Flowers with no petals

Necessary clarification or a public lie?

Democratization and community participation in the FMLN-USC and arena platforms

The economic proposals of arena and the FMLN-USC

FLOWERS WITH NO PETALS 

It has been said and said again and with the repetition it has been given up for a fact that the electoral campaign has been one of distinction —that is, without insults. It really has not been this way at all. The image projected by the political parties in the major communications media has been very careful and correct. A decided effort has been made to maintain correct form and good education. Those who speak of distinction refer, without doubt, to this projection. But the meetings and rallies have been something else altogether. In them, ARENA has given itself over to insulting its principal opposition throughout the country. It has not only upbraided the FMLN in the harshest of terms, but has attributed to it —unilaterally— the destruction and death resulting from the war, as if ARENA and its leaders were somehow not linked to the Armed Forces during that time and as if they had nothing in particular to do with the death squads; they have insulted Facundo Guardado and laughed at him as they pleased. The task has been shared out in a calculated way. Cristiani has been the spokesperson of the past and of scorn while Flores’s discourse has been centered on promises, although he also used the traditional discourse of ARENA.

During the last weeks of the campaign, all of the candidates laid good manners aside and have had recourse to the old style of political discourse. Old, but In current use today, because it is the habitual language of the deputies in the sessions of the Legislative Assembly and of the representatives of political parties in their public speeches. In the case applied to the United Democratic Center, this style was not used in order to take public opinion into account —it was also the case of the full page ads in the major press— that their candidate was associated with the FMLN during the war, that he participated in the early dialogues and presumably participated in the so-called "piñata" of the Sandinistas. This and other attacks against this party, as in the case of the destruction of publicity, underlines the fact that the real threat to the predominance of ARENA does not come from the FMLN but from the United Democratic Center led by Ruben Zamora. Some attribute this change of language to the nervousness of the final round of the electoral race, in which case they may be, in some way, right; but perhaps it would be more realistic to say that the candidates began to reveal who they really are. They had not been able to resist their own nature, or manner of doing things, which finally imposed itself.

In this scheme of things, the Flores campaign is the one most turned in on itself. The ARENA candidate began by presenting himself as very amiable, approachable and educated. But when he obtained the unquestionable support of the party and his popularity began to show itself as occupying first place in the preferences, he revealed his true personality. The original good form demonstrated by the candidate was only a way of hiding his right-wing intolerance and had been used to make himself acceptable to public opinion and so assure himself the support of the ARENA party. Flores’s overwhelming arrogance showed itself at the end of the campaign and was clearly evidenced in his refusal to debate and to have any contact with the press —which he no longer needed, had undermined any possible alliances which, as a political leader, he might come attempt to arrange. One cannot make alliances with a politician who does not honor his word. The promises to dialogue about national problems and to discuss their possible solutions oriented towards the common good could not be maintained up through the end of the campaign and their falsity was laid bare.

Flores lied when he rejected the debate with the argument that it was a forum for insult. In reality, he and the ARENA leaders have been those who have most insulted others during this electoral campaign. He lied when he alleged that he was debating with the Salvadoran people. Perhaps at the beginning of his campaign when he was an unknown, he spoke with the people. But he has not discussed with them his plans for government. It is true that during the last months he toured the country, but only in order to dictate his list of promises from an artificial podium constructed upon false and empty boxes and barrels. Flores, the same as ARENA, knows very little about discourse and consensus. Openness cannot be expected of someone who only knows authoritarianism.

At any rate, the debate took place without his participation and without insults. It was a debate of ideas and plans for government, limited, perhaps, in its breadth, but it was a debate in which the participants made an effort to give the best of themselves. The debate revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, including the scorn in which Flores held his adversaries, democracy, and, in the last analysis, the Salvadoran people, whom he said he was looking in the eyes. Even if Flores did not attend, his propaganda battered the audience for more than two hours, saturating the air time destined for commercials. This adds cynicism to lies. It is ironical that he had refused to participate in order not to give his adversaries social space at his cost, but he contributed generously to finance their appearance on the television.

As could have been foreseen, the debate threw light on differences in the apparent similarities of the candidates' proposals: the right-wing authoritarianism of Parker who proposes to impose order by violating the Constitution; the vagaries of Guardado, fearful that his ideas may not be accepted by the economic powers of the country; the repressive tendencies of Garcia for whom the crimes of the National Guard and ORDEN are "imperfections" —a vision shared by one of the right-wing panelists—; the situational proposals of Ayala to the small but real problems of the people; and Zamora’s brilliant and articulate responses. The debate would have yielded more if the panel of interviewers had been better prepared and had been more independent. Obsession caused the representative of big business to identify himself with the corruption of kidnapping. All in all, the experience has been positive.

