The problems in the Salvadoran Institute for Social Security (ISSS)

The latest scandal of the political center

Current situation of land tenure

The folly of the Ibero-American summit conference

News Briefs

THE PROBLEMS IN THE SALVADORAN INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY (ISSS)

The problems in the Salvadoran Institute for Social Security (ISSS) are not new. During the decade of the 1980´s, trade unionists of the ISSS showed signs, during adverse circumstances, of their willingness to run great risks. During that period the political motivations which inspired the trade union leaders of the institute were hidden. Nevertheless, those political motives coexisted with interests which were strictly labor matters, which were, definitively speaking, motivations which led the majority of the ISSS workers sympathize with and even support the trade unionists.

At that point in time it was easy for the governmental authorities to reject the workers’ petitions because it was sufficient to interpret them as part of a conspiracy by the armed left to destabilize the country. If this were the case, there could be no other response than coercion of those who protested. Once the conflict was over, the workers could draw the lines of demarcation with more clarity between their political interests and their interests as trade unionists. In this new state of affairs, urgent needs, which were previously hidden as much under revolutionary phraseology as under government propaganda, they occupied a number one place —almost an exclusive place— in the demands of the labor movement of the social security institute.

There have been many protests, demands and pressures applied by the workers, but, as a general rule, the responses of the authorities have been incomplete, many times even respect for the commitments previously agreed upon. In a dynamic which, for periods of time, has taken on the appearance of mutual intransigence, the spirits of the workers of social security have become so heated as to find issue in a situation such as what is happening now in which they seem to be willing to go to the final consequences to make the government of Francisco Flores comply with commitments agreed upon by the previous presidential administration. The government’s response has tipped dangerously towards measures involving force in order to deal with problems which are within its power to resolve by peaceful means. Very much in tune with the way political decisions were taken in the old days, he has ordered the militarization of the health centers with the objective of controlling and pressuring the trade unionists. This, far from contributing to the resolution of the problem, has added a new element of tension in an atmosphere already marked by tension on both sides. At this writing, the authorities have been neither audacious nor creative in drawing up a proposal for a solution to the problem; a proposal which makes provision for the commitments previously assumed as well as with the needs of the workers.

The problem in the social security institute is, then, a problem between the government and the workers of the institution. It is a problem which originates in the lack of satisfaction on the part of the workers with regard to their labor conditions. Their petitions and demands are clear on this point. But the workers of the social security institute are irritated by the way in which the government of Francisco Flores has taken up the commitments agreed upon by the previous presidential administration. On a last point, they are fearful of the consequences that might be forthcoming for them and their families on the implementation of the process of privatization of the health sector. It is the responsibility of the government to take responsibility for these concerns and demands; not to pay attention to them, to minimize them or, even worse, to respond in an aggressive way with verbal or real threats, all of which will only draw out matters indefinitely. And this brings us to a third matter of discord: the public which uses the health services offered by ISSS.

The problem with ISSS is, certainly, basically, a problem between the workers of the institution and the governmental authorities. From this it can be assumed that in order to reach a solution on the issues, both sides must demonstrate a greater willingness and flexibility. But it is not only a question of a problem between the workers of the institution and the authorities, but of a problem between those who use the services of the ISSS, the ISSS and the government, which means that matters become more complex at least in two ways: solutions and interpretations. On the level of solutions, once the impact on those who use the services who are suffering from the suspension of services which the social security institute offers but which have been suspended, they take note that solutions must be found during a period of time which cannot be a prolonged period because, should they prolong the situation, the health and life of many people would be at risk. This is to say, a strike in the principal social security institution of the country has implications of a very different nature from a strike which takes place in a private business of institute of another kind. From this premise it follows that solutions proposed to resolve a conflict such as social security, as much for the governmental side as for the workers’ side ought to be seriously considered as to the impact of the prolongation of the suspension of services on those who use the services of the social security institute (patients and potential patients).

