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 966
September 6, 2001
ISSN 0259-9864
 
 
 
 
 
 

INDEX

Editorial:  Shared responsibilities
Politics:  ENADE 2001: a national reconstruction effort?
Economy:  The need to agree
 
 
 
 
 

EDITORIAL

    The scandal of the irregular (an in some cases fraudulent) university diplomas turned into the main course for the local newspapers, whose ability to take advantage of outrageous situations —to which the media itself contributes to— knows no limits. However, beyond the malicious intentions of the media, lies the key problem: that some judges and lawyers fraudulently obtained some university diplomas that they did not deserve. This allowed them to perform certain duties that they were neither authorized nor qualified to execute. How did this happened? Who is responsible for such an academic, social and cultural joke?

    The first thing that has to be mentioned is that the alteration of requirements to obtain academic degrees —mostly the bachelor degree— is not new and it has not been a secret either. The proliferation of "garage" universities during the eighties, not only encouraged this sort of practices, but also made them look as something "normal", and, worst of all, as something "legal". And that happened in front of everyone: the communication media, education authorities, politicians, businessmen and the citizenry. Nobody gave any signs of being alarmed.

    It is true that during the last few years the education authorities intervened and paid attention to this issue, and they also tried to correct the problems that were incubated in the post secondary education field during the nineties. However, either the measures applied have been insufficient to eliminate the root of the academic and administrative vices of the past, or the harm that they intend to repair —the graduation of professionals that do not meet the necessary requirements to hold an academic degree— already has left behind some consequences that we have to face with a global perspective of the problem.

    The dilemma is that this issue is not just about judges and lawyers who have obtained a diploma without completing all the requirements, but it is also about other professionals —civil engineers, economists, among others— who followed the same lines that the other ones did to get a diploma, in order to improve their prestige and their income. Therefore, it is not just about one generation of university professionals, but about at least two more generations: those who finished (or said that they finished) their studies in the mid eighties, and those who finished their education in the early nineties. If this supposition is true, why focus the attention exclusively on the judges and the lawyers who are presently between the eyes of the Attorney General's Office (FGR, in Spanish), and not go far back in time to include other professions.

    Obviously, it would be almost a witch hunt with plenty of work ahead, since someone would have to poke through the academic history of those who have attended to the universities that are presently under suspicion (which did not administrate their legal affairs properly). The most puritan will say that it does not matter, that the important thing is to make them pay for their mistakes. They might be right, maybe all of those who committed fraud to obtain their academic degrees should be penalized. However, one thing is true: there must be no exceptions, no matter how “important” some of those who committed fraud are.

    At the same time, the attention must not only be focused on those who received their diplomas under questionable circumstances, but also on those who issued the diplomas for them —previous to the respective payment. In other words, the responsibility of the people who owned the universities involved in the black marker of academic degrees has to be clearly determined, as well as the responsibility of the authorities who signed the diplomas. Quite a lot has been done in that sense, but it is still not clear to what point the owners and the authorities manipulated or even fooled their students with irregular academic offers. Even if it is normal to suspect that many who were about to "graduate" knew how fraudulent the process that turned them into professionals was; it is also possible that probably most of them did not know about the fraud they and the society were subjected to.

    Another aspect that must be analyzed is the role played by the Education Ministry and its authorities, those who represented the ministry during these two decades. In this context the fraudulent university diplomas are just one of the problems. To plead "not guilty" is only a way to favor those who tolerated the proliferation of false "universities" and the buying and selling of academic degrees.

    Who verified and approved the careers and the programs in the "garage" universities? Who verified if the professionals who graduated in those universities met the minimum academic requirements? Are this officials exempt of any responsibility? Are they less responsible than those who received —with their direct or indirect approval— the academic diploma without actually meeting the requirements to graduate? We are not only talking about what has happened just now, with the case of the judges and lawyers, but about what happened in the last decade as well as in other careers and professions.

    In the specific case of the judges and lawyers who practice their profession, the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Justice is involved, and not only in the process of granting the academic degrees or in the curriculums' inspection —aspects out of their competence—, but in their lack of judgment to approve —and worst of all, to add to the justice system— the people whose weak academic background would prevent them from —if the control mechanisms were rigorous— accomplishing the private practice of their profession or their addition to the judicial system.

    As the circumstances can be appreciated, in the fraudulent academic degrees issue are more people involved than anyone is willing to accept. If they want to take this to its last consequences, very well. However, many people will not like what will be found out.

    The country's most important business meeting was completed last week. In its second anniversary celebration, the Private Business National Encounter's (ENADE 2001, in Spanish) goals were —just as the event's organizers admitted— to present to the nation a few economic reactivation proposals. Consequentially, the businessmen proposed a series of measures such as agricultural, electrical or social investment policies.

