Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
E-mail: cidai@cidai.uca.edu.sv

Central American University (UCA)
Apdo. Postal 01-168, Boulevard Los Próceres
San Salvador, El Salvador, Centro América
Tel: +(503) 210-6600 ext. 407
Fax: +(503) 210-6655

     Proceso is published weekly in Spanish by the Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI) of the Central American University (UCA) of El Salvador. Portions are sent in English to the *reg.elsalvador* conference of PeaceNet in the USA and may be forwarded or copied to other networks and electronic mailing lists. Please make sure to mention Proceso when quoting from this publication.
     Subscriptions to Proceso in Spanish can be obtained by sending a check for US$50.00 (Americas) or $75.00 (Europe) made out to 'Universidad Centroamericana' and sent to the above address. Or read it partially on the UCA’s Web Page: http://www.uca.edu.sv
     For the ones who are interested in sending donations, these would be welcome at Proceso. Apdo. Postal 01-168, San Salvador, El Salvador

Proceso 948
April 25, 2001
ISSN 0259-9864
 
 
 
 

INDEX

Editorial:  Self-pleasing optimism and authoritarian nostalgia
Politics:  Divergences about the ALCA (I)
Economy:  Challenges and opportunities of free trade
 
 
 
 
 

EDITORIAL

     Democracy cannot be found around the corner just because a country has started a democratic process. The weaker the institutional foundations of such process are, the more imminent the dangers of its examination become. In other words, there is no better guarantee for a democratic process´ advance, than the strength of the institutions which sustain it. The weaknesses of those institutions will determine the kind of risks that the society will have to face throughout the construction of a democratic arrangement.

     To say that a solid democracy exists in El Salvador, it is a sin of unrealistic optimism. To the aggravation of those who do not skimp on ink and paper to sing about the success and the virtues of the “Salvadoran democracy”, it might be wiser and more realistic to go on insisting on the long way the country still has to walk on to actually have a political arrangement, with the minimum and acceptable success and virtues in a democratic model.

     From the perspective of political change and from the conception of democracy as something that can always be improved, it is far more appropriate to emphasize on how much democracy is missing in a social and political arrangement.  If one keeps talking about an abundant democracy, one ends up assuming a self-pleasing posture with the “goals” achieved. It is not necessary to say that true examples of this self-pleasing attitude overflow from the opinion articles that daily appear in the local newspapers. In those articles, no chance is missed to insist on a common topic: in El Salvador, with the signing of Peace, we took a decisive step toward democracy. After eleven years, essential ingredients have been added to it. Therefore, what is left to do now is to live in democracy, being in accordance with what it has to offer.

     If we accept that the “Salvadoran democracy” still has a long way to go, in order to become effectively democratic, it is reasonable to suppose that the country is still inserted into a democratization process. This subject brings up the risks of the Salvadoran political process.

     The authoritarian reversion is the main risk that the construction of a democratic arrangement has to face. As mentioned before, the weaker the institutions that hold democracy are, the stronger that the authoritarian threat is. El Salvador, after a democratic transition that many considered all completed, shows an institutional deficit that, at least, has room to justify authoritarian expectations.

     It might be risky to suggest that the institutional weakness that prevails in this country has the doors wide open for an authoritarian reversion. We definitely cannot discard that possibility, but we can consider the national and international conditions that would make its materialization extremely difficult. It is not so risky to suggest that the weakness of the institutional structure is an obstacle for the advance of democracy to the point of provoking its dangerous “stagnation”.

     Either the deficit or the open failure of key democratic institutions —for instance the National Civilian Police, the Republic’s Attorney General’s Office, and the Human Rights Defense Office— do not only represent an obstacle for the advance of democracy, but its persistence can lock the political process in a vicious circle. This vicious circle can be either understood as the best achievement (self-pleasing optimism) or the worst problem we have ever had.