Flores may be relatively young and have more education than the average Salvadoran politicians, but he does not offer important changes in the ARENA style of exercising power ; nor will he modernize the party. The new generation is reproducing the old ARENA patterns, condemning their possibilities for openness and change. ARENA still continues to believe that he will bury the communists in El Salvador without understanding that the world has changed in the decade of the nineties. His powerful electoral machinery appears to be beginning to show signs of obsolescence, victim of the anachronisms of those who run it. The future does not belong to this ARENA which lost the decade of the nineties, but to new alternatives with a broader vision of the country and of the world, with greater sensibility towards the needs and aspirations of the greater part of the population and committed to the decentralization and democratization of power.

NECESSARY CLARIFICATION OR A PUBLIC LIE?

Although not with all of the force it ought to have, the topic of the presidential debate has become notorious at a point in time less than a week from the celebration of the presidential election. Such a topic could have been more relevant if the communications media, taken as a whole, had given it the necessary space. But this was not the case; there were even channels that made of the debate an unimportant matter when it was not characterizing its promoters a a group of stubborn folk bent on pushing forward an initiative the benefit of which the media did not see.

Certainly, there were communications media which did take seriously the role of the debate as a means of forming mature reflection in public opinion. These media understood well that a well-organized presidential debate could help the voters cast a well-thought-out ballot. Some of these media supported initiatives aimed at implementing a presidential debate, such as that promoted by four private universities —under the name "Presidential Dialogue", the consortium of NGOs for civic education and the guild of professional associations. Others, such as Channel 12 television, organized their own debate.

Curiously, the initiative of the universities, the non-governmental organizations and the professional guilds were completely ignored by the ARENA party and Francisco Flores, its presidential candidate. Except for sporadic contacts among some members of the organizing commission of this debate and Flores’s head of campaign, there was never a formal response by Flores to the invitation he received, first in private and then in public. The event organized by Channel 12 could not be ignored by the ARENA party and its candidate. Of course, Flores did not participate. This was predictable —given that part of his political strategy is not to debate—, but his non-participation had to be publicly justified, given that it is not very convenient to exhibit scorn in an open way in front of the important news media —even Flores knows this. One may scorn professionals, the universities, the NGOs, but not the media, to which —when they may not be had as allies— should at least be shown courtesy.

The deference towards Channel 12 led the ARENA press committee to publish, on February 28, 1999, a necessary clarification, a point at which it might be appropriate to stop for a moment because it is a demonstration of the scant commitment of Francisco Flores with the democratization of El Salvador. In the "Clarification" were expressed "the principles which we have always had for the matter". Let us examine these principles and compare them with reality.

First principle "that a debate, in order for it to be practical, ought to take place between the first and second political forces of the country". So then, according to the results of the last elections and, according to the most serious public opinion polls held during recent months, the first political force in the country is ARENA and the second is the FMLN. Knowing this, the organizing committee for "Presidential Dialogue" worked on the initial methodological aspects which would permit an encounter between the presidential candidates of both parties. In this sense, this "principle", defended by ARENA was complied with from the beginning by the organizers of this civic event. Francisco Flores as well as Facundo Guardado were duly informed of this.

Second principle: "that the moderator, as well as the panelists , the place and day of the debate ought to be reached by consensus between both candidates and not imposed by third persons." This principle was also to be complied with by the organizing commission for the "Presidential Dialogue"; in order to comply with this, each one of the candidates was formally asked to present a member of its party who would work with the commission in the diverse aspects of the debate. Only Facundo Guardado responded t the invitation. Flores did not even refer to it. The "principle" defended by the ARENA Press Committee could not be put into practice if the party was not willing to involve one of its members in the preparations for the event which would require, in order to carry it out, the consensus of both candidates. In order to achieve consensus, one must first enter into conversation —something which Flores and his advisers appear not to understand.

Third principle: "That ideas, government programs and matters of national interest should be debated with all seriousness and in depth". It was precisely one of the express propositions of the "Presidential Dialogue" that this be the case —that is to say, that it would become a forum in which the candidates, interviewed by a select group of panelists, would express with seriousness and depth their proposals concerning the principle problems of the country. More than anyone else, the organizing committee for the "Presidential Dialogue" and the institutions who convoked it were interested in a high-level encounter between Flores and Guardado. This interest is rooted in a decided commitment to the strengthening of democracy in El Salvador. Both candidates were familiar with this proposition; only one of them accepted a commitment with this effort.