    About the importance and the consequences of that elite businessmen’s meeting, there is a lot to be said. Most of all, the official argument can be repeated with no variation at all. This assertion also supported by the Republic's President, who insists that the ENADE 2001 is a "participation instrument, unique and transparent", whose outstanding feature is the maturity and the compromise of the national businessmen with the faith of the poor.

    In reference to this last idea, there is no doubt that the Private Business National Association (ANEP, in Spanish) is a unique and very efficient instrument, when it comes to convince the economic and political elites about its own perception of reality. No other guild in the country counts with so many resources to impose to the politicians —even if it is only a speech support— its perception about the national problems. However, maybe one of the most important questions that has to be considered is if the extremely advertised "the businessmen perspective of the nation", is according to the actual dimension of its proposals.

    In other words, we would have to examine up to what point the economic reactivation proposals supported by the ANEP are related to President Flores' discourse, which highlights the idea that "the sustainability of a business company requires a consumption market with purchasing power, and that means that all the Salvadorans are able to buy its products".

    We do not know if President Flores was joking when he said that. In any case, this idea could be a good starting point to analyze the different options for the economic reactivation. In addition, we would have to determine the sincerity that is used to demand the increase of the State participation in areas such as the social investment field, while the ANEP is still closed to any discussion about the need for a fiscal reform in this country.

    On the other hand, the ENADE 2001 opens the door to a few very interesting political considerations, in the context of the present national situation. In his opening speech for the already mentioned business encounter, ANEP's president, Ricardo Siman, gave away a clue to figure out one of the reasons —not too much advertised, but very logical— for the business meeting. It is about the verification which says that "if we do not confront adequately this adverse conditions, the threats against the freedom system that we enjoy and against the market performance will be more dangerous, because of the popular or the State control proposals, which restrict the space and the freedom of the private operations. This cannot be allowed, because we fought for many years to achieve this freedom system, which we have to keep improving, since it provides us with the proper environment to display our creativity and the business and labor productive capacity that have to become one and take advantage of the opportunities of a free market, with no distortions and in a healthy competition".

    The motivation could not be more evident: the businessmen from the ANEP see in the horizon a certain danger for the freedom system that according to them, they have struggled for and they presently enjoy. ENADE 2001 intends to be an answer against that threat.

    It would be necessary to ask the Salvadorans —to the poor, unemployed majority that the surveys talk about— if they see the same threat that the businessmen see. We could ask to those who are not related to the right-wing about the alleged threat against the business freedom system; or we could ask them who has received benefits from the present system. It is evident that these inquiries would show very different results about the State intervention ghost that the ANEP sees if they do not confront on time the present adversities.

    That is the reason why the ENADE 2001 can be connected with the country's present political situation. In a context in which the official party, ARENA, did not seem to find its direction, the ANEP believed that it was important to remind the right-wing's politicians the importance of the risks they might be running into. In other words, the encounter of the businessmen intends to call the attention of its party about the seriousness of the threat that the associated left-wing represents, in the national context, as a detractor of the business freedom system.  Whether the left-wing actions —feared by the ANEP— are real or fictitious, the political reason for their encounter obeys to this. Businessmen, in the end, are terrorized by a possible left-wing government.

    In this sense, ENADE 2001 is a call for the right-wing's business sectors to close its ranks and oblige their political leaders to place themselves at the level of the circumstances. That is the reason why President Flores had to emphasize his right-wing foundations. With this, he wanted to make the fearful businessmen understand that he is one of them, and that he is willing to fight a battle to stop the alleged popular threat.

    In this context, the right-wing does not think that the ideological battle has ended; although, when it is convenient, the national reconstruction issue is brought up, independently from the cold war’s ideological considerations. The President of the Republic and the ANEP remind the naive what an eventual advance of the left-wing can mean. The threatened economic interests should be enough to close ranks against the common enemy.

    With such a serious challenge, a few days before the business meeting, out of nothing at all, the different belligerent groups in ARENA accept to abandon their demands and personal whims to be directed by a businessman, Murray Meza. It is said, in these circumstances, that the beer industry businessman unites the country's right wing, when it should be said that with the risks that another electoral chaos would imply, the economic elites oblige its main actors to put their personal interests aside.

    It is important to notice that the right-wing's reorganization efforts are taking place in a moment in which the FMLN keeps languishing in a struggle between its tendencies. In case this situation continues, it will mean a serious slow down for the left-wing party's possibilities to become an electoral choice over the right-wing. However, the right-wing main actors do not take things for granted; the lesson from last March's electoral chaos has been assumed with a certain realism. That is why they try, with enough anticipation, to face the danger that might come ahead. In this context, it is healthier to call reality by its name, instead of wearing an outdated nationalism disguise. As an electoral strategy, it can achieve a certain amount of success, but it is necessary to avoid creating false expectations in most of the impoverished majority of Salvadorans.

