Momentum Against the MCC and other U.S. Policies May be Building

On May 2^nd, organizations and communities representing thousands of people from the Bajo Lempa region of Jiquilisco, Usulután held a press conference in San Salvador to denounce the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Law on Public Private Partnerships (P3 Law), and the tourism projects they promise to support. The Salvadoran labor movement also held a press conference on May 2^nd denouncing the MCC and P3 Law, which they believe will adversely affect much of the labor force.

Jose Acosta (Voices’ Field Director) speaking at a press conference with Ricardo Navarro (CESTA), Jose Santos Guevara (ACUDESBAL), and Manuel Calderón (ADIBAL)

Other than opposition from the labor movement and Bajo Lempa, the MCC proposal and the P3 Law have not created the huge public outcry that other issues have in recent years – attempt to privatize health care (2002), Central American Free Trade Agreement (2006), or Pacific Rim’s efforts to mine gold (2005-present).

But momentum against the MCC and the P3 Law seemed to get a boost on May 1 when Vice President and FMLN presidential candidate Sanchez Cerén announced he and his leftist party do not support U.S. agreements like Partnership for Growth and “the project that has been presented to the Legislative Assembly.” The project Cerén was referring to is a package of laws President Funes presented to the Legislative Assembly in October 2012 and includes the P3 Law.

Cerén’s statements were qualified however, and it remains a little unclear where he and the FMLN stand on the MCC and P3 Law.

Overview of Partnership for Growth, MCC, and the P3 Law

Partnership for Growth is President Obama’s development program that is being implemented in four countries – El Salvador, Ghana, Philippines, and Tanzania. In El Salvador, Partnership for Growth identified security and low production of tradables (exports) as the two main barriers to economic development. As a result, all U.S. programs and funding in El Salvador have to address one or both of these barriers.

In 2004, the Bush Administration created the MCC as its signature development program, investing funds on infrastructure and business development in countries around the world. The first round of MCC funding for El Salvador (2007-20012) invested $463 million in a new highway that spans the northern region of the country, high school and university scholarships, and capital for small businesses. If approved, the second round of MCC funding will be worth $413 million and likely contribute to the expansion of the Litoral Highway along El Salvador’s southern coast and invest in public-private partnerships, which include as many as 30 different tourism projects.

To receive more MCC funds, the U.S. Embassy said El Salvador must pass the Public-Private Partnership Law, which has been lingering in the Legislative Assembly since last year. The bill creates favorable conditions for private investors, and would pave the way for leasing and contracting out State resources and services, including water, education, health care, prisons, air and sea ports, and much more. Critics of the bill fear it will result in the loss of thousands of public sector jobs and adversely affect wages across the labor market. They also fear it will diminish the quality of public services.

Growing Opposition?

In his remarks yesterday, Sanchez Cerén said, “with respect to Partnership for Growth, we want to say that the project that has been presented to the Legislative Assembly, we as the FMLN do not back it.” As pointed out by Diario El Mundo, Cerén was referring to a package of laws that the Funes Administration presented to the Legislative Assembly on October 18, 2012. The purpose of the laws is to implement the Partnership for Growth action plan and include the Public-Private Partnership Law that residents of the Bajo Lempa and the Salvadoran Labor Movement denounced at their press conferences.

Cerén explained that the FMLN does not support Partnership for Growth because it includes mechanisms for privatizing health, education, and prisons. The Diario El Mundo article also reports that FMLN official José Luis Merino confirmed the party’s position on Partnership for Growth adding that they want the United States to respect El Salvador’s sovereignty.

The FMLN, and Cerén, also announced they have drafted their own proposal for increasing investment and promoting public-private investments, but in a manner that will safeguard the interests of the State and ensure that important services (health social services, public security and justice, water and education, and the National University) will not be privatized. It is unclear whether their proposal will satisfy the U.S. Embassy’s prerequisites for the MCC funding. It also remains unclear whether Cerén and the FMLN would also support tourism projects in the Bajo Lempa and respect the region’s desire to protect their communities and natural resources.

During his May 1^st speech, Cerén urged members of the FMLN not to abandon the party and permit the right-wing ARENA return to power. The plea was a recognition that the FMLN is somewhat divided right now, in large part over Partnership for Growth, the MCC, and the P3 Law. The FMLN can’t afford to loose the labor movement and entire regions like the Bajo Lempa and expect to defeat the ARENA candidate (Norman Quijano) in February 2014.