In the end, one by one, the "principles" sustained by ARENA for justifying the non-participation of their candidate in the presidential debate openly betrayed the truth. One should expect more serious attitudes from a party which aspires to govern a country for five more years. One might expect greater responsibility from a candidate who values his high moral standing, his education and his civility. Politicians ought to have, as a norm of conduct, a minimal respect for truth. When the politicians and their parties maliciously disregard the truth, something serious is happening to the most elemental ethical values. The public position of ARENA flagrantly betrays the truth because the "principles" upheld by this party, as we have seen, were complied with by the organizing committee for the "Presidential Dialogue" and Francisco Flores simply ignored that invitation to debate. That is to say, ARENA and its candidate have acted contrary to what is expressed in their "Necessary Clarification", for which fact, this "clarification" is nothing more than a "public lie".

Turning once again to the communications media, they could have played a decisive role in the implementation of the presidential debate. The majority of them did not make the debate a matter of really important public interest. If the media had given the topic of the debate the space and air time it deserved, it would, perhaps, have taken place, Even when it did not actually take place, the political costs for those who refused to debate would have been greater. But, for this to be the case, the presidential debate would have had to become a matter of national interest. Here, the major part of the media did not offer its quota towards the advancement of democracy. With exceptions which could be counted on the fingers of one hand, almost all took the position that it was something not having anything to do with them, as if it were only one more matter upon which they had to report —and this, from afar and without contaminating themselves with it. Democracy requires a strong dosage of responsibility. Those who can most affect public opinion ought to take up the challenge of informing and educating on how to live in a democracy.

DEMOCRATIZATION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE FMLN-USC AND ARENA PLATFORMS

 If the Peace Accords signed in 1992 achieved anything, it was to lay the foundation for the construction of a democratic society. In fact, from then up until now, the major advances in the development of the country have taken place in political matters. There is no doubt that freedom of expression, independence of powers, relative plurality of political parties and the greater transparency in the electoral processes are important steps in democratic institutionalization. Moreover, the diversity of corrupt practices which continue predominating in governmental entities and the incapacity of public functionaries to give concrete responses to national problems, are also realities —realities which place serious obstacles towards the process of democratization of the country. It may be appropriate, for these reasons, to evaluate the proposals which the principal political forces in El Salvador propose in these matters. The following lines deal with this topic.

This is the title of the first chapter of the "political area" of the FMLN-USC platform. In this chapter, policies are proposed for the following areas: modernization of the political system, strengthening of community participation, effective competition and independence of public powers and community access to information. Added to this, one should note, is "the policy for the decentralization of the state", contemplated in Chapter Two of this same discussion.

On the question of the modernization of the political system, the proposals are: (a)to implement a reform to the system of political representation in order to achieve an effective exercise of the vote; (b) to democratize the electoral system and make it credible and worthy of confidence; (c) to institutionalize the Residential Vote; (d) to implement a system of proportional participation in the Municipal Councils; (e) to legitimize the acceptance of candidates not members of political parties at the municipal level; (f) to transform the Supreme Electoral Tribunal into a professional and independent body; (g) to guarantee that each voter receives his or her identity document; (h) to promote the approval of a law for political parties which assures internal democracy and transparency in the handling of funds.

At the level of strengthening community participation, the following proposals are presented: (a) to promote full freedom of association and freedom for social organizations; (b) to promote a law for community participation; (c) open space for an adequate community monitoring of public matters; (c) to update the law of NGOs and other community initiatives; and (e) to promote the exercise of direct and semi-direct democracy by means of referendums, plebiscites and popular initiatives. On the question of competence and independence of powers, the measures to be taken would be: (a) to encourage a permanent and straightforward fight against corruption and root out subjective patronage and impunity; (b) to implement a project directed towards making judicial reform such as was agreed upon in the Peace Accords, viable; and (c) to strengthen the independence of the State Auditor and Comptroller entities.

In order to favor access by the community to information, the following is proposed: (a) assure the openness to information and free competition among the communications media; (b) guarantee the right to response as a fundamental component for the respect of human rights and communications media; (c) respect professional guarantees and rights; (d) that the state of accounts for Public Finances be published periodically on a regular basis; and (e) the most important bills be published so that the public might express its approval or disapproval beforehand.