     Both perspectives have started proliferating and generating a favorable opinion environment. We have referred to the former (self-pleasing optimism) before: it is represented by those who believe that even with its flaws, the “Salvadoran democracy” is a success. Therefore all of us should be satisfied with it. The latter perspective (the ones who think that El Salvador is now in worse social and political conditions than it was in the past) deserves special attention.

     In fact, this last perspective is motivated by a dangerous authoritarian longing, which finds its justification in the present institutional deficits. There are plenty of examples, but only one of those examples can make us pay close attention for its possible implications: the permanent call to reinforce the police, following former security patterns.

     This opinion environment —favored by the most powerful media enterprises—  has been developing diffusely ever since the signing of the Peace Agreements. Such Agreements have been blamed for the public safety crisis, not only in the specific context of the struggle against delinquency, but also in the proliferation of violence in the sport stadiums. After all these, the idea that before the Peace Agreements the country was safer is gaining more fans, since there was a police force the Salvadorans were afraid of.

     This longing for the past can turn into an authoritarian nostalgia, when it is sustained that the problem of public safety would be solved if the country had a rural guard, as the one of the late nineteenth century, a Fiscal Police (PH, in Spanish), National Guard (GN, in Spanish), and a National Police (NP, in Spanish). In other words, we would not have a problem if the country counted with a repressive apparatus responsible for crimes of the most varied nature, from assassinations to disappearances and torture, which thousands of citizens were helpless victims of.

     Postures such as the one described above, no matter how senseless they are, can gain space in the public opinion, specially if the country’s institutional structure keeps drowning. If this goes on, authoritarian options would find a fertile territory to become the ideal solution to resolve the problems of social harmony. Then again, the democratic process would be seriously threatened.

     While the self-pleasing democracy prevents us from going further into the radicalization of democracy —since such perspective seems to be satisfied with what we have achieved—, the authoritarian longing promotes the revival of a past characterized by a police and military control of society. In the present, both perspectives are an important obstacle for the advance of democracy in El Salvador.

POLITICS

     Simultaneously with the “Quebec Summit” celebration, the “Summit of Towns” was also organized in the same city. It was an alternative discussion forum to protest and question the interests and objectives of the presidents´ reunion. In their third encounter of this nature, after the Miami and Santiago summits, state officials of the American continent, with the exception of Cuba  —which is considered as a non-democratic country—, decided to set the year 2005 as the deadline to apply to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (ALCA, in Spanish) project. There is an almost generalized optimism about the market’s virtues.

     For most of the leaders attending the hemispherical appointment, the only solution to the problems of poverty, and the social and economic exclusion go through a flowing trade, with no obstacles, among the different countries that belong to the area, specially with the sale of their products in the Canadian and American markets.

     About the markets´ opening advantages, the “Quebec Declaration” leaves no room for doubt. The different governments remember that “open and free economies, the access to the markets, the sustained flow of investments, the formation of capitals, financing stability, adequate public policies (…) are key to reduce poverty and inequity, raise the life expectation level, and promote sustainable development”.

    For those reasons they acknowledge that “free trade, with no subsidy nor disloyal practices, along with growing flows of productive investments and a stronger economic integration, will favor the regional prosperity, allowing to raise life’s standards, improve the American continent’s labor conditions, and increase the protection of the environment”. In other words, the answer to the continent’s aggravating problems related to the environment, immigration, illiteracy, racism, and social and economic differences is in free trade. Therefore, the ALCA is the most transparent manifestation of that vision. It will be the ideal mechanism to “generate economic growth and prosperity in the hemisphere, and it will contribute to the achievement of the wide purposes of the summit”.

     In addition to the will to make the ALCA come true, one of the summit’s objectives was, according to declarations, to reaffirm the presidents´ commitment to “representative democracy”, human rights respect, peace and safety in the continent.  Considering all the elements that threaten political and democratic stability in the hemisphere, such as drugs, corruption, and the possible uprising of the armed forces and the Cuban communist regime, the governments included in the Quebec declaration a democratic clause. They estimated important to make clear that “any alteration or institutional rupture of the democratic order in a State of the Hemisphere constitutes an insuperable obstacle for the Government to participate in such State in the process of the Americas´ Summit”.

