The transformation of the cities

The capriciousness of the CDU

Free trade between Chile and Central America?

Snares and pitfalls in the debate over the casinos

News Briefs

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE CITIES

The idea that municipalities ought to take on a greater leadership role in contemporary society is gaining ground more and more. In Europe the new role of the big cities is to be seen with greatest clarity in the opinion of some specialists, in that the cities ought to respond to five kinds of challenges: new economic base, urban infrastructure, quality of life, social integration and governability. Big cities like Barcelona (Spain), Lisbon (Portugal) and Montpellier (France) have taken up these challenges with determination and in this process, there are two key factors: (a) the construction of the project for a city, in the design and implementation of which would participate local government and major economic, socio-political and academic actors participating together; (b) a strong and personalized leadership such as that exercised by the mayors of the municipalities at the head of efforts to renew the city.

As specialists Jordi Borja and Manuel Castells mention in their investigative work Local and global: the administration of the cities in the information era (Madrid: Taurus, 1997), there are three factors which have made the transformation of the great European cities possible: "(a) the sensation of crisis sharpened by the consciousness of the globalization of the economy; (b) the coming together of urban actors, both public and private, and the generation of a local leadership (political and civic); and (c) joint willingness and consensus among the citizenry for the city to make a leap forward from the physical as well as economic, social and cultural point of view".

In Latin America the impulse to transform municipalities has been felt. In various cities —Bogotá (Colombia), Rio de Janeiro (Brasil), Santiago (Chile) and Mexico, D.F.— some of the key factors for the recuperation of the cities as a space for people to live in have been explained as a pole for touristic attraction and a place for economic opportunities. These factors are the following: (a) reinforcement and legitimacy of local governments based on the processes of democratization and decentralization of the states; (b) mobilization of economic actors in the context of an economic opening; (c) acceptance by public and private actors of the reality of how unviable it is for the city to exclude and marginalize most of its inhabitants; (e) the creation of a climate of consensus-building among the citizens in which local governments, political sectors, intellectuals, professionals and popular social organizations can be involved; (f) the vision of the city as a symbiotic space (of political power and society) and a symbolic space, as well, which becomes the ambience from which arise possible responses to the economic, political and cultural challenges of the globalized era in which we are living.

So it is, then, that the big European and Latin American cities embarked on their own transformation have taken up a project for the city which does not only presuppose, in its drawing up and implementation, the support of the principal economic, political and social actors, but also the redefinition of the spheres of action and organization of local government, its mechanisms with relation to other administrations and citizens, its image and international presence.

What is happening in El Salvador? At what stage of the game is the transformation of its most important city , taking into account the challenges which are posed by its own growth and deterioration as well as the challenges of a globalized world? Without further adieu, the transforming impulse coming from Europe and the principal Latin American cities has scarcely begun to put down roots in our country. And it is doing so in an adverse political and economic atmosphere which is, at the same time, worrisome as well as worthy of merit. It is worrisome because without the minimum of consensus in local government, business actors, the support of professionals and intellectuals and the participation of citizens, a project for the city cannot even be drawn up, much less put into action. At this point, that consensus still has not been reached, being, as it is, that neither business protagonists nor civil society have taken up with adequate seriousness the challenges and commitments which the transformation of the most important city of the country imply.

Likewise, the beginning of the transformation of San Salvador is a process worthy of merit, although it is taking place slowly, above all because that process was begun and sustained thanks to the almost exclusive effort of the municipal authorities, especially Mayor Hector Silva. In reality, with the support of only some few and working in a climate of open rejection of municipal initiatives on the part of economically powerful groups, These groups rejected the idea of contributing with what fell to their lot to pay for the recuperation of San Salvador . The project was rejected, as well, by popular social groups accustomed to disorder, dirtiness and overcrowding —the project for the recuperation of San Salvador has begun to take place. And with this, Mayor Silva and his Municipal Council have placed the city of San Salvador on the road to transformations which today characterize the big cities of Europe and Latin America.