For now anyway, momentum against the P3 Law and the MCC seems to be growing.

Salvadoran Legislature Reforms the Law on Access to Public Information

At 2:30 in the morning last Friday, the Salvadoran Legislature approved reforms to the Law on Public Access to Information (LAIP). Civil society representatives have reacted by calling the changes unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights. The reforms take out any teeth the LAIP had to force government agencies to provide information requested. President Funes said he will take his time to review the provisions and decide whether to sign Friday’s bill into law or veto it.

A block of 46 representatives from the FMLN, GANA, and PCN parties voted for the reforms, while 29 representatives from the ARENA, CD, PDC, and 4 other independents voted against them.

Norman Guevara, one of the FMLN representatives who voted for the reforms, said the Legislative Assembly hadn’t approved the Bible when they created the Law [on Access to Public Information] and that it could be reformed. Monday an FMLN spokesman said that they were open to reviewing the reforms and that their only obligation is to transparency.

The Legislative Assembly passed the LAIP in 2011 with 55 votes after civil society organizations, led by Grupo Promotor de LAIP, advocated for years for greater transparency and the right to access public information. The LAIP covers most aspects of information management by government agencies – classification of information, release of information, and promoting a culture of transparency. The LAIP also creates an administrative infrastructure to facilitate citizen access to public information.

Friday’s reforms weaken the LAIP in many ways, according to Grupo Promotor. The Institute charged with implementing the LAIP no longer has the authority to resolve conflicts over what information should or should not be restricted – they can only make recommendations that government agencies can ignore.  The reforms also remove the sanctions that were to be imposed if a government agency withheld information. These reforms mean that the Institute will no longer be able to implement the law and guarantee free access of public information.

Over the weekend, Grupo Promotor said the reforms give government entities the privilege of secrecy and silence.

An article posted by La Prensa Grafica hints at a possible back-story behind the reforms. FUNDE, an organization that belongs to Grupo Promotor and has supported the LAIP, recently requested information from the Legislative Assembly about their costs related to Christmas gifts. They also requested information related to how much art the Legislative Assembly had purchased. The Legislature denied the request pertaining to the Christmas gifts and they said that a list of works of art purchased did not exist. The La Prensa Grafica article seems to indicate that the reforms were in response to FUNDE’s requests and that perhaps the FMLN was trying to hide information regarding these expenditures.

Yesterday, Voices spoke with Cristina, an environmentalists who researches and writes investigative reports about issues that affect the Lower Lempa. She told Voices that the LAIP and its implementation have been a success. As an example, she told us that for two years she tried to obtain the National Program for the Reduction of Risks. Government agencies, including the Ministry of the Environment, which she says is the most secretive, never provided her access to the document. Once the LAIP was passed she consulted with the information officials and received everything she needed.

Cristina said, “with regard to investigations, the LAIP has allowed me access to detailed information about industrial and artisan fishing, shrimping, trawlers operating along the coast, mining concessions and licenses, protocols for hydro-electric dam discharges, lists of properties greater than 100 manzanas, and more.”

Since Friday, many civil society representatives have responded to news of the reforms. The Ombudsman for Human Rights, Oscar Luna, said, “as public officials we are obliged to be transparent in our work. The reforms should not be able to affect the right to information that all citizens have.”

The Archbishop of San Salvador, Monsignor José Luis Escobar said, “the reforms are a violation of the Constitution of the Republic and the freedom of information.” He added, “I have heard that President [Funes] is going to study the issue, and is reflecting on it, and I as the President not to sanction these reforms and that the law should remain as it is, and that the diputados also reconsider their position.”

Javier Castro, who is the director of legal studies of FUSADES and a representative of the Grupo Promotor, said that group is thinking about legal actions. “We are already evaluating… the resources that we will be able to use at the moment. What we are clear about is that there is a clear violation of the constitution, and that a claim for unconstitutionality is viable.

If Funes signs these reforms into law, it will become much more difficult for activists like Cristina and communities like our partners in the Lower Lempa of Usulután and the mountains of Morazán to access information about the issues that affect them.

