Arena’s Tricks

Francisco Flores as Seen form Abroad

Legislative Platforms Of The FMLN And ARENA: Economic Aspects

The Needed of Public Deliberation

On February 6, the customary Sunday essay by an international analyst appeared in the DIARIO DE HOY newsmagazine "Vértice". The article, "The Indians, the Law and Order" by the analyst, Carlos Alberto Montaner. This time, Montaner took Central America as an example in order to evoke once again his resounding rejection of any idea with a leftist color and his strong conviction that neoliberalism is the road to democracy and common sense.

According to this Cuban analyst, the governments of the region are examples of "political and economic stability". He holds the opinion, for example, that [...] "the El Salvador of Francisco Flores, with amazing seriousness, without concessions to demagoguery, in the third democratic government administration under the banner of ARENA, continues to ascend [...]. Who could have foreseen this promising panorama some decades back? [...] The military dictatorships which threaten the [Central American] region during almost the whole of the twentieth century—except Costa Rica—showed every sign of becoming an endemic ill impossible to root out. But this has not been the case. Unexpectedly, accommodating itself to what is a planetary tendency, democracy, freedom and the market have become the only legitimate and responsible points of reference in the whole area. [The Central American countries] have finally come into their majority with maturity. With perseverance, progress will come to them as a result of slow and progressive continuance [in this modality]".

To make this kind of declarations about a group of such poor countries plagued by corruption and violence such as ours are tells us at least three things. First of all, that the author is completely ignorant of the profound obstacles which the processes of democratization in Central America currently face. Secondly, that in order to have arrived at this kind of evaluation about the situation in the area, the author did not take into account any information which was not contemplated in the macroeconomic indices. Thirdly, that he was not in the least concerned that the economic measures of the current governments —to which is owing the macroeconomic stability which he applauds— are generating more and more misery.

Each sentence of the paragraph above, cited from Montaner, finds its immediate refutation in the daily reality of citizenship in the Central American ambiance. In the specific case of El Salvador, the "amazing seriousness" which Francisco Flores touts so well, is translated into astounding negligence. The "lack of concession to demagoguery" is, rather, a clear demonstration of authoritarianism, in which solutions arrived at by means of dialogue have no place among the serious social problems to which the country is subject. These problems, represented currently by the prolonged strike of the Social Security trade unions, are what Montaner seems to call "demagoguery". Demagoguery is the denunciation that the health system is in crisis. It is a sign of "astounding seriousness" that the president refuses to recognize this and is not willing to give in to arm-twisting in order to arrive at a solution.

To take the position that the ARENA administrations have been democratic implies tranquilly ignoring abuses of all kinds which ARENA functionaries commit on a daily basis against the indelible democratic institutionality. And, lastly, to declare that El Salvador "continues n the rise" cannot stand by itself unless one asks, on the rise towards what or where? If this is the case, the only upward rise which the country seems to be directing itself is towards economic stagnation, social collapse and a sharpening of citizen insecurity. To declare that a country in which impunity is the norm, in which the distance which separates the politics of society is more and more abysmal, in which the violence and self-involved navel contemplation which characterizes the political parties makes the basis upon which a state of law might be built tremble, to say that it has come "into its majority with maturity" might appear to be a joke in bad taste.

But more than this, there was recently another gesture coming forth from the international community which had the effect of a bull in a chinashop in this country. This is the "Distinguished Statesman" award given to Francisco Flores by the Jewish Association, the Anti-Defamation League", which is the second most important social organization in the United States. This organization paid homage to Flores in order to show its gratitude for having maintained an embassy for El Salvador in Jerusalem. This was the true motivation for the prize. But the presidential spokespersons, so inflamed with Paquito's protagonism in the event, passed the prize off as a recognition of his "qualities as a leader and statesman in government leadership" (see La Prensa Gráfica, February 12, p. 24).

These declarations, added to the fact that the name of the prize was confused with "Statesman of the Year" caused confusion and obstructed the possibility of evaluating what happened in its true dimension. No one understood how such a prize could have been given to Flores at a time which the country is notably wracked with convulsions and his capability in leading it is under scrutiny. This also turned out to be a cruel joke. But what is certain is that the homage was a strictly diplomatic matter and relevant only in the arena of international politics. Accordingly, Flores' participation was successful and this could provide positive repercussions on the economic plane (attracting Jewish investment, for example). But the direction which these possible repercussions might take is more than well known and so there is not much hope in that direction.