Is the transformation of the city of San Salvador a sure thing? It is evident that it is not. The current municipal administration has scarcely taken its first steps; the fundamental consensus is yet to be established; the citizenry still have not fully involved themselves in the recuperation and renovation of their city; the central government seems not to take seriously the need to transfer areas of responsibility and authority to the municipal level together with the necessary resources. This is to say that the transformation of San Salvador has just begun and will require a lot of support and energy to end up well: a city that, in addition to being a space for humans living together, might be a safe and attractive place for setting up economic initiatives.

A sine qua non for the capital city of the country to continue on the route begun by the current municipal administration is that it have a good mayor. To be a good mayor requires a vision of the joint construct of changes which are taking place at the international level as well as an eye for the most serious problems affecting the city together with a firm determination for responding to both. Which of the candidate who are preparing to run for municipal government holds these kind of credentials? Let us hope that we are fully lucid at the moment in which we must respond to this question because upon this lucidity in the elections of next year hangs the future of San Salvador.

THE CAPRICIOUSNESS OF THE CDU

"At the end of July of this year the CDU received a proposal from the Citizen Initiative to bring together a broad coalition to promote the reelection of Dr. Hector Silva as Mayor of San Salvador", reads the communiqué issued on October 15 by the United Democratic Center (CDU) in which it made public its decision to break off its alliance with the FMLN. "In August," it continues, "we answered rapidly and in written form, expressing our willingness to support a municipal government serving all people o the basis of five points: the candidate for mayor by consensus; support of the broadest possible citizen participation and social and political forces; a government program shared and arrived at by consensus; a balanced Municipal Council without the hegemony of any political party and with its own banner as a coalition which would represent all of these concepts".

It is a well-known fact that from the beginning of the negotiations the problems centered on the last two points. The FMLN rejected the idea of a single banner and did not appear to be willing to cede seats on the Municipal Council. The discussions dragged on for weeks and the leaders of the FMLN as well as those of the CDU began to seem ridiculously obstinate. The lack of capacity to agree on any tiny thing was absurd. This was especially true because the argument around the banner took on major importance in the configuration of the Municipal Council, this last being a much more decisive problem —within the party sphere— than that. Both political forces gave themselves the luxury of fiercely defending their laughably insignificant bunker while the polls forecast a wide margin of advantage for Silva over ARENA and ARENA delayed the naming of its candidate for mayor.

But as soon as it was known that it was Luis Cardenal who had been chosen to compete with the current mayor of the capital city, it became obvious that those of the left who engaged in such a banal spat had to flexibilize their postures. Silva’s triumph was set at risk, the which presupposed not only leaving San Salvador without the best mayor it has had in recent history, but of hanging in the balance such a strategic place as the capital city municipal office. It was then when the FMLN came to its senses and decided to cede ground on the question of the banner. It was thought that this would mean an advance in the consolidation of the coalition because, supposedly it was the orthodox members of the FMLN who had maintained such a closed and unmovable position, but this was not the case.

From one day to the next it seemed as if the CDU considered that allying itself with the FMLN implied "judging the coherency of its political posture and proposal" and it preferred "to sacrifice its legitimate interests as an electoral force" rather than commit such a heresy. The explanations it presents in the communiqué are not very convincing. It points out, in the first place, that "throughout the negotiations we have found that the sector which dominates the leadership of the FMLN holds a rigid and position marked by ideological considerations and that in practice it has set itself to make the participation of the CDU unviable". A sign of this would be the ratification of a resolution which demanded separate banners in order to form a coalition; a presumed intent to divide the CDU by negotiation with each party separately; and, finally, the petition of a quota in the Municipal Council which "would make of the FMLN the dominant political force with the majority over and above the other political and social forces in the municipal coalition".

To begin with, the argument concerning the resolution which demands separate banners in the FMLN falls apart from its own weight when faced with the acceptance of the FMLN to participate in the elections under the banner of the coalition. Then, with respect to the FMLN’s intentions to divide the CDU, it must be said that nothing was known about that. Faced with public opinion it was always clear that the forces making the pact were the FMLN and the CDU. It appears that no one was confused on this point. Above all, taking into account that the protagonism of the parties which make up the so called center is practically null and void and that those who are most noticeable are consistently the members of the Democratic Convergence (Ruben Zamora and Jorge Villacorta, among others). A last point involves the question of the quota which sparked reason for doubt because of the fact that the CDU came to the conclusion that "the current leadership of the FMLN is making its sectorial interests the ones which are privileged over and above the interests of the party". Would it not be fair to accuse the CDU of doing exactly the same thing?