The reforms of the LAIP seem to be on par with the constitutional crises that El Salvador has experienced over the past couple years.Democracy is not always easy and sometimes those in power do not like the inconveniences of being transparent or not having control of courts. But it is promising to see civil society stand up to politicians and demand they do the right thing. As Funes reviews the reforms, he will surely consider the outcry from Salvadorans calling for him to veto the bill. And if for some reason he signs the bill into law, Grupo Promotor or other activists like Cristina will have recourse in the Constitutional Court. El Salvador faces a lot of complicated issues – drug trafficking, gangs, economic disparity, and so on. But each time Salvadorans go through one of these democratic growing pains, they come out stronger and better equipped to take on their more complicated problems.

Not to downplay the seriousness of this issue. Salvadorans have worked hard to secure the right to access public information and have a greater voices in their government, and they have the right to be outraged. But this is also an opportunity to solidify the country’s demand for and participation in a transparent and open government.

Voices will be following this story over the coming days/weeks so stay tuned. If you speak Spanish and are on Facebook, Grupo Promotor has a very informative page that we follow.

Dollarization: “A Sack of Unfulfilled Promises”

In January 2001, El Salvador began the dollarization process, which changed the official currency from the Salvadoran Colon to the U.S dollar. According to an article posted on Tim’s El Salvador Blog, former President Francisco Flores and his Minister of Finance, Manuel Enrique Hinds, made the change in order to keep interest levels low, control inflation and increase foreign investment.

In the twelve years since, Salvadorans have engaged in a constant debate over dollarization – has it been good or not, and should they keep the U.S. currency or revert back to the Colon. In June 2011, we posted an article on this blog looking back at ten years of dollarization, concluding that it has not brought about the positive benefits promised.

Others have reached the similar conclusions, including the current President of El Salvador’s Central Reserve Bank, Carlos Acevedo who earlier this month said dollarization was “a sack of unfulfilled promises.” The Central Reserve Bank is a government-controlled entity that regulates many aspects of El Salvador’s economy, including its currency, and Acevedo’s opinion carries some weight.

This is not the first time Acevedo has criticized dollarization. In March 2012 he penned an opinion piece for El Faro that described the process of planning for and implementing dollarization as “hasty and improvised.” He also said that reversing dollarization (de-dollarization) would be even more detrimental. Acevedo, however, also told Contrapunto that “the next government will be forced to consider the possibility of de-dollarization to allow for a monetary policy that provides greater flexibility of public finance, and so it will be able to return to printing money and adjusting interest rates to stimulate the economy.

Bank President Acevedo made his most recent statements (reported by Active Transparency) following the release of a government study on dollarization, which reached some rather negative conclusions. The report found that many key economic indicators, including exports and GDP fell, while inflation and interest rates rose. Dollarization has failed to shield the economy from downturns and instead made El Salvador more susceptible to instabilities in the U.S. economy, as witnessed during the 2009 recession. The Economista published an article yesterday reaching very much the same conclusions.

In his statements this month, Acevedo said dollarization was “badly designed, improvised and lacking consultation,” and that El Salvador’s fiscal performance with dollarization was the worst in sixty years. He also said the performance was so poor that even proponents of dollarization could not ignore its negative impacts. Even in his most recent comments, however, Acevedo stressed that the Funes administration is not considering de-dollarization and that doing so would cause more economic hard and instability. One of his fears is that Salvadorans would make a run on the banks, withdrawing dollars before they were converted to Colones or another currency.

While President Funes may not have de-dolarization plans for the last year of his administration, Vice President and FMLN 2014 presidential candidate Sanchez Ceren said in May 2012 that dollarization was the cause of the current economic recession and that El Salvador’s currency had to be changed back to the Colon.

Norman Quijano, the Mayor of San Salvador and the ARENA party’s 2014 presidential candidate stated in the past that dollarization would be beneficial to consumers. In a more recent interview he said, “reversing dollarization would be the worst thing to do.” Former President Tony Saca, who may run as the GANA party’s 2014 presidential candidate, stated in the past that he supported dollarization and that de-dollarization would be detrimental.

Acevedo’s comments paint a pretty difficult position for El Salvador in terms of the country’s economic policy. Dollarization has been bad, but de-dollarization would be really bad. While the current slate of presidential candidates have made general statements, it is unclear whether they are open to more nuanced positions that will give government economists more tools to promote a more stable economy.