At the level of interpretation is where the topic of patients and potential patients becomes an issue. The written press has not erred on the side of lack of effort —they call it informing the public— in making the sufferings of those who are not attended promptly by some negligent employees. The government does not hesitate to hold the social security workers responsible for the damage to the health of the Salvadoran people which the actions of the social security workers’ actions have occasioned. ARENA deputy Norman Quijano declares that his party has always advocated for the health of the Salvadoran people. The National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP) declares itself in defense "of our workers", deprived of the right to health because of the "interests of some few people". Finally, a whole stream of appreciations which, taken as a whole, are dominated by the same reading of the problem: the social security workers are placing their interests above the health of the Salvadoran people—while only a few ask objectively how legitimate they are. Conclusion: the social security workers are a bunch of irresponsible folk who should be condemned absolutely. And the government’s responsibility? It would seem that in the interpretations which predominate in the problem of social security, it turns out once again that the government is the victim of a destabilizing conspiracy as always.

THE LATEST SCANDAL OF THE POLITICAL CENTER

Deputy Juan Ramón Medrano was later in protesting the publication of "The capricious CDU" in Proceso 875 than the CDU was in beginning to break apart noisily. Let us look back a little. The publication against which Medrano reacted, more than questioning the suppression of support for the CDU —a coalition which belongs to his party, the PD— for the re-election of Hector Silva, ended by asking to what coherence and proposals those of the CDU were appealing when, in a press communiqué, he wished to explain the failure of the alliance with the FMLN in support of Silva. In an effort by Medrano to respond to those questionings arises his article "The Capricious CDU or the Arrogant FMLN?", published in La Prensa Gráfica last November 12.

What is curious is that, days before the publication of that response, the PPL, another of the parties which make up the CDU, had already taken the first step in what today is the most recent conflict between the parties of the center. This first step was taken by Ernesto Vilanova, head of the PPL, who, on November 8 sought the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) in order to obtain legal authorization in order to use the name and symbols of the coalition. That the PPL beat the PD to the punch and the CD —third party member of the CDU— was the one which began to announce it in the national press. And Vilanova, himself, did not hesitate to recognize it when, in an interview held by El Diario de Hoy, he argued that Ruben Zamora, leader of the CD, "wished to appropriate the name of the CDU, but was not sufficiently bold to do so". "Some are more clever than others, if you wish to see the matter in that light —confirmed the politician—, but we have not stolen anyone’s name".

If it is a question of legal theft, Vilanova was right on this last point because, according to electoral legislation, the name and symbols of a coalition are worth more when the coalition competes with the rest of the parties in an electoral race. Once that event is over, the coalition disappears officially. It is on this point that the PPL aims to support its actions when its general secretary declares that the "CDU is no one" and there was no written commitment by either parties for the conformation of the coalition which would prohibit one of them from using the coalition’s symbols.

What there was —and this is a fact upon which Vilanova’s arguments do not succeed in casting doubt—, a verbal commitment, confidence in the word of the rest of the members of the coalition. After the last presidential elections, in which the CDU obtained an advantageous third place, the PD, the CD and the PPL, together with the movement FE, decided to continue working together in order to participate anew as a coalition in the elections of March of next year. It is this commitment that the PPL is violating when it enters into proceedings so that his party might have the name and the banner of the CDU.

On several previous occasions we have pointed out the fragility which tends to characterize the unifying initiatives of small parties. Specifically in the case of the CDU, more than once serious doubts have been expressed concerning the ideological coincidences among the parties which make it up. Never has there been an attempt by its leaders to clarify what it is, exactly, which the PD and the CD have in common beyond an interest in pushing forward a "center alternative" which "might contribute to the depolarization" of the country. The nature of the link between these two parties and the PPL —whose members appear to lean ideologically towards the right— awaken even more concerns.

With his recent show of "cleverness", the only thing Vilanova has managed to do is assure the continuation of this eternal confusion. That he himself explains that the PD and the CD planned to "throw the PPL out" of the coalition in order to make up a new alliance which was more social democratic, is nothing more than the confirmation that the fundamental points upheld by the CDU were overwhelmingly untenable. And that, independent of the truth or falsehood of Vilanova’s declarations.

