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 950
May 9, 2001
ISSN 0259-9864
 
 
 
 
 

INDEX

Editorial:  The media compromise
Politics:  The Legislative Assembly: foretelling dangers?
Economy:  New increases in the electric energy bills
 
 
 
 
 

EDITORIAL

     It is very common to say that the mass media are a key element for the advance of a democratic process. Most of the public debate is filtered through the media, that is why it spreads social and political problems, attitudes, beliefs and preferences about one issue or another. Even if the media contribution is crucial to strengthen a democratization process that does not mean that the media are always and unconditionally willing to defend democracy.

     In El Salvador, ever since the last decade, the most powerful media enterprises —which in the recent past showed off their open compromise with authoritarism— have made an effort to make us believe they are examples of democracy. In order to do that, the media has followed two pathways: first, they have modernized its production equipment, which means a better quality of texts and images; second, they have widen its circle of collaborators, inviting different political and intellectual figures, and other guests of the most varied nature. If the first pathway has made the media more efficient and attractive, the second one has been its credential of democratic compromise, specially when the ex guerrilla leaders have been given opportunities within the media.

     The democratic compromise of the most powerful news media is something that seems already established. That is why it has taken one more step: the media has turned into valuable symbols of democracy, and its duty is to judge who is attempting against such democracy.

     Feeling strong about this almighty self-image, the national media enterprises have not doubted to assume the role of a “watchdog”, as well as a role of “gatekeepers of society”. The media does not skimp on getting teams of reporters and communicators in order to achieve success in such duty. Oddly enough, nobody has dared to publicly question the thesis that the media are the watchdogs of both power and society. Not a suspicion has been discussed to consider if such watchdog should be simultaneously watched.

     It is true that nowadays the news media play starring roles in the public debate arena. It is also true that their contribution has been crucial to bring down corrupt or authoritarian governments many times, or to keep in checkmate those who are tempted to abuse the power deposited in their hands.

     However, it cannot be denied that in countries such as El Salvador, the news media have a history of being involved with authoritarian governments, and this reality cannot be erased all of a sudden. This history portrays the media as accomplice of the established power, and far from being judged, they were justified. Amen of the power abuse committed by the media: we cannot forget that the media enterprises did not hesitate to denigrate —and almost condemn to death— those who were considered as political enemies.

     There is plenty of evidence about how dangerous it is for the society to have institutions that intend to control everything, with no one controlling them. The watchdog has to be watched to avoid abuses of power. The media are not exempt of the possibility to commit abuse against common citizens who are, most of the time, vulnerable to the media attack.

     In El Salvador, it is frequent that a reporter or a communicator invades the people’s dignity with no political power at all, under the pretext of being the gatekeepers of the society. There are also cases in which the media assumes, in the editorial field as well as in the selection and interpretation of the news, clear ideological and political compromises, which make them attack those who might express a belief contrary to the media. The most recent example has been the covering of the national labor day: systematically, in the press as well as in television, the violent reactions were highlighted, attributing the responsibility of such acts to the FMLN, and putting under the shadow of a doubt the work of the City Mayor, Hector Silva. Very little was said about the meaning of the celebration, and no attention was paid to the difficult situation of the workers of this country.

     Is that an expression of democratic compromise of the media? Or is that the expression of unmentionable political and economic interests of their owners? It is difficult to accept that the manipulation of the facts and that the unclear disqualification of people and institutions would be a support for the advance of democracy. These media actions, not exceptional at all, lead us to doubt about the so proclaimed democratic compromise of the news media in El Salvador. Their attachments to the past have not yet been broken; the present economic and political compromises of the media owners are a priority over any other purpose, be it democracy, social well-being or state of the law.

     It is dangerous for the country that the most powerful news media place themselves as the “gatekeepers” of public morality. Their agendas are not guided neither by the problems of the country nor by the challenges of democratization, no matter how much effort they make to sell that image: their agendas are guided by strong economic and political interests based on a tradition of liaisons with the authoritarian power. This cannot be erased neither by the most sophisticated computer systems nor by writing styles centered in the subjective leading role of a reporter, journalist or communicator.

     The news media compromise with the economic and political power is still crucial in El Salvador. Whoever dares to break up with this power must be willing to suffer the consequences; whoever makes the commitment knows that there are favors and privileges awaiting.

POLITICS

     Last May 1st., the board of the Legislative Assembly (Congress) closed its first year of operations. As the reformed code of internal proceedings establishes, its president, Ciro Cruz Zepeda, Congressman of the National Conciliation Party (PCN, in Spanish) had to abandon his charge in order to occupy the vice-presidency. The directive board, led by Zepeda, has been the target of all sorts of critics for over a year. Issues such as corruption, administrative incompetence and intolerance in the decision making process of the first branch of the government, have been present in the national press. A first balance of this year throws a lot of light on what the right-wing is capable of, when it controls all the power without the intervention of a counterpart.