Finally, in what concerns the decentralization of the state, the government plan in question proposes; (a) to extend to every area greater capacity for administration and possibilities for making viable a process for equitable and sustainable development; (b) to promote a Special Law for Decentralization and a Law for Territorial Ordering, among others; (c) to implement a transformation of the central government and redefine the whole ministerial apparatus; (c) to propose the necessary modifications for other state powers; (e) to redesign the system of income and transfers to the municipalities and create a land tax. It would, moreover, call for the creation of a national system of credit and funds for municipal and regional development; and (f) to create a national body which is plural and representative, which would be responsible for orienting and leading the process.

In the "Alliance for Solidarity" of the ARENA platform, it is the apparatus for "local participation and decentralization" with which this résumé will deal. In it, the following specific objectives will be examined: "to advance in the process for the consolidation of democracy", "strengthen local bodies to which functions would be delegated in order to guarantee the success of the decentralization process, "from which the patrons would benefit in terms of better quality services" and "create a situation in which services are closer to the community".

In order to make such objectives concrete, it is proposed: (a) to establish coordination mechanisms between the central government and local governments in order to guarantee effective implementation of public investment; (b) transfer resources of the central government to the municipalities in order to develop projects for social services infrastructure; (c) promote social participation and co-responsibility in the providing of basic services such as roads, telephones, rural electrification, water, trash collection, health, culture, recreation and sports; (d) institutionalize mechanisms for social supervision and auditing in the provision of public services; and (e) create mechanisms for the strengthening of links between Salvadorans outside the national territory with their communities of origin.

Of all aspects dealt with in the ARENA and FMLN-USC platforms, the topic of democratization and citizen participation in which the differences are immediately apparent. It is evident that, while the coalition considers the topic of consolidation of democracy to be so important that a whole section is dedicated to it: this in the policy section, in which the official party belies its view of the relevance of the problem by completely omitting the proposal of points which would deal with the matter specifically.

But the evasion of this topic by ARENA —which would reduce the decentralization of the problem of providing basic services and would appear to propose that the municipalities themselves be the bodies which would have to make the arrangements for obtaining them— one should not be surprised if one takes into account that President Calderón Sol as well as the rest of the ARENA functionaries have done nothing more in the last ten years than boast of how much —thanks to them— that the Salvadoran political system has advanced.

And so it is positive that the government plan of the FMLN-USC presents in such detail the proposals on democratic institutionalization, as much because the same proposals deal with the diagnostic and denounce how much is lacking on the question of advance on this aspect —contradicting what the governing party wishes us to believe in its discourses and with its attitude—, as much because it is helpful and hopeful that the second political force of the country seems to take itself seriously on the question of the challenge which the problem discussed above presupposes.

THE ECONOMIC PROPOSALS OF ARENA AND THE FMLN-USC

The economic platforms of the contending parties are scarcely taken into account by the voters —even to criticize them. Nevertheless, it is important to note the offers presented on political economic matters in order to evaluate the seriousness of the proposals. Such an examination would permit the formation of an idea about whether these offerings are directed towards dealing with the principal economic problems of the country —which, for the last years of the decade of the 1990´s, appear to be sufficiently evident, with the economic reforms implemented, as well as stability in the macroecomic level.

During the whole of the decade of the 1990's, El Salvador has been governed by ARENA administrations which have implemented policies of a neoliberal character. Some of the most important measures of these governments have been the liberalization of foreign commerce, the elimination of price controls, the privatization of public enterprises (including those in charge of telecommunications and the distribution of electrical energy), tax reform and the reform of the Central Reserve Bank (BCR, for its initials in Spanish)).

These measures have been implemented without many obstacles thanks to the existence of conditions favorable to macroeconomic stability. Economic growth has oscillated between 3% and 7%, international reserves have grown and inflation has been contained. Unfortunately, those results are not really attributable to the neoliberal policies of ARENA because the two ARENA presidents have concerned themselves more with the administration of the relative solvency provided by the flow of family remittances.

In reality, serious economic problems exist which merit attention from the governments which develop public policies in the future. The six most important are the following: the disarticulation among the financial sectors and the agricultural and livestock as well as industrial sectors, growing deficits in the balance of payments, the permanence of the fiscal deficit, slow growth of exports, scant diversification of production and dependence on international remittances for sustaining the economy on a macroeconomic level.

