current territorial organization be modified as a way to develop more capable and solid municipalities with true possibilities to achieve autonomy.

Given the current situation, no one denies the need to increase municipal taxes in order to implement environmental and social welfare projects. The fundamental difference between the several tax proposal increases lies in the amount of the increase proposed and in the proposed sources for the additional taxes. The San Salvador Mayor's Office proposes to quadruple the tax income by means of a substantial increase in the tax rates for the sectors with the greatest income. For its part, private enterprise proposes to double municipal tax income by imposing higher tax rates on public enterprises. In the proposal presented by the National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP) the business sectors would pay less than they now pay.

The regressive character of the current municipal tax structure has already been noted; what is also noteworthy is the imposition of higher tax rates on the lower income sectors (See Proceso, 791). As the second column of the graph presented below demonstrates, the inequality is reflected not only in the rates, but also in the absolute totals of the taxes. In the case of the financial sector, one can notice how a contributor with a taxable capital of 175 million colones would pay less than a contributor with 50 million colones in capital. One can also note that, in the measure that the total of taxable capital increases, one notices that the total amount of taxes to be paid are reduced.

The Mayor's Office proposal, because it proposes to adopt a single rate for all activities above 25,000 colones, presents a progressive structure that, in the measure that one advances on the scale of taxable capital, the total amount of taxes to be paid is increased proportionally. In some cases, the increases are frankly impressive. For example, a taxpayer with capital of 175 million colones could see his or her taxes increased by 1700%, passing from a level of only 35,000 colones to that of 630,000. On the other hand, taxpayers of lesser capital would see their taxes reduced as is shown when one compares columns 3 and 4. The municipal tax table also suffers from defects because it allows that major capital sectors could pay less than those with lesser capital.

The ANEP proposal is, logically, the most benevolent to private enterprise, including the fact that, contrary to the intention to increase the income from municipal taxes, it proposes to reduce them drastically, for all categories of taxable capital. And so, in an extreme case, a taxpayer with capital of 175 million colones would move from paying 35,000 colones to paying only 18,810 colones. The most substantial reductions, however, can be seen in the areas between 50 and 100 million colones, where the taxes to be paid by businessmen would be reduced by up to 87.5%. In the same way, the areas of lesser income would also be favored with significant reductions, although in a lesser quantity than those which the sectors at the higher ranges would experience.

 One should not be puzzled, then, that the ANEP proposal does not generate any constructive dynamic on the question of municipal taxes, in spite of the fact that this appears to be its original intention. According to Mr. Hector Silva, Mayor of San Salvador, the ANEP proposal is "regressive", "inefficient" and "inconsistent" because "it moves 60% of the increase proposed to the category of public service enterprises and to other categories of taxes already existing in the municipality".

Additionally, both proposals generate points for discussion which one cannot get around. In the first place, the Mayor's Office proposal presupposes notable increases in the taxes to be paid by enterprises with greater income. This is owing, in great part, to the fact that the actual structural tax base is extremely benevolent to the enterprises with large incomes, which is cause for the fact that, faced with making the process of establishing more homogeneous tax rates, these will be affected most.

In the second place, the ANEP proposal does not present an opportunity to increase taxes on businesses. On the contrary, it demonstrates the same inspiration as the tax reforms implemented by the central governments during the present decade: to reduce taxes for the greater income sectors. The taxes proposed would, with difficulty, go beyond 18,000 colones for multimillionaire financial enterprises nor above 4,000 colones for commercial and industrial enterprises.

Although at present, the future of municipal taxes depends more on the political correlation of forces in the Legislative Assembly, it is still possible to find intermediate points of understanding. The minimal condition for this is, clearly, that private enterprise would agree to pay more taxes, not necessarily the levels proposed by the Mayor's Office, but, yes, levels coherent with the need to increase municipal tax collection coming from the businesses in order to implement projects to make San Salvador more viable.

A poll conducted in November, 1997 by the University Institute on Public Opinion (IUDOP) of the Central American University (UCA) on the educational and health system, highlights a paradigmatic attitude on the part of citizens in general toward the problems about which they have complaints: to a considerable degree, the citizenry is conscious of what is not well and that the government is not doing a great deal about it, for which the government has no interest in finding a solution. But, at the same time that those polled maintained an unconcerned attitude about the reality which affects them, they condemn or repudiate trade union activities aimed at changing the anomalous situation.

Just look at the facts. According to the poll referred to above, 24.5% of the population consulted considers that the health system has worsened as compared with previous years; 40.4% consider that it has stayed the same and only 24.5% consider that it has gotten better. In the same sense, 29% of the sample expressed the opinion that the health situation will get worse in the upcoming years; 28.5% held that it will stay the same and 24% believe that it will get better. Curiously, in contrast with expectations that a positive change will take place in the health system or that it will stay the same, 10.2%--35.4% and 30.3% of the sample polled--considered respectively that the government has no, little or some interest in the health problems of the country. This is to say, the population, at the same time that it takes note of a detriment or stagnation in the Salvadoran health system, which is, by all opinions, deficient in the services it offers, considers that the government--the definitive entity responsible for effecting the changes--does not display any great interest in bettering the health system.

When the sample of those polled were asked about how the trade union actions of the health sector employees seemed to them, specifically with regard to the strikes held by these unionists in 1997, an even more surprising fact comes to light: the majority (53.2%), expressed disagreement. Recalling that in the 1997 strikes by the health sector, the strikes held by employees in efforts to better the conditions under which attention was provided to the public, were not presented as explicit demands, but rather subsumed under other demands, one might deduce that the population (in relation to the topic of health) is not pleased by any action which implies the temporary suspension of service. Even when one considers that, in global terms, this service is not getting any better and that it is not a priority of government to better it. In other words, the situation is the following: between continuing to receive mediocre service or being deprived of it temporarily by a course of action which seeks to pressure for betterment of the service, the population prefers to opt for the greater ill.