Legislative Assembly Reaches Agreement on New Attorney General

It appears the Salvadoran Government will avoid another institutional crisis by selecting a new Attorney General for the three-year term that is to begin on September 19, 2012.

A conflict arose on April 25, 2012 when the outgoing Legislative Assembly chose Astor Escalante to be the next Attorney General of El Salvador. At 1:00 in the morning, Sigfredo Reyes, President of the Legislative Assembly, swore him in, even though his term would not start for another 5 months.

Members of the ARENA party objected to his appointment and filed a complaint in the Constitutional Court. In July, the Court ruled in their favor declaring Escalante’s appointment unconstitutional. The based their decision on the principal that each Legislative Assembly (which serves a three year term) has the responsibility to appoint a specific number of judges, as well as the nation’s Attorney General. In April, the outgoing Legislative Assembly, which appointed Romeo Barahona when they took office in 2009, appointed Escalante to serve for the next three years. This was their second appointment and if it stood would have essentially denied the current Assembly an appointment.

The Court handed down its decision while it was embroiled in its own crisis; many, including Escalante, said that the Court’s decision was invalid. With the summer’s crisis resolved, some feared another institutional battle over Escalante’s appointment.

According to La Prensa Grafica, the Legislative Assembly has reached a decision that will avert a new battle between the legislative and judicial branches. Yesterday stakeholders met to discuss a resolution and it appears they will void Escalante’s April appointment and start the process again so the new Attorney General can take office on September 19, 2012. They will choose from the same list of 47 candidates that were considered in April, and it is possible that Escalante may be chosen again – the fight was over the process not the person. Sigfrido Reyes clarified yesterday that the decision reached by the working group was a political compromise, and not an indication that they agreed with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

Prior to the meeting, the Catholic Church, the President and others asked that the Legislative Assembly resolve the issue before Barahona’s last day on September 18. President Funes even offered to mediate between the parties, but it appears that won’t be necessary.

The online news journal La Página had interesting political analysis back in July when they reported on the Constitutional Court’s decision. It was the ARENA block of the Legislative Assembly that objected to Escalante’s appointment, even though the ARENA supported his appointment during the Saca administration. In the months after leaving office, former President Saca was ousted from the ARENA party. The split was ugly and when Saca joined the GANA party, ARENA labeled him a traitor. Members of the ARENA objected to Escalante now because he supported Saca during the split. It will be interesting to see if Escalante will have the support of this new Legislative Assembly, which has a few more ARENA representatives than it did in April.

ANEP (National Association of Private Enterprise) taking on Presient Funes, Again!

At 2:40 the morning of August 17, the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly finished a series of reforms that changed the way 19 autonomous state entities elect their boards of directors. The reforms, which proponents downplayed as relatively minor, drew the ire of ANEP (National Association of Private Enterprise) and further exposed an ongoing feud with President Funes and the FMLN party.

The reforms target entities such as the CEL, which operates El Salvador’s hydroelectric dams, and CEPA, which oversees the country’s ports including the Comalapa International Airport. They also target ANDA, which manages El Salvador’s water and waste management systems, FOVIAL, which takes care of the highway and roads, and ISSS, part of the government health care system.

Though these entities operate like private corporations and enjoy some autonomy from the government administrators, they exist to provide public services and are regulated by law. The President of El Salvador has always appointed the heads of these institutions. The August 17^th reforms expand the President’s authority by giving him a role in choosing members of the boards from the non-governmental sector. When these 19 entities need new board members from the non-governmental sectors, they will present the President with a slate of three candidates of their choosing and he will select one. It used to be that ANEP appointed the board members from the non-governmental sector, but the reforms diminish their role in the process.

The relationship between ANEP, the government, and these autonomous state institutions is a little complex. According to their website, ANEP is a nonprofit organization created by Salvadoran businesses in 1966. Its mission is to “coordinate efforts of private initiatives to promote the economic, social, and cultural development of the country, and defend the free enterprise system in El Salvador.” ANEP represents more than 49 trade guilds and 14,000 employees from all sectors of the Salvadoran economy.