Below we propose to describe in general terms the content of the most important of the economic policies which the presidential candidates of the ARENA and FMLN-USC parties propose.

The ARENA proposal on economic questions has been called "the Alliance for Work" and, according to the government program of that party, it aims "to transfer the benefits of progress to all Salvadorans" by means of the integration of diverse economic sectors into productive investments which would contribute to creating "work and income, as well as increasing production by sectors and making it dynamic as well as increasing productivity by sectors which would absorb greater employment".

In line with the above, the "alliance" proposes four areas of policy: sectorial policies (Development of the Agricultural and Livestock Sector, Development of the Small and Very Small Enterprise, Promotion of Exports and Investments and Development of the Construction Sector), policies of support for productivity, New Models in Labor Relations and, in fourth place, Salvadorans Outside El Salvador: Partners in Development. Inside the sectorial policies, "Development of the agricultural and Livestock sector" presents, as its principal objectives for improving access to land by means of financing, to facilitate a structure of most favorable relative prices, provide for the credit needs of the agricultural and livestock sector, encourage agricultural industry, stimulate reforestation and agricultural and livestock diversification together with the development of a new model for expanding agriculture and livestock.

The "Development of Small and Very Small Enterprises" aims to achieve the principal objectives of increasing the availability of credit for this sector, encouraging productive and commercial alliances and offering training and technical assistance where necessary. The "Promotion of Exports and Investments", on the other hand, aims to diversify the export base, reduce the cost of foreign market penetration and encourage mechanisms for attracting investments. The fourth component of the sectorial policies, "Development of the Construction Sector", aims to create financial, legal, institutional and operative conditions which would make supply and demand more agile in the area of housing and provide the public infrastructure which would be implemented by the private sector.

The policies of "Support for Productivity", for their part, aim to develop the physical infrastructure (highways, ports and energy and telecommunications projects), provision of services to production and commercialization, the creation of a legal and institutional context for promoting competitive markets and improving training for human resources.

The policies for "The New Model for Labor Relations" includes dynamic change within the legal context and training in communications. Finally, the area of "Salvadorans outside El Salvador: Partners in Development" has as its principal objectives the opening of arenas for Salvadorans who live outside the country, the construction of solidarity networks for strengthening communities ties and the promotion of cultural ties which would strengthen national identity. This means an institutional and legal strengthening (assistance to Salvadorans outside El Salvador on migratory aspects, voting and voter registration).

The FMLN-USC: "The economy is for everyone"

This economic proposal "aims to construct the conditions which broaden opportunities which the great majority of the population ought to have...in the quality of life and the lives of their families", for which it is affirmed that it is a priority to move from an outdated economy of "interests of the most powerful financial groups towards a productive economy which generates more and better jobs". The main areas of action proposed are: more and better jobs, fiscal policy, the reform of the financial system, rural development, industrial policy, small, very small and medium enterprise, the formation of internal savings, protection for the consumer and, finally, local development. Owing to its great importance, we present below a summary of the principal contents of the first six main policy areas.

The policies of "more and better jobs" aim to succeed, in the short term, by means of policies for increasing public investment and the creation of incentives for businessmen who "would contribute to increasing jobs or improving salaries". In the long run, a greater number of jobs would be achieved by increasing productivity, "easing" the work market and increasing the quality of work. This last objective is to be achieved principally by means of labor legislation. The "fiscal policy", on the other hand, would seek "the improvement of productivity in public spending", by means of efficiency in tax collection and promotion of equity in spending, the lessening of levels of evasion and "escape" from taxes, the simplification of the tax structure and transparency in investment and public spending.

The policy on "Reform of the Financial System" aims to set in place a financial system "at the service of the development of the country and ...[articulate it] with the other sectors of the economy by means of policies of offering funds for productive ends; the implementation of regulations which would encourage competition, transparency and confidence in the financial system; the strengthening of the autonomy of supervising entities; and the encouragement of the capacity of control by the civil society.

The policies of "Rural Development" aim "to diversify the productive structure and improve the forms of organization of production, seeking, thereby, better conditions of life" by means of measure which, in the short run, would aim to improve prices for the agricultural and livestock producer, reduce costs of production, increase the availability of credit and the creation of an emergency fund. The greater part of these measures would contemplate the creation of tariff barriers for products which would compete with national production, as well as the creation of subsidies and specialized credit funds. In the medium range, rural development would seek by means of a decentralized social policy, a policy for the environment and the implementation of policies at the macro and sectorial level for rural development. These measures contemplate the same fiscal instruments as those of the category on short range policies but would add to them the modernization of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) as well as the encouragement of the transfer of technology to rural producers.