     In this context, Walter Araujo, president of the ARENA party, has been sworn in as the new president of the Congress Board for the second year of this period. The new president promises a change of direction in the Congress conduction. In his first speech, Araujo invited his colleagues to face with humbleness and openness the main problems that afflict the population. Araujo also said that he intends to dedicate a good part of his work to build bridges to promote a dialogue among the different political forces in the Congress. At the same time, he wants to make come true the openness of the Congress so that the citizens and the media can hold it accountable.

     An ambitious project, without a doubt, for a discredited Congress, which does not deserve any credit at all to the eyes of most of the population. That is why Araujo´s initiative could be admired, and underline the fact that he seems receptive to the demands of the citizens in order to relax the conflictive relation among the political parties, clearly harmful for democracy. From the democratic legitimacy perspective of the popular representatives, it is really pitiful that the first organ of the government is in such regretful situation for the eyes of the citizenry, just like the public opinion surveys constantly reveal. In addition, the fact that the legitimacy of the Congressmen is so questioned says a lot about the Salvadoran democracy, and about the absolute freedom that Araujo and the members of his party enjoy.

     Because of the expectations created by the Congress´ new president, the question about his and the other members of the right wing’s qualification comes about. Everybody wonders if they will be actually able to change the relations among the different parties represented in the Congress, and to incorporate the public opinion to the decisions made by them. In this issue, the past as well as who makes the promises are important factors to be considered.

     It is hard to imagine Araujo as the conciliator of the Salvadoran politics. The new president of the Congress is not an amateur politician, great novelties cannot be expected from him. On the contrary, his ideological stance is well known, as well as his conflictive and controversial temper, which can lead him to say anything to defend his own party’s ideas. Everyone remembers his style to attack those who do not see the world with the eyes of the right-wing (or to those who do not agree with the political opportunism, a trademark of many ARENA followers). Therefore, it is hard to believe that Araujo could be the new model of tolerance, openness and sensibility given that insecurity and injustice prevail in the country.

     However, there are those who still hope that politics together with the strength of the new events might change the attitude of such a controversial character. Some people might even forget the conditions in which he accepts the presidency of the first branch of the government, after the members of his party expressed their will to leave that space for a small political party. The FMLN´s refused to direct the Congress, and the conversations on this subject, already initiated with small political parties, ended without a previous notice. For those who still expect new things from the COENA´s president, someone has to remind them the promises Araujo made almost a year ago, when he arrived to the top position in the right-wing’s political institute.

     Araujo introduced himself in that occasion, as the renovated wing of ARENA, who would make the innovations required by the founders´ movement. Just as he promises now from the Congress, he intended to drive ARENA on a new direction, declaring that the foundations would be considered and that democracy will be present in his party. Almost a year after his arrival to the presidency of the COENA, however, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that Araujo has only stood out for his ability to favor his personal career, to silence disagreements, and to create new loyalties within the ARENA party. He has perpetuated with more secrecy and less opposition what his predecessors were accused of.

     What is most probable is that things either will go on the same way or that the situation will become worst with Araujo´s presidency in the Congress. In addition, it is hard to believe that he who could not have an influence on the decisions of a Board where he was vice-president suddenly and radically starts to change aspects that he did not even care about. The relation between the forces in the direction of the Congress has not changed, that is why it is not clear where the changes will come from.

     However, with this blurry perspective, and only after a few days since the PCN left the presidency of the Congress, it seems to have changed its political strategy. The chief of this party, the “well known” Congressman Francisco Merino, has mentioned the possibility to reform the Congress´ internal regulations. According to him, reality has demonstrated that the principle of alternation in the presidency of the Congress has not given the results that were expected. Thus he thinks that we should go back to the principle that says that the majority party controls the presidency. There are also rumors about a certain closeness between the PCN and the FMLN members in some controversial issues, such as the investigation of certain corrupt officials, and the suitability of the presidential veto in other issues. According to this, the PCN would be showing certain will to dissolve the right- wing’s block in order to play a more important role in this new legislative year.
 
     Nobody knows what direction the Congress will take at this moment. It is very probable that the PCN will be allied with the FMLN to reform the internal regulations in order to prevent ARENA from keeping the presidency of the Congress for a third year, and to assure themselves a leading role with the left-wing party. It is also possible that these rumors do not go beyond what they actually are, since the PCN has demonstrated in the last years that their relation with the ARENA party goes beyond current specific differences. If there are no novelties in the inauguration of this new legislative year, it is highly probable that everything remains the same. If it is so, Araujo´s sworn-in would not be more than the same problems starting all over again.