Over the years, ANEP has been a driving force behind El Salvador’s embracing free trade and deregulation. In addition to local trade guilds, ANEP’s membership includes 153 large transnational corporations such as 3M, Kimberly Clark, Microsoft, Nestle, British American Tobacco, Sherwin Williams, Texaco, and many others. (see The Nation in the Global Era: Conflict and Transformation, by Jerry Harris, Brill 2009). Each year, ANEP and these transnational corporations hold an economic conference call ENADE (National Gathering of Private Enterprise) from which they generate a report recommending reforms and legislation – many of which are enacted. According to Jerry Harris, this is how larger international corporations influence the government and create a favorable business climate in El Salvador.

Last week, an editorial piece in Diario CoLatino posed a valid question – why does ANEP have to be part of the government? The editorial also asks, “is it legitimate and inclusive that ANEP has representatives in these autonomous organizations, making it part of the government without obligation to a [political] party or government program?” The author indicates that ANEP cites their business expertise to justify their involvement, and that they are a civil society organization and should be responsible for appointing civil society representatives.

While that may be, its more probable that ANEP’s role in these autonomous entities, which provide such important public services, is more a product of their close relationship with the conservative ARENA party. Since the mid-1980s ANEP and members of ARENA have had many of the same political and economic interests. Leaders of El Salvador’s business sector, which is represented by ANEP, have also been the most ardent supporters of, and at times leaders of, the ARENA party. For example, before he became President of El Salvador in 2004, Tony Saca was a prominent business leader in El Salvador and served as president of ANEP. Because they shared so many economic and political interests, and were often comprised of the same people, it made sense for ARENA to carve out a space for ANEP by giving them significant control over the autonomous entities.

Their historical relationship with the ARENA party may help to explain the current conflict with President Funes and the FMLN party. It is already election season. Even though the Salvadoran presidential elections are a grueling 18-months away, the ARENA and FMLN parties began focusing on control of the executive branch immediately after the March 2012 municipal and legislative elections. The language coming from both sides indicates that the feud is political.

In justifying the reforms, President Funes and the FMLN skipped right over the question addressed in the CoLatino editorial – why does ANEP have a role in the first place? Funes instead said that greater government oversight was needed because ANEP did nothing to investigate or prevent the corruption perpetrated by leaders of some of the autonomous entities. The President specifically mentioned the 2002/3 ANDA scandals in which Carlos Perla made off with millions of dollars that should have been used for a water project (click here for a good summary of the Carlos Perla case). He also mentioned corruption scandals in the ISSS (a government health care provider) and BFA (Agricultural Bank). Funes placed responsibility on ANEP and ARENA without explicitly accusing them of involvement, since the scandals happened during their watch.

In response to ANEP’s reaction to the reforms, President Funes said he did not even know why they were taking such a strong position. He also accused them of trying to dynamite the negotiations that ended the constitutional crisis. He added, “there are groups busy creating a destabilizing environment. ANEP has been destabilizing the country, torpedoing the situation [negotiations] and has tried to manipulate the roundtable.” Since Funes took office in June 2009, there have been allegations that the most extreme members of the conservative parties have tried to destabilize the FMLN and Funes Administration by causing social and economic crises.

ANEP began their attacks against the FMLN and Funes administration in May, accusing the administration of mismanaging the economy.  The most heated rhetoric started coming in June and July when this summer’s constitutional crisis flared up. (For more on the constitutional crisis, we recommend Tim’s Blog). ANEP publically stated that as long as the President and his administration “continues their assault against democracy, the independent judiciary, and respect for the constitution, the private sector will not participate in the Economic and Social Council, CES.”

In response to the August 17^th reforms, ANEP posted a statement to their Facebook page saying, “What Funes did today is exactly the same that other non-democratic presidents of ALBA countries [Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, which includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Cuba] have done. And now those countries are immersed in the worst crisis of authoritarianism and lack of freedom in all of Latin America.” ANEP President Jorge Daboub also called the Funes government a dictatorship.

This is the same language that ARENA candidates and their surrogates and supporters have used against the FMLN for many years. Staff at the US Embassy and even members of the U.S. Congress used similar language during the 2004 campaign when ARENA candidate Tony Saca defeated FMLN candidate Shafick Handal. Members of Congress tried to influence Salvadoran elections again in 2009 when FMLN candidate Mauricio Funes defeated ARENA candidate Rodrigo Avila. This summer Mary O’Grady has used her position on the Wall Street Journal editorial board to post op/ed pieces laced with this same kind of extreme rhetoric, attacking both the FMLN and Sanchez Cerén who will represent them in the 2014 elections.