The CDU simply refused to continue trying to come to an agreement. It was not in the least willing to cede its position on the idea of homogenizing the Municipal Council. In this it demonstrated complete inflexibility. Because: where is it written that the FMLN had to comply to the spirit and letter of every one of the conditions imposed by the CDU? Moreover, the question is who guaranteed that the satisfaction of those conditions was the most convenient for the process of re-electing Hector Silva? In the specific case of the makeup of the Council, at first blush it does not appear to be fair and just —although it would have to be discussed— that the party which held the most votes might not have a right to a greater quota of representativity.

The fact that the rupture of the coalition by the CDU has taken place over the matter of the Council takes the wind completely out of the sails of its discourse and its criticism of the FMLN. The ideological rigidity of the FMLN leadership is no argument in favor of the CDU but, rather, an excuse. Who in the world does not know that in the FMLN there are people with rigid postures and positions? The Democratic Convergence and the Democratic Party more than anyone —one because this is not the first time that it allied itself with the FMLN and the other because it comes from within that very party—, ought to know from time-worn lessons about those orthodox postures which are neither new nor really the root of the problem. What was under discussion was a practical question, and that is the support for the candidacy of someone who has demonstrated that he is a person qualified to take the reins of leadership for the future of San Salvador —for which reason, by the by, those parties support him— and not for ideological reasons, We are not dealing here with the question of arriving at a consensus on what the role of the state should be or the most adequate position for the left to take concerning neo-liberalism.

To claim that the CDU’s motive force is "to serve the people" but not for "sectarian party ambition" and that it does not arise from a desire to "bargain for public positions in office" is contradicted by its decision to take away Silva’s support only because the distribution of seats on the Municipal Council was in question. It is obvious that its decision makes the re-election of the mayor more difficult and makes things easier for ARENA. Where, then, is its interest in "serving the people" when it acts in this way, knowing that the people are satisfied with the Silva administration and tired for ARENA’s political practice?

On the other hand, that this has been done while appealing to "coherence with its own proposals" is almost laughable. What proposals? If what is being referred to are ideas that uphold the unity of the parties that make up the CDU, they are taking down their sleeve, because no one knows what they are. If, on the other hand, what is being referred to are exigencies posed as a requirement for alliance with the FMLN, then it turns out that the CDU is not "making its sectorial interests prevail over an above the interests of the capital city" any more than the FMLN. All in all —and what is worse— what coherence are we talking about? Is it the case that the PD and the CD had positions coherent with anything at all? Is it, then, the case that the very existence of the CDU, whose unity appears to be the result of nothing more than the danger of disappearing at the voting booths, coherent with reality?

FREE TRADE BETWEEN CHILE AND CENTRAL AMERICA?

Since the beginning of the decade of the 1990’s important movements have taken place with an eye to developing free trade agreements between Central America and other countries. The most important have been the negotiations with Mexico, the Free Trade Agreement signed with the Dominican Republic in 1998 and, more recently, the signing of a free trade agreement with Chile.

It is still not clear if, in the last analysis, free trade agreements will have positive effects on production and jobs in Central America, especially when one considers that Chile and Mexico can offer a much wider range of exports than El Salvador or even than Central America as a whole. In fact, it has been confirmed that, in similar cases, the country with the lowest level of development, relatively speaking, assumes the greatest costs. This is the case, for example, with the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada which meant that Canada ended up closing businesses, reducing salaries and deepening its foreign debt with the U.S.

All in all, in the context of the twentieth summit meeting of the Central American presidents last October 18, attended, as well, by the President of Chile, Chile and the Central American countries hurriedly signed an agreement which, although it was ostensibly a Free Trade Agreement, in reality did not contain even the lists of merchandise, tariffs, time frame for payments and other details which would be applied to international commerce between the countries mentioned. According to official sources, this premature signing of the agreement had as its goal that Central America and Chile might form a "block" in negotiations for the projected Free Trade Area of the Americas; leaving until later important aspects such as the lowering or elimination of trade barriers, the products to be included, customs procedures, anti-dumping mechanisms, etc.