When Proceso asked about the specific platform and the coherence to which the CDU leaders alluded in its communiqué, what was referred to, exactly, is what is now illustrated clear as day: that there is no firm alternative proposal capable of joining together the parties of the coalition (unless a minimal glimmer of coherence might be seen in the last dirty intrigue of the PPL?). But Medrano’s response to such a piece of advice does not take into account the facts and diverts the question to other areas which have nothing to do with the problem. To argue that the strengthening of the CDU in the last elections is owing to "the proposals for the non-polarization of the country, the unification of the moderate opposition forces and the position of national consensus without demagogic trimmings", evades the basic question.

In the first place, it should be recalled that the increase in the number of votes in favor of the CDU in the presidential elections had more to do with the discontent of those who sympathize with the FMLN than with a clear identification of the voters with a project of "non-polarization" or with his blind conviction in the non-demagogic offers of Zamora.

In second place, the "unification of the moderate forces of opposition" fall apart from their own weight when compared with the facts. There is no unification. And there is none because, at bottom, there is nothing which would justify it except the fear that the "small ones" might disappear from the political stage. What is now happening in the PPL provides still more cause for disenchantment but not for surprise. It was Vilanova who jumped ahead this time, but it could just as well have been any of the other leaders of the coalition.

Another outraged declaration by Medrano indicates that "there is a clear intention by "political analysts" linked to one or the other extreme position to insist on denying the viability of a third option for the country and so they paint the political world in black and white, that is to say in terms of the radical left or radical right and he who is not one of these two is attacked in campaigns as causing a lack of prestige". Again, the most recent events give the lie to his declaration. It is not that "campaigns to cause a lack of prestige" against the "viability of the center options" do not exist, it is that reality has shown on many occasions —the most recent crisis of the CDU is one more among them— that neither the electoral preferences nor, much less, the joint action of the center parties which make possible that intermediate option which the deputy says he defends.

This joint activity could be summed up basically in two points: (a) the center parties are not born of initiatives by social sectors interested in offering true alternatives to the voters as they confront the large parties, but rather they are splinters from these very parties whose leaders seem more interested in obtaining quotas of power than in turning their parties into attractive political proposals; (b) given their scant reception, these small parties are obliged to form coalitions among themselves but the ambitions for power of each of their leaders make these coalitions fragile in the extreme and not very credible. These are the reasons which make the political center not very viable and not a campaign which in any case would not make sense. That the small parties live by digging their own tomb is something which the media takes account at every opportunity as the next electoral race nears. In order to be aware of this state of affairs, one does not have to be a radical nor a sympathizer with the extremes which those who hold up the banner of the center seem to like so much.

CURRENT SITUATION OF LAND TENURE

Since the abolition of communal property during the XIX century, the topic of land tenure has become one which has caused the most conflicts and social instability as the civil war of 1979 to 1992 shows, to take note of the most recent case in point. The agrarian reform of 1980 and the Program for the Transference of Lands (PTT), applied immediately after the end of the civil war, aimed to alleviate the social tensions originating from the concentration of land tenure.

Although it cannot be denied that both programs sensibly changed —at least in legal terms— the tenure of land as property, recent facts continue showing an extensive spreading of lands under cultivation which are rented and a growing number of workers without land. At the same time, the reality of agriculture shows that currently the problem of rural poverty is practically unaltered, while environmental deterioration has reached untenable levels. In this scenario it is important to review what the current situation is with regard to land tenure after the agrarian reform and the PTT, a provision of the Peace Accords, as well as the behavior of agricultural and livestock workers without lands, in order to take note of the fact of how this has affected the reality of agriculture.

According to data from the last study of the agricultural and livestock sector drawn up in 1987 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, approximately 85% of the cultivation was on owned property; nevertheless, more recent data suggests another structure of land tenure not so dominated by private forms of property. If we take into account what the condition of the agricultural and livestock workers who work the land is, we can approximate the real situation of land tenure because data is obtained concerning the specific forms in which the land is being worked. In the first place, it should be noted that of a total of 581,66 workers of the agricultural sector, only 217,289 had access to land, i.e., only 37%.