The August 17^th reforms that decrease the role of the ANEP in these autonomous government agencies is probably not a bad thing. Not because ANEP is corrupt or incapable, but as Diario CoLatino editorial piece noted, because its not really their place to have such a large role in these public entities.

The 19 entities targeted by the reforms manage over $1.6 billion in public resources and have a profound impact on the lives of every Salvadoran. Voices on the Border’s partner communities in the Lower Lempa, for example, struggle every year with flooding caused in large part by the September 15^th Dam managed by the CEL, one of the entities affected by the reforms. The CEL makes more money when their reservoirs are full at the end of the hurricane season – they are able to generate more electricity farther into the dry season. Full reservoirs, however, means that if there is a big storm, like Tropical Storm 12-E that dumped 55 inches of rain in El Salvador last October, communities downstream will likely flood. The August 17^th reforms increase the likelihood that someone from the Lower Lempa or at least sympathetic to their flooding issues could get appointed to the CEL board and influence management of the dam.

 

Another Misleading O’Grady/Wall Street Journal Article about El Salavdor

Friday afternoon we posted about last week’s protest of Sanchez Cerén’s visit to Freeport, NY. In the post we mentioned recent op/ed pieces published by the Wall Street Journal were a little hyperbolic in their discussion of the FMLN and the threats against democracy.

The author of those pieces – Mary O’Grady – published another op/ed piece in the WSJ this morning. Using the same Cold War language, she echoed the same grossly misleading if not outright dishonest allegations that Cerén and the FMLN led an anti-American protest in the days after 9-11.

The only reason it matters what Mary O’Grady thinks and writes is that some people still read the Wall Street Journal. In the comments under the article, one reader thanked O’Grady for keeping people informed about what’s happening “down there” and that it sounded as if things are “getting worse.”

If the WSJ and Mary O’Grady are your only source of news about El Salvador, then things may appear to be getting worse. Fortunately, there are some other sources of news in English that provide a more accurate account of the situation in El Salvador.  We thought now might be a good time to share some of our favorite online news sources – please share with your friends and family, especially if you suspect they might be reading the WSJ.

English Blogs:

Tim’s El Salvador Blog  – Tim provides great news and analysis of current events in El Salvador in English.

Grit and Grace

Linda’s El Salvador Blog

A few of news agencies and blogs that have provided good coverage on El Salvador in English include:

Insight Crime

Latin Times

Al Jazeera

Huffington Post

Spanish news agencies:

El Faro

La Prensa Grafica

Diario CoLatino

Contrapunto

And for more information on Mary O’Grady, here is an entertaining writeup from NACLA. O’Grady also spoke at a conference in Puerto Rico earlier this year.  Amazingly, she argues that its the intellectuals that are responsible for undermining development and progress in Latin America over the past century.

Salvadoran VP Sanchez Cerén Greeted by Protesters in Freeport, NY

Sanchez Cerén – El Salvador’s Vice President and 2014 presidential candidate for the FMLN party – drew a crowd of protestors this past Monday when he visited the Long Island town of Freeport, New York. Vice President Cerén was in town to celebrate Salvadoran American Day with the over 100,000 Salvadorans that live on Long Island.

It appears that protestors were out for a couple of reasons. One, some residents don’t seem to like the current Freeport government and welcome any opportunity to say so. More specifically, protestors were upset that their local representatives would meet with Sanchez Cerén who they called a terrorist for participating in anti-American, flag burning protests four days after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Calling Cerén a terrorist is nothing new. U.S. politicians and members in the conservative media frequently use the post-911 incident as justification for supporting for ARENA candidates and denouncing the FMLN as terrorists. As campaigning for the 2014 elections gets heated up, its surely going to be a story repeated again and again.

Ceren’s involvement in the rally has to be taken in context, however. September 15^th is Independence Day in El Salvador – a day when many groups hit the streets to celebrate independence from Spain and even demad independence from the U.S. It happens every year.  September 15, 2001 Sanchez Cerén and other FMLN activists used Independence Day to protest El Salvador’s adoption of the U.S. dollar as its currency, which many people saw (and still see twelve years later) as a way the U.S. maintains control over El Salvador.