All in all, the declaration that Flores has been crowned with laurels by the most powerful country on earth by one of its most influential social groupings, produced ashes in the mouth. On that occasion, a journalist questioned the president in the following manner: "You seem to shine when you are abroad while at home, everything is topsy turvy", to which Flores answered, laughingly, "no one is prophet in his own land". This is a curious response for someone who has taken on a more prophetic than professional attitude. No one expects Flores to be a prophet. What the country has been waiting for months is that Flores might become an efficient government functionary and serve the people as was promised. Because he has not succeeded in demonstrating that he is of such stature that he is given a price for "statesmanship".

He is still more unworthy in having promoted the idea that he has been awarded a prize for his leadership in government. This particular instance of "homage" fell into his lap because of the ostensible show which he has made of his administration. That the Palestinian community in El Salvador has reacted against his attitude and that the explanations provided by his spokespersons concerning the event have definitively been a farce, means nothing to "Paquito". What was important was to act according to what is politically correct, be on good terms with the Jewish community and contradict national public opinion, where he has lost credibility and acceptance.

But what is the most depressing of all this is not Francisco Flores' attitude but rather the evidence that what is politically correct in the world has nothing to do with the conditions in which the greater part of the country’s inhabitants live. It may seem false that public opinion makers who continue bewitching the third world with an obsolete idea of progress, of a history which invariably responds to the adoption of democracy and the free market which is moving upward. And those who give in to the bewitching seance, those who act according to what modern reason expects from them are, of course, worthy of prizes. The world today, Maquiavelian and Hegelian, needs figures such as Francisco Flores, who understand progress as a goal, the achievement of which justifies the means —even an increase in poverty.

At less than two weeks away from the upcoming legislative and municipal elections, the facets of the elections which ought to concern public opinion most are the contents of the electoral platforms of the different political parties in content and, especially, those which greater possibilities for winning —which is to say, ARENA and the FMLN. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gain a vision of the conjunct of party platforms from the information published in the news media and, in general, the majority of the population arrive at the point of only incomplete versions and even slanted or biased information about the planks in the platforms. This contributes to an electoral campaign with little importance to the viewers and one which becomes a mere publicity stunt.

Given this state of affairs, it is important to look deeper into the public understanding of the content of the electoral platforms of the parties in their diverse thematic areas, even in their most general aspects, in order to contribute to a situation in which the elections become a mechanism for defining national development strategies and do not become an empty propaganda happening. The content of the electoral platforms of ARENA and the FMLN in the economic area demand a greater level of publicity because, upon the strategies of both parties and what they propose and implement depend the possibilities for reaching sustainable development in the country. So it is then that the legislative platforms are a good starting point for studying the principal economic proposals of these two parties.

The first thing that draws our attention as we review the two different proposals is that ARENA maintains, without any great modification, their traditional economic offers, concentrating on the task of generating jobs and income as the only way to achieve a reduction in poverty. The FMLN, for its part, poses the necessity for significant change in economic leadership, especially because it proposes a greater level of state intervention in the regulation of economic variables and activity. In what follows below, the principal elements of the electoral platforms presented by both parties —the FMLN and ARENA— are presented along with some of the first reactions to them —which involves only the FMLN— and some general considerations about what is being offered.

The economic proposal of the FMLN for the upcoming legislature contemplates the implementation of measures aimed at creating an "alternative" economic model, which would seek to guarantee market functioning which would preserve majority social interests, give priority to internal and regional demand, promote respect for private property and cooperative property as a social function, combine the opening of the world market with the protection of productive sectors and support very small and small businesses, among other things.

The FMLN's vision is summed up in the consideration given by its proposal to the functions of the state: the state should make sustainable development dynamic, create strategic projects and businesses, redistribute national income and seek social equity. All of this presupposes the need for the state to become an active agent in the search for development, as opposed to the focus of the ARENA party where the state does not play a protagonist role and its function is limited to eliminating obstacles in the path of "the free play of market forces", which are wrongly considered as a panacea for resolving development problems.