Additionally, according to data shown on the graph below, for the year 1991-1992 a good part of the workers (48% in all) with access to lands worked them predominantly under forms of indirect possession, in such a way that 42.2% rented land, 4.9% were sharecroppers and 0.9% worked the land as laborers. On the other hand, inherited properties and holdings on cooperative bases reached 36.2% of the total number of workers with access to land.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy that, even for 1991-1992 modalities of free use of the land were to be found because 10.8% of the workers worked it under the modality of holdings, in part because at that moment there was a growing tendency towards forced occupation. It is difficult to hazard a guess as to the implications of the property of the land concerning the use of the same, because the existing data is not clear on this point. Generally, it has been presented in such a way that rental of the land generates negative dynamics because of the natural resources (for example, the over-exploitation of the land), but recent data shows that also in cases of exploitation under private forms of property there exist tendencies for over-exploitation. One indicator of the foregoing is the fact that the principal crop of those who rent and those who are property owners who are beneficiaries of the land reform are basic grains, which presuppose the intensive use of natural resources if they are compared with permanent crops such as coffee, for example. Attending this evidence, it appears that the way in which the natural resources are used does not depend only on the modality of land holding.

There are no recent facts concerning the evolution of the number of families without lands, but it should be noted that its growth has greatly increased during recent decades. Between 1961 and 1971, during the golden age of cotton cultivation, families without lands increased from 30,541 to 112,108 while for 1980 the total reached 220,000 families. The data on agricultural and livestock workers cited above are not directly comparable, but show that approximately 364,000 agricultural and livestock workers did not have access to lands. Evidently, the problem of access to land in El Salvador is related to the elevated population density and to the fact that there are not sufficient lands to satisfy the demand of the agricultural population even in the hypothetical case that they could be equitably distributed.

Renting is the principal modality of land holding in El Salvador, in spite of the agrarian reform and the PTT, suggesting that legal changes in the holding of the land only affected the terminology under which these indirect modalities of possession are exercised, but not the concrete modalities of tenure.

The kind of use made of the land does not seem to be related to the modalities of property holding, given that as many renters as proprietors are principally engaged in the cultivation of basic grains. Additionally, it is important to consider that the majority of agricultural and livestock workers do not have access to land and that this constitutes the largest obstacle to any strategy which aims to reduce rural poverty by means of fomenting agricultural production.

Finally, given Salvadoran experience, it becomes clear that a change in the modalities of land tenure is not a panacea for the problem of rural poverty because this persists even when the modalities of tenure have been legally changed. The relationship of land tenure to other aspects such as access to credit, technical assistance and the prices of agricultural and livestock products should be explored.

THE FOLLY OF THE IBERO-AMERICAN SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Another Ibero-American Summit Conference (today more fragmented than ever) said good-bye to the millenium holding hands with the Cuban regime, the so-called last dictatorship of Latin America. The opportunity of setting in motion a new reflection about the penury and rough edges of economic development in the region is seen to be biased by the official absence of some of the countries, and, more concretely, by the tempting aperitif of the island democracies —violated by the dictator— and the Spanish-speaking nations —violated by foreign intervention. Some 20 countries which breathe freedom and justice, two kings who serve as the living model of political transitions, rebels with a cause filling rolls of photographic film and millions of Latin Americans ignorant of the event which is so much the center of attention in recent days: all of this together constituted the perfect scenario for the thin spectacle of the theatre performed by its participants.

As this is the case, the IX Ibero-American Summit Conference, the central topic of which was the financial situation of the region as it faced a globalized society, left little more than distaste in the mouths of the millions of persons there present —in theory— represented. It was a little more than a stale taste, without doubt, because this summit conference did not take advantage of anything other than the opportunity to "throw flowers" at governmental officials, at their supposed commitment to equality, justice and the freedom of peoples. It took up the banner, moreover of the attack on anti-democratic practices which are the motor forces of the dinosaurs of Cuban power. As a result, other more realistic positions and positions more coherent with reality which run the course of the continent, did not come out and shine as much as the disgrace of a people isolated by oceans and authoritarianism, demonized in the mind of some of the attending dignitaries.