The reasons which explain this paradox are many: health service is too important to do without for whatever reason; the trade union movements, in general, have, up to the present date, lacked the coherence and social outreach necessary to awaken the sympathies and support of the population; they lack a citizen spirit of social participation which would make sense of the action to sacrifice oneself individually in order to achieve collective benefits in the long run. What has been said up to now ought to be taken into consideration in order the analyze the form in which the actions taken by the Medical Workers Union of the Social Security Institute (SIMETRISSS) were presented to public opinion.

Without doubt, as usually happens in situations when the government sees its interests exposed, during the last three months of the union struggle of SIMETRISSS, the social communications media charged their batteries to support and flesh out the official vision of the matter. By means of insidious reporting which aimed at presenting the outrages and humiliation which the strikes called by SIMETRISSS occasioned the patients, the union was presented as a group which, while pursuing purely economic demands, did not hesitate to place the health of the patient-subscribers in danger.

Moreover, what the media repeatedly underlined was that the responsibility for the strikes was the sole responsibility of the doctors' union: any mention of the fact that the actions were taken only after months of fruitless talks was omitted. But what is evident is: that the movement was pursuing changes in crucial aspects of the Social Security system and that for this they had obtained the support of an impressive number of actors and social groupings; that the way in which the government responded to their demands went beyond even the absurd (the arrest warrants against the leadership of SIMETRISSS is the most serious manifestation)--of all this not a word is mentioned.

Nevertheless, in the matter under discussion, what is worrisome about this situation is not the moral harm caused by the campaign to discredit SIMETRISS launched by the press nor the intentional falsification of the true aims and goals, but rather implicitly that all of the above stimulated a strengthening of the attitude mentioned above: the lack of consideration or annulment of the role that the service-receivers could play in the dynamic. The service-receiver is only subject to the dynamic inasmuch as he or she is impacted by it, inasmuch as he or she suffers its consequences, without having, for all this, the decision-making power over its development. Given this logic, not a single linkage exists between the demands presented by SIMETRISSS and the mass of patients. So it is then, that the actions taken by the doctors' union are only incumbent upon the service-receiver in the measure that health service is suspended; it is for this reason that it is possible that the population insured under ISSS might demonstrate, without doubt, its disagreement with the strikes.

Certainly, as has already been mentioned, there is just one single cause for the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the population for finding solutions to the problems in the health service system which they complain about. In this case, the sources of and reasons for the attitudes which the service-receivers have adopted cannot be reduced only to the effects of the efforts by media and government. All the same, it cannot be denied that these two factors have weighed heavily in the formation of the conformist posture and apathy of the population of health-insured service-receivers.

Undoubtedly, much could be obtained in Social Security if SIMETRISSS could force the "high level commission" to decide favorably on its demands; even more so if the public health doctors would join in the effort to seek the betterment of medical and hospital service. But at the level of social participation, at the level of how the population understands and responds to these dynamics that involve it, it is difficult, if not impossible, to share the same optimism. If citizen participation with something more than complaints about the resolution of the problems affected cannot be achieved, any success is incomplete.

STRIKE. On March 17, in protest against the arrest warrant issued against 11 leaders of the Medical Workers' Union of the ISSS (SIMETRISSS), the doctors of this organization resumed the strike affecting outpatient services and elective surgery in all Social Security hospitals throughout the country. Moreover, as they demanded that the arrest warrants be made null and void, the unionists demanded that the High Level Commission named by President Calderón Sol demonstrate capability and intention to negotiate their petitions. The decision to resume the strike was taken at an assembly in which 43 affiliates of the Medical College participated. The same day, the Director of the Salvadoran Social Security Institute (ISSS), Maria Julia Castillo, responded to the new work stoppage with a second charge against the striking doctors: aimed at achieving a judicial determination as to whether the strike was illegal or not. "In this country, now, no one goes unpunished," Castillo warned and stated that "it is not because of intransigence" that the ISSS does not resolve the doctors' platform of demands, but rather "because it cannot be done". Likewise, the functionary threatened to take discounts from the salaries of the doctors who supported the strike, or, even to fire them. For his part, the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, Eduardo Tomasino, affirmed that the work stoppage was illegal and warned that the arrest warrent issued against the 11 SIMETRISSS leaders "has a legal basis" (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 18, p. 4 and 5; EL DIARIO DE HOY, March 18, p. 14).

REFUSAL. The Crisis Committee of the Medical Workers Union of ISSS (SIMETRISSS), which temporarily assumed leadership of that union, refused, on March 18, to engage in dialogue with the High Level Commission named by President Calderón Sol. The Secretary of the Committee, Francisco Guzman, said that they would not engage in any meeting "as long as the doctors which make up the leadership of the union were not free". Nevertheless, Labor Minister Eduardo Tomasino, offered assurances that the legal situation of the leaders was not part of the jurisdiction of the Ministry nor of the Commission, but rather the province of the Judicial Organ, which cannot arbitrarily lift the order. The Second Penal Court will have to confirm, revoke or modify within 24 hours, beginning on March 18, the arrest warrant against the 11 leaders accused of collective abandonment of labors. Moreover, whether the work stoppage is illegal or not is still a question pending before the Labor Court. The Labor Judge, Jose Roberto Medina, explained that a resolution concerning the demand presented by the ISSS authorities has still not been issued because they have not fulfilled the requirement of presenting a list of the doctors who are out on strike. For their part, the defense attorneys for the accused held that sufficient merit for the issuance of an arrest warrant does not exist (LA PRENSA GRAFICA, March 18, p. 5 and March 19, pp. 4 and 5).