The agreement between Central America and Chile has been signed with the rapidity which is in contrast with the slow process of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, negotiations which have been in process since 1991. The Free Trade Agreement with Mexico is still not complete after almost 8 years of negotiation owing to the refining of "details" which in reality constitute the central point in question: time frames, customs agreements, products affects, which, in the case of the Free Trade Agreement with Chile, have simply been put off.

The supposed Free Trade Agreement with Chile would be made up of general and bilateral aspects. The first are a group of common norms which will be applied to international commerce among all the countries involved; while the second means particular aspects which each country will negotiate separately with Chile and which are related principally to customs duties and lists of products. According to the Viceminister of Economy of El Salvador, Eduardo Ayala Grimaldi, in the Free Trade Agreement with Chile the lifting of customs duties will be bilateral owing to the "particularities" of each country. For the moment, the only concrete proposal presented to Chile consists in the fact that its agricultural and livestock products might enter Central America during a period of time which does not surpass 16 years.

Given the experience with Mexico, the Free Trade Agreement with Chile could be considered to be very far off indeed, because of the fact that after eight years of negotiations with Mexico there is still no full consensus about the lists of products and the periods of time established for the lowering of tariff barriers and, on repeated occasions incidents have occurred provoked by customs and tariff procedures. This in spite of the official declarations of good will and the willingness of the presidents of Mexico and the Central American countries.

It should be noted that, up until now, only Costa Rica has signed a treaty which includes lowering of tariff barriers for the exchange of products with Chile. According to Costa Rican functionaries, milk products, chickens, beans, vegetables and forestry products are excluded because their producers are seeking markets principally for the purpose of expanding their markets in Central and North America.

The reactions of the principal business associations concerning this proposal have not been made public until now, but it is not a wild supposition to affirm that they are not very enthusiastic about the possibility of closure on a Free Trade Agreement with Chile, especially if we consider its repeated petitions to review the lowering of tariff barriers and solicit protection measure with regard to what are considered to be unfair business practices.

The most recent indications of this behavior are varied and reflect the concern of the business sector about competition from foreign products. And so, at the beginning of October the National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP, for its initials in Spanish) solicited from the Ministry of the Economy, Miguel Lacayo, that measures be taken to compensate for the damage which products originating from China would cause to national producers and, moreover, would suggest the adoption of common tariff barriers for Central America with the objective of avoiding "triangulation" of foreign products in the area. Representatives of the agriculture and livestock sector, for their part, have presented a petition to Lacayo that would halt the entering of agricultural and livestock products which have been subsidized into the country or which would be sold at a lower price than the cost of production in their countries of origin.

Given this, Lacayo limited himself to stating that the implementation of measures requested by the business associations "is complicated", but that the application of a compensatory tariff for all of those products which originate from continental China is being evaluated. With regard to the Free Trade Agreement with Chile, businessmen’s fears are being reinforced because, owing to the fact that Costa Rica pushed forward the measure for lowering tariff barriers with that South American country, the triangulation of Chilean products from Costa Rica has become feasible.

In practice, the Free Trade Agreement with Chile will not have implications for the opening up or access to markets as long as the specific commercial agreements are not negotiated and the present conditions are altered; nevertheless, its implementation might carry with it negative repercussions for the agricultural and livestock sector and for national industry as well. Access to the offer of Chilean products would imply the appearance of products considered to be competitive with the non-traditional products from El Salvador and that, for the same reason, national production of non-traditional exports would be obstructed, as much in Central America as in the world context.

On the other hand, a Free Trade Agreement could also become an opportunity for broadening the demand for national production although it would presuppose a situation in which there would have to be a competitive productive apparatus capable of confronting the challenge of the opening up of the markets. Lamentably, at least in the case of El Salvador, a rapid advance toward free trade is being aimed for without taking the parallel measures for improving competition for business by means of programs for industrial reconversion, diversification of agricultural exports or the sharing of science and technology.

Faced with the liberalization of commerce, it becomes necessary for the state to adopt programs which improve the possibilities of a successful insertion into the international market. It is not only a question of signing treaties, but of creating internal conditions beforehand for the treaties which are translated into benefits for the population, and this necessarily involves the creation of programs directed towards diversifying exports and improving their capacity for competition.