Some "urgent" measures that the FMLN proposes in order to confront the economic crisis are: pass a temporary moratorium which would suspend the implementation of embargoes open lines of credit for farmers and small businessmen to preferential rates, facilitate the Central Reserve Bank's capability for fixing interest rates, adopt a flexible monetary exchange rate policy, abandon "unilateral lifting of tariffs", strengthen the development bank, stop privatization, regulate profits for electricity and telephone businesses, fight the fiscal deficit by attacking tax evasion and reforming the tax system so that "those who have more income should pay more taxes"" reduce the Value Added Tax from13% to 10% and promote decentralization of public administration. It should be pointed out, lastly, that the proposal also includes sectorial development plans for agriculture and industry.

The ARENA party, for its part, proposes the "promotion of productive activities which create more jobs, improves the institutional context which permits a harmonious relationship between workers and employers; reduces poverty by increasing income; and an opportune approval of the national general budget in order to satisfy the most deeply felt needs of the population" The areas of action of the ARENA program would be: to strengthen the legal framework for fomenting more national and international investment, legislation for agricultural and industrial as well as agricultural and tourist development in order to root out rural poverty, support the development of very small and small businesses, foment exports, apprenticeship for young people so that they can succeed and, finally, budgetary responsibility.

Farther on, in the section entitled "Commitment to your Future", can also be found proposals for the economic plane which would point towards the creation of conditions for "stability and growth", such as: development of strategic infrastructure and support for production and the promotion of natural resources, exploitation of the ocean and of the tourist industry.

As was to be expected, the ARENA proposals have not generated, up until now, any reaction, in favor of or against, either because they are not new or because they do not contain concrete proposals for achieving and implementing their diverse offerings. For example, no one can question that the party poses as an objective "the reduction of poverty for increasing income", the problem, however, lies in being specific about the measures to be implemented in order to achieve this objective. The FMLN proposals, on the other hand, have been quickly criticized by the business sector which has called them "populist" in nature or "socialist" and "dangerous" for investment and economic growth.

One of the first reactions came from Rafael Castellanos, Director of the Salvadoran Foundation for Economic and Social Development (FUSADES), an institution which can be considered a "think tank" for Salvadoran private enterprise. For Castellanos, the economic proposals of the FMLN "make people afraid because [they represent] a step backward for the country...and [should they be implemented] they would lead the country to stagnation and would scare away investments which are needed to pull the country forward". From his point of view, "when interest rates are played with and a ceiling is established, generally there is pressure brought to bear to lower interests for the person saving and this causes capital flight in the search for better rates abroad". For him, doubtless, "these are measures of a socialist nature".

Then, however, FMLN deputies and members hold an unusual meeting with he members of the National Association for Private Enterprise (ANEP), a business guild which joins together big and very big businesses in the country in order to present their legislative proposals. Although the meeting went swimmingly, it also placed in evidence the discrepancies between ANEP and the FMLN proposal. As the meeting drew to a close, the president of ANEP, Ricardo Simán, expressed the idea that some measures are dangerous and could provoke unemployment and increases in public spending and the fiscal deficit. According to Simán, ANEP is in favor of "regulations, price-fixing and everything which would harm a free market", although he accepted the fact that "there are more points of coincidence in the problems than in the solutions"

In other words, the FMLN proposal bothered ANEP. Afterwards ANEP published a communiqué in which it stated its position with regard to the FMLN in five points: (a) although it recognizes the presence of economic problems, it does not share the FMLN's ideas for their resolution; (b) it is against any measure which restricts freedom for free enterprise; (c) the FMLN proposal causes an increase in the fiscal deficit, inflation, a fall in real salaries, economic instability and restricts investment; (d) it offers greater discretionality to pubic functionaries which allows more room for corruption; and (e) considers that national and foreign investment would be threatened by "interventionist" measure such as the FMLN proposes.

In reality this reaction by the business sector is no surprise because measures such as the fixing of interest rates, regulation of profits for the telephone and electricity businesses, tax reform so that ""hose who have more income pay more taxes" or stopping privatization directly attacks the interests of influential business sectors such as the financial sector —integrated organically in the structure of the ARENA party—, the transnational and national investments which are profiting from the privatization of the telephone company and the distribution electricity and, in general, all of the business sectors which —because they receive higher income than the majority of the population are obliged to pay higher taxes. Nevertheless, the very fact that they affect private enterprise in greater measure does not mean that they are measures which are socialist-leaning in character, as they are presented (in a biased way) given that, from the beginning the FMLN recognizes the importance of the market and private property as necessary for the economic development of the country.