    The recent history shows that, fundamentally, a country's long term viability depends on a coherent and consistent articulation between its different social actors: businessmen, workers, and the government. Every actor plays an important role in the production and the distribution of goods and services, however on its own, a social actor cannot propel a sustainable development process. At the most, he can create authoritarian ways to exert power, as it has occurred in El Salvador, practically ever since the Colony. Even in the present time, the government as well as the business companies keep insisting that development can be achieved without the need to agree.

    Ever since the ARENA party was established, it brought together most of the Salvadoran business sector; in fact, the highest rank public officials during the last three governments have been —and are— businessmen, basically. However, for the Private Business National Association (ANEP, in Spanish) —the country's main guild of business companies— the government has not done enough to encourage the national business companies' economic growth. At least that seems to be the consequence of the main approaches contained in the government's different development plans, out of which the most recent one is the  "Proposal for the reconstruction of a new El Salvador", made public by the end of August.

    This proposition contains five main subject areas: the reduction of energy costs, road infrastructure improvement, public expense control, civilian safety and support for the micro and the small business projects. However, in reality every particular sector has its own political ideas. In the end, the business sector seems to be presenting to the government an agenda that will be followed during its administration, which apparently has been received with a positive attitude by President Francisco Flores, for whom "the businessmen encounter is such a participative instrument, that it even compromises the political forces".

    This context demands asking if this business outline is actually participative or if, simply, it is about a very particular proposal which, even if it is legitimate and necessary, it cannot be considered as a nation's project nor as a "very participative instrument". To judge by the facts, it seems that the business sector as well as the government think that the incorporation of the working sector initiatives is not very important, since such sector was not considered not even for its formulation, nevertheless for the proposal's public presentation. This is a practice that would be turning systematic, specially if it is considered that the business sector also boycott the so called Social and Economic Arrangement Forum, which emerged from the Peace Agreements (this document contemplates the participation of the business, the working and the governmental sectors).

    In fact, in the Salvadoran business perspective, the workers' role in the development process is not an active one; they are only important as long as they are helpful for the business companies. These visions are the ones that explain the gremial postures of the business companies when they call themselves the "productive sector" of the country. This means that  the decisive contribution of the workers for the productive process is ignored. Therefore, it is not odd that previously to their development proposal presentation, the ANEP pronounced itself against one initiative of the working sector, about increasing the legal minimum wage. Previously, a coffee growing businessman —who is also a deputy in the Legislative Assembly representing ARENA— proposed that a decree that would allow his coffee-growing colleagues —including himself— to reduce the already exiguous wages paid to the peasants.

    However, independently from the social legitimacy of the business proposal, the truth is that it presents both fragmented and very particular perspectives about the country's economic situation. Practically every business sector is requesting a higher intervention of the State in the market, a paradoxical situation, considering that the Salvadoran business sector has been characterized as a defender of the free market.

    For instance, the construction sector requests the formulation of a national housing policy, and the   creation of a subsidy program; the industry asks for credit support programs and for reinforcing the quality improvement and competitiveness programs; and the farming sector asks for differentiated energy tariffs, agricultural diversification encouragement programs, and the creation of trading mechanisms. In total, seven proposals were presented from an equal number of economic sectors and, even though each one had its own characteristics, almost all of them requested to make the credit access more flexible (which the re-privatized bank assigns).

    This situation seriously questions the economic model structured by ARENA’s policies, which were based on an indiscriminate dissolution of the State and the public policies. The business sector resents that it did not receive enough benefits from last years’ economic activities, characterized by a slow economic growth and even for a structural crisis of many economic enterprises (such as commerce, construction and coffee-growing). That is why the business companies’ sector demands the State’s intervention to eliminate the obstacles and to encourage the economic growth, something that contradicts the fundamental aspects of  ARENA’s economic model.

    This might be the point where one of the most important contributions to the business proposal is: to question the role of the free market as an efficient resource provider. In the end, what is being discussed here is that the State’s indiscriminate duty exemption policies are not favorable, neither for the business sector nor for the worker’s sector. Consequentially, it is required that the State handles once again its development planning responsibilities, something difficult to accept by the apologists of neoliberalism, but unavoidable to sustain the Salvadoran society.

    However, it is not jus about imposing particular visions to make public policies, but also about defining the kind of society that we wish to build. We can no longer consider conservative right-wing strategies, when what we actually need is to transform the society and make it more productive, equitable, and prosper. Going back to the situation we were in 1995, when the economic growth was vigorous, is desirable, but it is not an objective just by itself.

    The business proposal contains ideas that, logically, seek to satisfy very particular interests, but that must be considered when a national offer is defined. The government’s challenge is not to assume the business companies’ proposals, but to complete them with the initiatives that emerge from the working sector’s perspective and which should be gathered by exchanging and arranging spaces, such as the extinct Social and Economic Arrangement Forum.