There is no doubt that Castro has few reasons to maintain himself firmly at the head of the Cuban state. And he has done well in recognizing the existence and struggle of those who think, after the revolutionary experience, in favor of political changes inside the country. But the atmosphere which surrounds the Summit Conference indicates how little the Latin American governments as does the island dissidence under the Castro regime. A brief review can throw light upon what is presented here: the government of Alberto Fujimori of Perú was upbraided by the Senate of the U.S., various members of whom recognized —finally— how a dictator engaged in opposing freedom of expression and pluralist political representation. Hugo Chávez does his thing from the Constituent Assembly of Venezuela, sowing uncertainty here and there and something similar to hope inside the country.

The governments of Central America do not end up abandoning the cries for reconstruction after "Mitch" (never consummated and never even begun) and moreover leave behind them that embarrassing swamp of strategic incapacity to deal with any kind of disaster on the isthmus. For their part, Argentina and Chile engage in the capricious sins of defending the recognized violators of human rights by boycotting the Summit Conference. The rejection of foreign intervention, agreed to in the definitive declaration of the conference, calm their consciences as accomplices and, at the same time, strengthen their rejection of the necessary reconciliation with justice which their peoples need, the antithesis of "freedom without anger" cradled in the Spain of the transition and based on "pardon and forgetfulness" which weighs on the recent history of the continent. In Colombia, the much damned and satanized narcotics trafficking industry feeds the many with misery and danger while enriching the few. In Ecuador the social explosion does not end. And so it goes....

Meanwhile, the U.S. does not get involved in matters which must be the exclusive concern of Latin America. As is well-known to all, a good part of the rejection which is administered little by little among the participants of the Summit Conference towards the Cuban regime had as its inspiration the opportune advice of Uncle Sam. In a "shameful" act (as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba called it), high-level functionaries of the U.S. government took the liberty of recommending to the presidents that they make of the Summit Conference a platform to protest against the permanence of Castro on the island. They spoke of making the encounter into a "low level" activity in virtue of the fact that it was held on soil which was profane for any democratic nation. Nevertheless, this did not prevent not only those attending the Summit Conference but also the very General Assembly of the United Nations to condemn —during its eight consecutive period— the imposition by the United States of the economic embargo against the Caribbean nation.

With this it is not a question of saving the dubious legacy of the forty years which the dictatorship is leaving in Cuba. How is it possible to ignore the systematic repression which, day by day, is suffered by any opinion contrary to that of the regime? The act in which this slow work is recognized should not be disparaged---it is work which is all the more praiseworthy because it is performed by the dissidents themselves rather than by the pompous dignitaries who led it—work being done on the island itself in order to construct a better future for the Cuban people? Without any doubt at all, whether one wishes to accept the fact or not, this is one of the most important contributions which the Summit Conference has been able to offer to the people who, either now or later, will have to confront the hard and difficult transition in all aspects of their lives and which today we only see in its earliest manifestations.

Obviously, this is not what is being dealt with here. What is presented is an effort to strip away the veils of the fatuous character of a meeting in which possible paths for the future development of the whole region are sought. Inasmuch as Castro imposed a title Honoris Causa upon the professional work of Fujimori and José María Aznar took note without concession of the impunity with which the civil rights of the population of the island are being denied, the most critical did not see in the Summit Conference more than a well-orchestrated "show" on luxurious stages. While al of this was happening, the population of the continent hurried its measureless and threatening growth, poverty is embedded more and more in the lives of the broad sectors of the Latin American population and violence, of all kinds, is reinforced as a way of life together with the resolution of structural lacks and faults. What is still more lamentable is that those dissidents who were interviewed, photographed and internationalized by an "official" shaking of hands, will not be contemplated in the pain and fear after the lights are put out and the set is taken down, paraphrasing the journalist and Cuban opposition leader Raúl Rivero.