SNARES AND PITFALLS IN THE DEBATE OVER THE CASINOS

As we have pointed out on previous occasions (Proceso, 874), underlying the intentional heating up and intensification of focus on the topic of the casinos, much political maneuvering is hidden. Hidden beneath the virulent moral conservatism, from which vantage point the operation of the gaming houses has been "satanized", operate political interests not so hidden and not so new. It is sufficient to take note of from which side the most visceral attacks and the most moralistic diatribes have proceeded in order to understand who will benefit and in what way from this pretended crusade for civic decency and citizen protection.

The crusade against the casinos has gone through two stages, in both the role of the newspaper El Diario de Hoy has been more than protagonistic. In the first of them, the reporting by the daily newspaper "demonstrated", on the one hand, that the casinos were a possible focal point for infection of the values and beliefs of Salvadoran society and, on the other, that their proprietors were linked with activities so diverse as narcotics trafficking and terrorism. So it is that if at one moment the casinos per se represented a potential danger for the moral health of the people, the fact that their owners lived in illegality made it possible that the possibly pernicious would become the surely harmful.

It was necessary, then, to take measures regarding this situation and seek out those who are responsible for the fact that such dins of iniquity could have been installed with such ease in Salvadoran territory. As was to be expected, the eyes of public opinion turn principally toward the mayors in whose municipalities the casinos operated. El Diario de Hoy facilitated the task of finding the guilty ones and it was centered on the Mayor of San Salvador, Hector Silva. According to the daily newspaper and the rightwing parties, Silva was guilty on two counts: by commission and by omission. The mayor had not only permitted the Municipal Council to issue the pertinent licenses for the operation of the casinos, but, moreover, had not taken the trouble to investigate the criminal antecedents of the owners of these casinos.

What should be done about this? Silva proposed that it be the inhabitants of the capital city who would decide about the question by means of a plebiscite. The results of this would clear up whether the mayor’s office could continue issuing licenses or not for the establishment of this kind of business. Immediately, ARENA and the editorial writers of El Diario de Hoy (of those whom one should never exclude from the front page) hurled themselves against the proposal, calling it populist, useless and accusing it of harboring electoral intentions. Nevertheless, the final blow to the plebiscite was given by the Legislative Assembly when it reformed Article 4, clause 24 of the Municipal Code. With this reform, the mayors’ office lost the power to issue permission for the installation of new gaming houses or to renew the permission of those already existing and, as a consequence, the holding of the plebiscite no longer made sense (at least on one of the points in question).

But El Diario de Hoy was not satisfied to suggest a certain complicity —a certain arrangement— of the Municipal Council of the Mayor’s Office with the owners of the casinos and to crucify Silva as the principal person responsible for the establishment of the empire of evil. Three days after the Legislative Assembly reformed the Municipal Code, the writers for that daily, basing themselves on the possession of a document from the Mayor’s Office, "discovering" that the plebiscite could be manipulated so that the results could be inclined to favor the interests of the owners of the casinos.

The second round of the political-moral crusade against the casinos (and against Silva), began in this way. In it, the evil was not limited to the owners of the casinos and the supposed procurement activity of the capital city’s mayor, but also extended its tentacles to the mechanism of citizen participation proposed by the mayor in order to declare the problem null and void. The supposed journalists who delegitimized the plebiscite were, fundamentally, two. On the one hand, his credibility would depend on the fact that it was designed and carried out by groups outside the mayor’s office and, on the other, that the mayor’s office harbored occult interests in the operation of the casinos. When they read the document and "discovered" that Silva and his team would be "the only authority in the process", they drew the inexorable conclusion that the plebiscite lacked legitimacy.

Obviously, the winner of this crusade was ARENA, because with ARENA Silva’s honesty was held in check and it would turn over to its novel candidate for the mayor’s office, Luis Cardenal, the adequate tools for smearing the person who will be the principal contender in the municipal elections of the year 2000. So now, those who had lost in this moralizing joust are not only, as it would appear, the FMLN and Silva, but also the citizenry in general. The explanation of this is to be found in ARENA’s deep political motivations for delegitimizing the plebiscite and not only in terms of the possible electoral capital that the smearing of Silva would produce.