ECONOMY

     Again, the issue of the telephone service fee has become one of the most conflictive and important ones among the consumers and businessmen. Ever since January 2001, the company who acquired the assets of the Telecommunications National Administration (ANTEL, in Spanish) increased the service by 15%. Even if in the beginning this measure did not confront an important opposition —something logical in a context where the public opinion was overwhelmed by the impact of the earthquakes— in the beginning of May, even the Telecommunications and Electricity General Superintendency (SIGET, in Spanish) doubted the legitimacy of the fee’s increase. Consumers are also about to confront themselves with a new increase of 8.6% in the electric energy fee.

     Ever since the privatization of basic services such as electricity and telecommunications, the fee has been subjected to the legislation created in an ad hoc term for each of both sectors.  Just as there have been increases in the electric energy fees, there have also been decreases (just like it happened in mid 2000), although we cannot tell yet if this process has actually benefited the consumers, since we are still expecting new increases.

     The idea that the privatization would lower the fees or that it would encourage investments is highly questionable. The SIGET´s reasonable doubt about the investments made by the CTE-Telecom private company in telecommunications is one of the aspects that has made controversial the justification of the telephone fee recent increase.

     The debate about the basic services´ fees is not new, but in the present moment it also questions the investment that the private enterprises have made in the telecommunications network. It cannot be denied that the behavior of the basic service companies´ fees is one of the negative aspects of privatization that questions its benefits. To this we can add the questionable investment made by the private companies.

     The controversy about the telephone fees actually started a bit late, three months after a 15% increase was a decree. According to the contract’s conditions, this increase would be contemplated as a compensation for the investment on the coverage range enlargement supposedly made by the company. Oddly enough, now it turns out that the SIGET has doubts about the investments made by CTE-Telecom, and it is willing to perform a technical examination that might determine if this company actually made or not the investments that has declared to justify the fee’s raise.

     Even in the Legislative Assembly, a sub commission has been formed in order to review the conditions of the contract agreed between the SIGET and CTE-Telecom. Among the clauses in reference to the fees, this contract establishes that these would be fixed according to the inflation rates calculated by the government. Because during the last years inflation has had one digit rates, the adjustments in the telephone fees would not have been that significant, at least not until 2001. As it has been mentioned before in this article, in January of this year the fees were increased by 15%, which was justified by saying that investments had been made to enlarge the covering range.

     An 8.6% increase (approximately) will be added to the electric energy fees, after May 10. Then again, this increase would be included in the contracts agreed with the electric energy companies. The only difference is that the SIGET does not disagree with this increase. According with the SIGET´s spokesperson, Ernesto Lima Mena, the dam’s water level is very low and that situation has led to an increase in the generation of thermal energy with fuel.

     Even if these ideas were accepted, it would still be interesting to examine the behavior of the electric energy fees ever since the fluid’s distribution privatization, and the arrival of private thermal generators to the market. It is necessary to remember that the conditions under which the buying of the energy from the thermal generators were negotiated were highly unfavorable for the government and for the consumers, since those terms oblige people to pay a price unnecessarily high (see Proceso 842 and 870).

     On the other hand, the electricity distributors´ practices are clearly noxious for the consumers´ interests. Consider, for instance, the case of the San Salvador Electric Light Company (CAESS, in Spanish). The available data show that between 1999 and 2000 the fees reached a high increase, in the basic fee as well as in the individual consumption one.

     In January of 1999, the basic fee paid by each one of the 325,880 CAESS customers was 15.72 colones, while for the same month in the year 2000, this fee was 19.76 colones, which represents a 25.7% increase. In terms of profits, this means that the CAESS had a monthly total increase of 1,316,555 million colones, and a 15,798,662 million colones increase in a year. Meanwhile, the consumers also had to face an increase in the variable charge, which went from 0.797 colones to 0.8464 colones. This represents an increase of approximately 6.2%. Later, this variable charge decreased in a considerable way, unfortunately the available data do not allow us to establish the exact amount. However, for this year this decrease will be counteracted by the fee increase announced.

     The records and the new dynamics of the electricity and telephone fees widely justify the initiatives to review the contracts agreed between the government and the private companies. The SIGET´s present administration started the process when it requested the reviewing of the contract with an electricity source (Nejapa Power).

     Even if it all seems as two different cases, the whole privatization process has been made granting extremely favorable conditions for the private companies: electric energy is bought at unnecessarily high prices, electric energy distribution companies are allowed to charge high basic fees and to go through their fees every month. Even worst, telephone companies are allowed to increase their fees with a simple declaration of having enlarged their coverage range, just like the Pension Funds Administrators which were authorized to charge commissions higher than the workers´ contribution to the pension fund.

     The mentioned examples are enough to make evident that privatization was not applied to benefit the society. Instead, there have been clear efforts to seek for the welfare of the investors who acquired the companies.