The industrial policy aims fundamentally to increase the competitive edge for industry and articulate it with the rest of the economic sectors by means of harmonizing policies with the macroeconomic and fiscal areas, the creation of a new roll of support for the public sector, encouragement of scientific investigation, encouragement of the small and very small industrial enterprise and the integration of the regional economy

Finally, the policies directed toward the "small, very small and medium enterprise" would seek —as well as those directed towards industry— to increase their productivity and articulation with the rest of the national productive system. For this reason, the creation of conditions for easing access by the sector to credits would be procured, together with the readjustment of the legal context for the inclusion of these enterprises, training and technical assistance, technological innovation and marketing as well as the encouragement of unionization.

The two programs coincide on multiple points such as the importance of job creation, the transfer of the benefits of growth to the majority of the population, the stimulation of the agricultural and livestock sector together with the small and very small enterprise. This does not imply, however, that significant differences do not exist between the two projects. In reality, the divergences on points such as the attention which ARENA would pay to Salvadorans outside El Salvador or to the construction sector are noticeable, as well as the attention which the FMLN would pay to aspects such as the protection of the consumer and local development. However, one of the most important points to note is the difference in treatment which is presented for the financial system.

The ARENA project begins from the premise that the road traveled up until now does not need to be corrected, which is evidenced, for example, in the recognition that the alliance for work would be developed "by strengthening fiscal and financial reform" and in the absence of concrete proposals for achieving greater credit assistance which is offered in the sectorial programs. The FMLN-USC proposal contemplates the need for reforming the functioning of the financial system, as opposed to ARENA, a party which proposes the strengthening of the system by means of transferring the "benefits for progress". One of the policy areas of the FMLN-USC proposal is even aimed at reforming the financial system as is outlined above.

This is a fundamental difference between the two proposals and makes the determination that a future ARENA government would have a wider margin for maneuvering in order to guarantee sufficient credit offers and would so comply with its offerings. It is important to recall that the sectorial programs aimed at agriculture, at the small and very small enterprise and to construction would offer greater amounts of credit than those which the privatized bank has offered up until now.

Another aspect which would differentiate the two proposals is that of the lowering of tariff barriers. To continue with the policy of reducing customs and tariffs which the first ARENA government developed, many industrial and agricultural and livestock enterprises would not be able to compete with foreign products with a minimum of possibilities for survival. The ARENA plan does not directly touch this aspect, but, because it is included in the discussion of fiscal matters, one may assume that what is aimed at is to continue "strengthening" the lowering of tariffs. On the other hand, the FMLN-USC proposal deals with the matter as an element of its policies toward the agricultural and livestock sector, although without developing what will be the tariff policy for other important economic sectors such as industry, for example.

A topic which neither of the two proposals develops with sufficient clarity is that of the policies necessary for productive reconversion which ought to accompany the measures for lower tariffs. All in all, ARENA offers "to diversify" the production of agriculture and the FMLN-USC offers scientific research to promote the development of the industrial sector.

Policies of monetary exchange rates do not receive their due importance in spite of their strategic role as much in the control of inflation as in the stimulation to increase competition of export production. Unfortunately, both measures are, generally speaking, mutually exclusive. The FMLN-USC proposal, although it proposes to develop the rural sector, considers maintaining the rate of exchange "stable", while there are enough profits, which presupposes a renunciation of increase in income and competition of the agricultural exporting sector. But it also maintains inflation a low levels and protects incomes of the salaried sectors. In the case of ARENA, the promotion of exports, although it presupposes the diversification of the export base and the easing of access to other markets, does not indicate how the increase in competition of Salvadoran products would be achieved, because there is no reference made to the exchange problem; neither is there reference made to the specific policies for incorporation of the advances in science and technology of productive processes. It would be too much to say that the policy of "support for productivity" contemplates, in the rubric on human resources training, the promotion of "technological alliances between national and international training centers".

In synthesis, the government programs examined above exhibit important similarities in spite of the fact that they come from tendencies traditionally considered as extreme —especially in what is referred to as the need to encourage growth and employment from the productive sectors. Nevertheless, neither takes up, with the importance it ought to, problems of such importance as the anti-exporter bias of the economic policies, the dependency on family remittances and the articulation of policies of productive reconversion along with the remaining economic policies.