Faced with the arrogance and pride of the Latin American officialdom meeting in Havana —whose lesson for the future is so scanty— the civil society has at least a motive to incline itself, in certain measure, towards the rejection of all kinds of imperialism which aims to put down roots in the depth of Latin America, calling this "North American", "socialist" or internationalist. For this it is that the critics of the Cuban regime come out in a context such as the region is currently experiencing: on this side of the ocean we already have representatives of real dictatorships who use democracy as an instrument to ignore the demands of the people. Legitimated by the doubtfully representative vote, our political leaders make of the system their own shell inside of which there is nothing but air. It is necessary to criticize these examples of anti-democracy, comfortably installed in their niches of power, it is necessary to criticize them. It is against their practices of authoritarianism and incapacity which we must fight.

STRIKE. In spite of the fact that the strike in the Salvadoran Institute for Social Security (ISSS) was declared illegal by the Third Labor Court, the trade unionists of that health center continued their work stoppage which has been in effect since November 15. The Union of the Workers of the ISSS (STISSS) announced on November 17 the suspension of outpatient care at a national level, according to them, owing to the fact that they had not received any governmental response to their demands. "The President [Francisco Flores] must seek a solution to this problem. We are asking people to mediate this conflict", declared the secretary of STISSS, Oscar Aguilar, explaining that a petition had been prepared asking for the conformation of a high level commission. Aguilar added that the trade unionist will ignore the judge’s resolution. The judge had stipulated a period of time ending on November 17 requiring the workers to return to their jobs. Nevertheless, Flores was emphatic in saying that he will not create a commission. The President has said that he will apply the force of law against the strikers, "for maintaining a delinquent attitude", in taking the clinics by force and denying medical attention to potential patients. "They are shouting that they are going to kill the director of the Social Security Institute, in their slogans, in such a way that we are already dealing with complete delinquent behavior", stated the president (La Prensa Gráfica, November 18, p. 4–5).

DISCOUNTS. The Salvadoran Institute for Social Security (ISSS) applied the first discounts to the checks of the workers who participated in the strikes. Those who did not work on October 28 and 29 were discounted three days of pay and those who did not work one day were discounted two days’ pay. The discounts are to be applied to the November checks, according to declarations of the Sub-Director of the ISSS, Emilio Velasco. The functionary did not detail how many employees had received discounts nor how much the amount of the sanction was. "In these circumstances it is a little difficult to handle absolute numbers. Here it is a question of being as just as possible so that those who have sinned less may not be affected", stated Velasco. The discount arising from the present strike will be applied to the check for the month of December. For their part, the workers’ and doctors’ unions of the ISSS —STISSS and SIMETRISSS— declared that they would not back off in spite of the sanctions. The secretary of STISSS, Oscar Aguilar stated "that the constitution allows us to defend our sacred rights to a collective contract". Meanwhile the secretary of the doctors’ union, René Zapata stated that "it is not correct that they have applied discounts and have fired people when we are engaged in a work stoppage. We are dealing with emergencies, older people and children" (La Prensa Gráfica, November 19, p. 4).

EMERGENCY. The Directive Council of the Social Security Institute declared on November 23 that a state of emergency existed in that institution. This is to say that the government will seek alternatives to the provision of health services given the work stoppage which is being maintained by the trade unionists as of November 15. The President of the Council and the current Minister of Labor, Jorge Nieto, made these declarations and Jorge Nieto made the following statement: "Public interest has primacy over private interest and we are faced with a situation involving a public service [the provision of which] is obligatory in nature". For his part, the Vice Minister of Health, Herbert Betancourt, stated that the national hospitals are prepared for a national emergency in case there is an increase in the demand by patients who are not being attended in the ISSS:. On the same day, Ana Vilma de Escobar, Director of the ISSS, announced that "those who pay quotas and therefore have a right to service when required can go to private medical clinics". The expenses incurred by those insured under ISSS for these consultations will be paid by the ISSS up to the amount of 175 colones. According to the functionary, this emergency measure is owing to the multiple demands of those insured under ISSS but who have not been attended. The emergency measure will not have retroactive effects and will permit the presence of PNC agents within the ISSS medical centers (La Prensa Gráfica, November 23, p. 4 and El Diario de Hoy, November 24, p. 2).