     In short, the meeting helped the governments to design the ideal mechanisms for their objective’s achievement of creating a “better prosperity and increment the economic opportunities and, at the same time, to promote social justice and develop the human potential”. There would be, according to this, a clear conscience of the need to attack the cancer that undermine the efforts to assure the economical and social well-being of the American continent’s population.

     Despite these “nice” declarations, the recent Quebec Summit has been celebrated without real advances in many of the compromises agreed in Chile, in 1998. The education issue can give an idea of what has been formerly described in this article. Not even a name like “Education Summit” in the Santiago encounter helped the agreement of massive investment to come true. There is a reason not only to be skeptical about the governments´ good intentions declaration, but also to ask ourselves about the reason of this inconsistency between the economic and the social issues.

     Precisely in this issue, the society’s organizations gain importance as promoters of the “Summit of the Towns”. In what they refer to as “Unfulfilled Promises”, they bring to our attention the fact that “since the Miami Summit, in 1994, the State officials and the governments agreed to reinforce democracy and human rights, support education, and reduce poverty in the Americas. After seven years, nothing has been done. The only agenda that has prospered, supported by the democratic deficit, has been the negotiation of the ALCA”. This evidence made them not only denunciate the predominant economic agenda among the continent’s presidents´ negotiations, but also show their deep rejection of an unilateral economic plan, orientated to go deep into the exclusion and inequality in the region. For the anti- ALCA demonstrators, “a different America is possible” and we have to build it based on the population’s interests, participation and inclusion.

     This participation dream withdraws itself from the idea of representative democracy, as supported and defended in the official text of the presidents´ Summit, which has been criticized by the Venezuelan government. The social organizations denounce the suspicious deficit of this matter, which ends up favoring the anti-popular interests. In other words, the fact that the ALCA negotiations would go on smoothly, while the issues of the struggle for equality, participation and solidarity continued to be kept on hold, did not happen by chance.

     That is why there is a reason to suspect from the ALCA, and to denounce that it does not satisfy the people’s need for participation an inclusion. “The ALCA project is a right and freedom status for the investors, consecrates the supremacy of capital over labor, transforms the life and the world in marketing products, denies human rights, sabotages democracy and undermines the States sovereignty”.  Therefore, the members of the social organizations present in Quebec, besides offering a different interpretation about the Free Trade good intentions, they throw away the official plan that makes out of the ALCA the main road to resolve the problems of the American Continent. They offer to change from the “commerce for representative democracy” feature, to the “democracy for commerce” one.  They argue that the areas that participate will contribute to shape a new social and economic destiny, based on mutual respect and shared solidarity.
 

     Free trade has been one of the most pursued fantasies in Latin America during the last fifty years. The attempts to integrate the Central American region economically along the fifties and the sixties, were pioneers in this field; such attempts guided these countries to the adoption of free trade and the duty union (except for Belize and Panama).  Most recently, free trade agreements among the countries of North America have given continuity and validity to the idea that free trade is the key to sustainable development.

     Without pretending to deny the former idea, it is worthwhile to focus our attention on the fact that free trade also goes through a detailed evaluation of the costs and benefits involved, and through the adoption of preparatory and compensatory measures. However, the last tendencies point out that the process of trade liberation will be adopted in the same overwhelming way in which privatization and structural adjustment were once.

     Free trade agreements between the United States and Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement (TLC, in Spanish), and the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, are just a few examples of the recent advances in this matter. Most recently, the third American countries president’s summit opened the gate to the negotiations to establish the Free Trade Area of the Americas (ALCA, in Spanish). With it, the possibilities for El Salvador to reduce even more the duty boundaries are highly probable. It is also probable that its products might access larger markets, but at the same time more modern, competitive and demanding ones.