Many other groups were protesting in San Salvador on September 15, 2001 as well, including a radical student group that burned a U.S. flag. It’s dishonest and wrong to say that because Sanchez Cerén and others were speaking out against dollarization and privatization a few days after 9-11 that they are anti-American terrorists that support Al-Qaeda. In fact, before participating in the rally, Cerén led a delegation of FMLN officials to the U.S. Embassy to convey their condolences for the attack on the U.S. – hardly the act of an anti-American flag-burning protester. After the rally, Cerén told reporters that he and the FMLN were marching to condemn dollarization and privatization.

The distortion of Cerén’s activities on September 15^th is similar to recent op/ed pieces posted in the Wall Street Journal discussing this summer’s constitutional crisis in El Salvador. Just like Cerén’s detractors have resorted to name calling instead of engaging in policy debates, the WSJ chose to use the important struggle between the judiciary and other branches of government to characterize the FMLN as anti-democratic Chavistas (Tim’s Blog wrote a great analysis of the WSJ and a similar Washington Post article).

The FMLN and its leadership are not perfect and there is plenty of reason to engage them in policy debates, but no one is served by the kind distortions and name-calling reminiscent of cold war and post-911 paranoia.

The FMLN Chooses a Weak Candidate for the 2014 Presidential Elections

As of last week, Sánchez Cerén appears to be the FMLN’s candidate for the 2014 presidential election. The current Vice President went as far to say that he was the FMLN candidate and stepped down as the Minister of Education.

Analysts, and even high profile members of the FMLN, agree that Sánchez Cerén’s prospects for winning the presidency in 2014 are limited at best.  Recent polls show only 13% of those surveyed believe that Sánchez Cerén is the best candidate to represent the FMLN in the upcoming elections.  Party leaders are certainly aware of the challenges that a Sánchez Cerén candidacy would represent for the FMLN.  Nevertheless, they are determined to nominate a seemingly weak candidate.

Until the 2009 elections, the FMLN nominated party hardliners as their presidential candidates resulting in predictable defeats.  The rejection by the Salvadoran electorate of the party’s orthodox leaders was seen as the result of a long-standing campaign by right-wing groups to propagate fear of a leftist government, both nationally and internationally.  To assuage those fears, the FMLN created an alliance with Mauricio Funes, a moderate, center-left candidate, who commanded a strong following among a broader sector of Salvadoran society.

Mauricio Funes, however, was, and still remains, an outsider.  To many in the party, his election was an empty victory because he did not represent the orthodox-wing of the party, and was not part of the historical leadership that fought in the country’s civil war.  Most importantly, Funes does not share the party leadership’s ideology and political agenda.

Nevertheless, Funes’ election was an important step in the FMLN’s long-term strategy.  His government served to dispel all the apocalyptic consequences that many feared would befall on the country if the FMLN ever achieved the presidency.  The leadership of the FMLN seems to think that the population is now open to electing a candidate that truly represents the party’s ideological roots.

Party leaders, however, also know that they must appeal to a border cross-section of the population to have a realistic chance of winning.  They hope to do this by nominating a vice presidential candidate from outside the party who can appeal to moderates and independents.

This strategy is not likely to overcome the weakness of Salvador Sánchez Cerén as a candidate.  In the March 2012 legislative and mayoral elections, Salvadorans rejected candidates with a similar background as that of Sánchez Cerén in former FMLN strongholds of Soyapango, Apopa and Mejicanos: party loyalists linked to the orthodox-wing of the FMLN and former civil war commanders.

One of the central themes that emerged out of the March 2011 elections was that of an electorate growing more independent and less beholden to rigid ideologies and party loyalties. La Prensa Grafica’s latest poll, conducted in May 2012, showed that only 9% of Salvadorans believe that the most of important factor in deciding who to vote for was party affiliations.  Sixteen percent said the most important determinant was ideology.  In contrast, 32% considered campaign promises and 35% the candidate to be the primary factor in their voting decision.

These trends may foretell a likely defeat for the FMLN in the 2014 presidential elections.  The FMLN’s leadership is once again miscalculating the mood of the Salvadoran electorate.  Salvadorans are demanding competent leaders that respond to the necessities of voters, not the interests of the party and its political elites.