Nevertheless, the FMLN proposal presents various inconsistencies with reference to "urgent" measures as well as medium-range measures. For example, the devaluation of the colon could cause increases in the rates of inflation without this causes increases in exports such as the FMLN proposes. By the same token, a reduction in IVA from 13% to 10% would reduce tax income without this implying any reduction in prices to the consumer, which is the one who pays these taxes.

There are inconsistencies, as well, in the ARENA proposal and the goal of agricultural development comes to the fore as a measure for reducing poverty without, at the same time, presenting a clear sectorial policy. Additionally, ARENA avoids dealing with the heart of the matter on the question of public finances. The need to increase taxes to the sectors which receive greater income. Reduction, or even elimination of tax evasion would lead to higher levels of tax collection funds and an eventual elimination of fiscal deficit. Nevertheless, it is not clear how these increases are to be financed for the provision of education and health services which are required now and which grow together with the population and are indispensable for generating "jobs and income" necessary for reducing poverty.

Although the ARENA proposal has not been the object of any large number of criticisms either from the business or labor sector, we cannot help but take notice of the fact that it does not propose solutions to current problems such as the lowering of real wages, the reduction of growth rates, the widening of the commercial rift, the deepening of the fiscal deficit, the huge increase in bank debts and the freezing of interest rates and bank commissions to the point that even the business sector considers them high.

The FMLN proposal is, doubtless, the most polemic of the two because it proposes three measures which touch the interests of big business: the fixing of interest rates, the suspension of privatization processes and the regulation of business profits. Nevertheless, what is certain is that we will advance down the path of development only with difficulty if we begin exclusively from the implementation of the policies for liberalizing markets because it is also necessary to implement social policies which would allow for greater opportunities for insertion into the international market and permit the regulation of some markets, the dynamics of which are in contradiction with the objectives which transcend economic liberalization itself.

In fact, the final objective of the economic policy is not the promotion of the free market, but the search for sustainable development. In many cases, the absence of state regulations lead to problems such as those which El Salvador is currently experiencing and which necessarily require definitive actions for their correction. The posture of private enterprises as it confronts the topic of state regulation, independently of the concrete proposals of the FMLN, is absolute and leaves no space for any kind of regulations as minimal as this might be. Paradoxically, even in the countries which are considered those with the greatest economic freedom regulation of interest rates exist as well as monopolistic activities and all kinds of business practices which attack consumer rights, to mention only some few examples.

It is undeniable that in order to achieve sustainable development, what is needed is greater sacrifice on the part of the business sector given that up until now it has been the consumers and workers who have carried the greater part of the weight of adjustment, while only some few big businesses have taken advantage of the open opportunities for the liberalization of markets and privatization. Although not all of the measures proposed by the FMLN are the best ones for confronting the current economic situation, these measures have, at least, placed the role of the state in the economy on the agenda once again by suggesting that it is necessary for the state to play a leading role where the market forces obstruct the objectives of sustainable development.

In San Salvador and throughout the country, the race for political power is at its height. At less than two weeks from the legislative and municipal elections, the party candidates are spending their time and money on a campaign filled with promises which, in the majority of cases, is not articulated in terms of strategies and medium and long range plans. The news media is eager to learn the electoral offerings of the parties and candidates, and, at the same time, the politicians are eager to appear in the media. The electoral ambience is filled to overflowing and there is little new or interesting in the new and old political aspirations but this does not seem to encourage the joint discussion of proposals and the participation of the electorate in anything else other than memorizing a song or receiving pocket calendars, glasses, shirts or hats....

Nevertheless, in recent days a publicity strategy for political proposals has appeared on the horizon which has not had a long history in our country and which has taken on special relevance in the context of the electoral campaign. The debates between candidates for public office, sponsored by the NGO's, news media and universities have become the new sideshow in the electoral arena. What has appeared just in time for the increase in promises and criticisms of the candidates and, at the same time, for the renewal of work for the media offering them material which goes beyond propaganda scheduled for every day. Some have praised them, arguing that it has historic value. Others have pooh-poohed it again and again, pointing out all kinds of failures and irregularities in the proceedings. It has been called expositive, boring and restrictive of the intervention of those who participate. Some generate more confidence because they take place live, while others are only the final summary and interpretation of the journalist who had the opportunity to be present at the debate.