     Free trade can be perceived as a threat as well as an opportunity, depending on the aptitudes and the own capacities of each country. In many cases, it has been profitable for some of them; but in other cases it has turned into loss (for instance, the Common Central American Market or the first years of the agreement between Canada and the United States). Since the process seems irreversible, what is important is to take advantage of the “bonanza” and to obtain profits. However, the truth is that it would condemn the less favored countries to a less profitable economic situation.

     This two-way street will be “opened” if the presidents of this continent come to an agreement. As a result of the III Summit of the Americas, celebrated last April, it was agreed to promote the formation of the ALCA for 2005. This summit was also a stage for President George Bush to receive petitions from the Central American presidents, to arrange a specific free trade agreement with his country.

     During this summit, president Bush was clear when he said that, for the United States, free trading is important “for us to compete on a long term basis with the Far East and Europe, or we could continue on our own. I consider… that to continue on our own is not the right choice”. The other 33 presidents also showed their interest concerning this idea, and adopted an action plan that would also seek to reduce extreme poverty to half by 2015.

     The most important implications for Central America, however, seem to come from the separate negotiations that the governments of the area would hold with the United States to expedite the TLC, which would be a favorable one, in theory, for the Central American area. In fact, a meeting has been planned between Central American and American negotiators in Washington by the end of May.

     This would add up to other daring efforts that the Salvadoran and the rest of the Central American governments have made: free trade has been promoted between Guatemala and Honduras; ever since 1991 the TLC was being negotiated with Mexico, which took effect the last March 16; agreements with Chile and the Dominican Republic have also been negotiated.

     The impact of these agreements remains to be seen, but it is worthwhile to consider that the most important is, without a doubt, the TLC with Mexico. Many benefits are expected from this one in particular, as a result of the concessions that this country would grant to the Central American exportations (this perspective is not shared by all the representatives of the small and medium private business).

     The free trade with the United States would also have excellent implications in the economy of the countries in the area; although, to judge by what we have witnessed until now, an increase in the textile maquila (runaway shops) activity would be most probable. However, now it may vary: fabric, thread and other main materials used in the elaboration of textile exportations could be locally produced. This would increase the added value and the multiplying effects of this sector’s investment.

     However, the most important challenge that the market liberalization presents is not the happy ending of negotiations, but the creation of conditions to offer other products with higher added value than the textile maquila. This one, even if it is an important source of employment, it does not generate neither the salaries, nor the necessary income to overcome poverty. A highest investment in human resources, a redefinition of the economic growth poles, and the implementation of a development plan required in this situation. It will not be of any use for El Salvador to have access to the agreements having both a poorly diversified productive apparatus and a low capacity to generate exportation.

     The highest capacity of El Salvador comes from the family remittances, which in the end explain the expansion of consumption experimented in the last decades, especially during the nineties. El Salvador has developed a higher capability of consumption, but it has not been satisfied with national production, but through an increase of importation. This is not positive when the national productive apparatus does not produce enough exporting goods that would allow us to pay for the growing imports (a clear proof of this is the deficit in the trade balance). In a context such as that one, what we should expect is an increase of the imported consumption and, therefore, a deterioration of the trade balance, low rates of employment and economic growth, and an increment of the economic division in three sectors.

     The TLC as well as the ALCA require an actualization of the Salvadoran economy and, therefore, of its economic policy. We cannot pretend that the “invisible hand” of the market will eliminate the threats or provide opportunities for the nation. Unfortunately, the government approaches the free trade issue as an easy way to promote development, as a solution in itself. With this attitude, it supports a plain solution for the complex economic problems of the country.

     Free trade agreements also require public policies aimed to prepare the nation to guarantee the most favorable insertion possible. It is not enough to negotiate apparent favorable agreements, because in the end free trade is not an objective itself, but just the means to advance further to sustainable development.