It is common knowledge —even for some members of the party— that ARENA fears consensus and the participation of broad sectors of the society in decision-making. In this sense, it is probable that the government party would fear and oppose the plebiscite, not so much because they fear that the sympathies of the citizens would incline towards Silva, nor even because from him would come dispositions contrary to their rancid moral conservatism, but because of the political precedent which would have been established. In the best of cases, the holding of the plebiscite would have shown the citizenry a new way of influencing the formation of the policies which affect their daily life: a modality which would represent an alternative to the discredited periodic elections of some government leaders from extremely disqualified parties.

For a party accustomed to political solipsism and with a certain taste for despotism, the idea that Salvadoran society might come to demand —or at least approve— mechanisms of direct participation in policies could not be more terrifying. What would have happened if the Silva experiment had succeeded and important social sectors had petitioned the government that the mechanism of the plebiscite would also apply to important decisions of the executive and the cabinet? In this sense, ARENA and the groups close to them do not, in reality, fear the specific results of the plebiscite concerning the casinos, but rather the mechanism in and of itself. It is something very different to aim to govern in such a way that the Salvadoran people recognize that the people have the power of decision over the way things are governed.

The lessons of this politico-moralistic crusade around the casinos are several and we will emphasize two of these. The first is that such a thing as the professionalization of the media (with all the weight of ethics which that implies) does not come to more —at least in the case of El Diario de Hoy— than simple flirtation and an excuse for self-praise. As in other cases, that morning daily was concerned more with the inauguration and generation of opposition against than informing the population objectively and in a thoughtful manner on what was happening. The second is that citizen participation in politics not restricted to elections or manipulated and directed by government influence, although this is still far from being an operative reality. It is still far from being more than a hackneyed cliché in empty presidential discourse.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE. The 20^th Summit Conference of the Central American Presidents and those of the Dominican Republic and the Prime Minister of Belize was held in Guatemala ending on 19 October with the principal objective of discussing the vulnerability of the region on the question of natural disasters. One of the petitions presented at the event was that the help promised by the international community came with greater rapidity in order to diminish the disasters and make effective plans for prevention. In his inaugural address, the president of Guatemala, Alvaro Arzú stated that the region has begun efforts at social and productive investment in order to improve the conditions of life of our populations and in order to confront the international demands for modernity, but that the recent natural disasters have not permitted this to take place. The president of El Salvador, Francisco Flores, for his part, presented three proposals. The first, to set up mechanisms of defense against the injustice occasioned by unfair business practices. The second, to make Central America a center for the handling of cargo because it is located between two big markets of the North and South. Finally, Flores proposed the need to implement correct supervision of the financial transactions, which, according to his statements, are very much related to the countries of the region (La Prensa Gráfica, October 19, p. 4).

AGREEMENTS. During the 20^th Summit conference of the presidents of Central America, the governments of Chile, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua agreed, through the good offices of their Foreign Affairs Ministers, to begin permanent dialogue on the coordination of political questions and international matters of special interest for financial organisms, among others. In the same way, they agreed to adopt a plan for the reduction of vulnerability and disasters in the region and called upon the international community for the financial support necessary for reconstruction and development. Likewise, they established coordinated activities in international economic forums for the purpose of improving the level of access to products on the big international markets and contributing to the process of integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Salvadoran Minister of the Interior, Mario Acosta Oertel, who participated in the summit conference, declared that this would serve to propose coordinated actions which would help to reduce the vulnerability of the region with regard to natural phenomena. "In our case," he stated, "it depends on the coordination which should take place regionally because there are areas shared with Guatemala and Honduras". With respect to this, a proposal was made that the countries affected should develop certain infrastructure and coordination (La Prensa Gráfica, October 19, p. 5 and El Diario de Hoy, October 20, p. 6).