However, what are the problems which could propose the continuation of this mechanism for public debate in our country? In the first place, the impulse for electoral debates is under scrutiny by the big news media in the country. It is no secret that the development of the media, especially in the area of mass publishing of information has been intimately linked to the necessity of specific power groups for maintaining certain control or influence in the configuration of national public opinion. In this sense, the risk to be run is evident: each debate which is yet to be seen becomes the ideal platform for a specific party or candidate, in the interest of political interests of those who are involved in the media which makes it public. In this way, the traditional lack of criticism by those who do the work of the news media —who up until now present themselves a panelists obliged to attend such events— can deal with the profundity which would be required for public debate which appears to be becoming very important for the voters.

In second place is the way in which the organization of the debates is carried out —in the specific case of those dedicated to evaluating the proposals for the mayor’s office of San Salvador— far from being the expression of the level of organization of civil society in El Salvador, it reveals one of its most dangerous weaknesses: fragmentation. Probably owing to the need to deal with different levels in the audience, three isolated initiatives for debate have consolidated their place in different national media. In all cases, as much as is known, the same candidates have participated or will participate (on occasion, even less) and the very topics to be discussed make up the agenda for discussion without it being known why it is necessary to repeat from distinctive points of view an experience which, essentially, will offer the same elements for decision in society at large.

This situation can be counterproductive for the interests which are sought, at least on the question of the voters. To insist on public confrontation between political figures at the moment on the basis of some common topics cannot provoke more than anxiety. In fact, one of the first reactions generated after the implementation of the first televised debate emphasized the need to begin the creation of a real "culture of debate" (with all the lack of precision which is included within the compass of that term) which goes beyond the merely informative. And a good measure of the effort to establish that culture is included in the measure in which this mechanism is open to the public participation of the voters and is not limited to the single focus of opinion of those who are seen as representatives and even public opinion makers. It is possible that the small capability which organized civil society has demonstrated with respect to the articulation of a true exercise in public discussion owing to the lack of effective links between the population and the work of the politicians. This ought to be the premise from which the implementation of future events of this kind departs.

Finally, another of the problems which the implementation of debates can suppose comes already not so much from those who are in charge of their organization but of those who are one of the points which allow it to make sense: the candidates. The exercise in public debate of topics of general interest does not only presuppose the repetition of ideas or proposals which can be consulted in platforms or public manifestos. The debate —be it political or not, be it public or not— implies a strong dose of debate, that is, conscious evaluation of the pros and contras of a specific position before opting for some of them. If it is true that in order to speak of integral public debate it is necessary, as has already been pointed out, the inclusion of the voice of the voter, it is also a goodly part of the success of public debate —which the country needs— depends on the capacity of the candidate to engage in conscious, franks, open and conscious public deliberation on the very proposal itself —and of the opponent’s ability as well.

Unfortunately, if there is anything characteristic of the candidates' presentation in public debates to date, it has been the lack of clarity, specificity and critical capability with regard to the adversary. This observation takes on special relevance if we listen to the clamor which various public figures have expressed during the campaign: it is already time for our country to abandon the model of politics which centers on empty and vacuous publicity, in dirty and destructive propaganda and which focuses on the immediacy of political practice. In its place, it has been said, ought to be a more open, proposity model in which the capacity for self-renewal is present through constructive criticism. But, following the embarrassing participation of several candidates for the municipality of San Salvador in the diverse media options —even the first televised debate--, it can be said that public debate is a practice which the politicians of the country, with some few exceptions, do not possess— given that they do not even possess a clear vision of the problems which are to be confronted and dealt with, even less a clear line of action upon which to base and coordinate their work.

Lacking this, it so happens that their best instruments —which are used shamelessly— are the basest ad hominem attacks, including lies and deceit against the electorate and are limited to using their aplomb when confronted with attitudes which anyone would consider the lowest and basest extremes to the extent that only to a very immature voter could this demonstration appear to exhibit strength and ideological clarity. The debate, in this unfortunate case, gives way to propaganda and "marketing", to conservatism and authoritarian attitudes. In this way, the precarious continuation of this mechanism, begun some few years ago, of discussion and public debate will be able to present itself in the best light only with difficulty in the development of an authentic participative political exercise. As long as public debate does not enjoy any clear leadership with a more serious commitment to citizen participation and not only a commitment to the promotion of the highest political levels, this effort will not go beyond what we described at the outset: an exercise in political demagoguery.