COALITION. The FMLN and the USC together with the movement named The Citizens’ Initiative, have repeatedly called upon the coalition to support the Mayor of San Salvador, Hector Silva, as a candidate for the capital city’s mayor. "We come to tell you what we have always said...we are going to work together so that Hector Silva might continue as Mayor of San Salvador", stated Abraham Rodríguez, Secretary General of the USC. Nevertheless, the United Democratic Center (CDU) which, at one point participated in the alliance, withdrew. The CDU explained the reasons for its withdrawal from the race in a press communiqué. One of his arguments was that they had encountered "a rigid and ideologized position in a sector of the FMLN". FMLN General Coordinator, Fabio Castillo, denied this declaration. "It seems incomprehensible to us. The candidacy has been unanimously supported by all of the militants in the country", he declared. In spite of the desertion of the CDU, Silva is satisfied with the alliance because it can count on the votes of a political plurality. "I lament the decision [of the CDU". I believe that they committed an error, but that is their right", stated the mayor. Likewise, Silva declared that he did not feel threatened by the participation of Luis Cardenal, of ARENA, and stated that in upcoming debates he will highlight the work carried out during the three years of the FMLN in the Mayor’s Office (El Diario de Hoy, October 16, p. 10).

DEMAND. The FMLN presented a legal demand, on October 14, against ARENA because it considers that ARENA violated the electoral law on Article 230 which prohibits political parties to engage in propaganda work before the established time. Fabio Castillo, General Coordinator of the FMLN, presented the demand before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). This because ARENA published, on October 10 and 12, a paid ad in which it announced the nomination of Luis Cardenal as a candidate for mayor for San Salvador. The Constitution of the Republic establishes the fact that the electoral propaganda by Municipal Councils begins one month before the elections. The FMLN considers that ARENA is influencing voters when the published matter states that "Cardenal is the future mayor of San Salvador". One day later, Cardenal defended himself against the accusations, "indignant and surprised" by the complaint. "This really bothers me because I have always been respectful of the law", he stated. He declared that he was not going to suspend his messages. "What I have been trying to do is let the people know what I think with respect to the problems which affect them", stated Cardenal. Likewise, he accused Silva of using the institutional campaign of the municipality to promote himself. He argued, in his defense, that Silva used state funds to carry out his campaign, while he [Cardenal] used those of his party (El Diario de Hoy, October 15, p. 8 and October 16, p. 12).

ARENA. A complaint against the capital city mayor, Hector Silva, was presented by the legal representative of ARENA, Gerardo Suvillaga on October 10, arguing that Silva has acted against the Electoral Code in inciting the voters in his favor, in announcements published by a local daily under the theme of "San Salvador, a project that must continue". In order to focus its complaint, ARENA mentioned an interview with Silva in which the mayor accepts that the topic is part of a campaign for his re-election to the mayor’s office. In this sense, ARENA declared that Silva will spend public funds for his publicity campaign and that this was begun before the time stipulated by regulations. Suvillaga’s petition argued that the fine be paid by the mayor in the amount of 50,000 colones. In spite of the fact that this complaint was presented immediately after the FMLN filed two complaints against the candidate for mayor for the ARENA party, Luis Cardenal, Suvillaga declared that it is not a counterattack against that left party. "We had not presented the complaint before because of some delays", he argued. The first complaint of the FMLN against ARENA was for having engaged in proselytism before the stipulated time; the second, imposed on October 20, was because of the supposed use of state resources. Left leaders have affirmed that ARENA used, on October 12, national vehicles to carry out political propaganda (El Diario de Hoy, October 21, p. 14).

CARDENAL. During an interview by a daily newspaper on October 19, ARENA candidate for mayor, Luis Cardenal lashed out against the operation of the casinos in El Salvador. For him, the capital city mayor, Hector Silva, is trying to deceive the population. Part of this accusation would be centered on the efforts of Silva to carry out a plebiscite in which it would ask the capital city residents if they accepted the operation of the casinos in the country or not. Cardenal is of the opinion that underlying the call for a plebiscite lies the hidden intention of political promotion. He considers that Silva wants us to believe that there is a wide opening and broad participation, but in this he wanted to use state funds to handle activists, to test its electoral machinery and "map out" the voters of San Salvador in an improved way. Concerning the casinos, the ARENA candidate has a clear position: he is against them and wishes to have the owners investigated. Cardenal is of the opinion that El Salvador is not ready to have this kind of business. "These activities send messages to people with economic problems that life is a question of luck, that easy money is possible or that risks can be taken without paying the consequences", he stated. For Cardenal, Silva did not do the correct thing when he approved the operation of the casinos and evaluated that the current mayor is not the ideal person to lead the city of San Salvador (El Diario de Hoy, October 20, p. 22 and 23).