ARENA ahead of the 2014 Presidential Elections

With the 2014 presidential elections “just around the corner” in El Salvador, political parties are well into the process of picking their candidates. Like other countries, Salvadoran political parties go through a nominating process to decide who will represent them in the general election. While the FMLN has all but officially chosen Sánchez Cerén, the current Vice President of El Salvador, as their candidate, the ARENA party has yet to select their candidate. Some in the ARENA party are still are still trying to change the way party officials will choose their 2014 representative.

El Faro reported on Monday that a group of ARENA reformists have proposed changing the nominating process. The party’s top leaders would still choose the candidate, but their vote would be secret. One party spokesman said, “if passed the reforms could change the invisible structure of the party.”

While it may seem counter-intuitive that secret ballots would somehow eliminate the “invisible structure of the party,” the idea is to provide those who cast votes with some anonymity so they can vote on merit. According to the El Faro article, four main power blocks finance and control the ARENA party. A former official in the Saca Administration (2004-2009) said these interests exert the most influence during the nomination of presidential candidates. Once a president is elected they may try to push an issue every now and then, but for the most part they leave them alone.  The secret ballots during the nominating process would in theory decrease the influence these four powerful interests have over the nominating process.

The nominating process has always been top-down, with the party base having little to no input. The secret ballots won’t change that power structure at all. The party leaders will still be the ones casting votes and the base won’t know whom they voted for. The main shift would be a consolidation of power away from the four interest groups back to the party leaders. One ARENA founder suggested the party give the base a voice in choosing candidates by moving to a party-wide vote. Doing so would bring the party more in line with the independent and inclusive voting practices that the Supreme Court has been discussing for the past year.

The El Faro article indicates that former President Alfredo Cristiani supports the reforms and is currently surveying the AREANA leadership to see if he can muster up a consensus to vote them into the party bylaws. While he has benefited from the current system over the years – it got him elected president in 1989 – it he would likely benefit from the changes. Instead of having to answer to the power blocks, party leaders will have more control.

The proposed reforms are not new; party leaders have been considering secret ballots for many years but they have not had the internal support to get them passed. Opponents of secret ballots argue that the current system has served the party well for the past 31 years and that there is no need for reform. They also argue that the current open system is more transparent.

The 2014 election is important for ARENA. They lost the presidency to the FMLN in 2009 and they want it back. ARENA did well in the March 2012 municipal and legislative elections, taking control of the Legislative Assembly and winning several municipal seats that have been in the hands of the FMLN for many years.

A few names have been tossed around as possible ARENA candidates for 2014. Norman Quijano just won his second term as mayor of San Salvador, and is often mentioned as a possible candidate. He said shortly after the elections that he would certainly be open to the idea of running. Another possible candidate is Ana Vilma de Escobar, who was Vice President under Tony Saca (2004-2009) and is the wife of one of El Salvador’s wealthiest businessmen. As already mentioned, Sánchez Cerén is the likely candidate for the FMLN party, and former-president Tony Saca may try to run as a GANA party candidate. Back in April, Tim’s Blog posted short bios on each of these candidates.

 

 

 

Election Results and Highlights 2012

Last Sunday, Salvadorans went to the polls to elect mayors and legislative representatives – the first elections since March 2009 when Mauricio Funes became the first opposition candidate to win the country’s Presidency. It was the conservative ARENA party’s turn to celebrate yesterday, winning back control over the Legislative Assembly and a large number of important municipal seats.

According to the Supreme Election Tribunal website, the party totals for the Legislative Assembly are:

• ARENA: 33 seats
• FMLN: 31 seats
• GANA: 11 seats
• CN: 6
• PES/CN: 1
• CD: 1
• PES: 1
• Independent Candidates: 0

Despite the clear victory for ARENA, no single party has a simple majority of 43 seats and ARENA will have to depend on GANA or other minority parties to take action. As Tim’s Blog pointed out, it’s always possible that the FMLN, GANA, and CN could form a voting bloc and control the Legislative Assembly. While GANA is a conservative party, there may be political advantage in siding with the FMLN on occasion just to keep ARENA in check.

Sunday night, ARENA officials didn’t seem too worried about uniting with GANA. In 2009 when the FMLN won the Presidency and retained control over the Legislative Assembly, ARENA seemed to have hit rock bottom. In October of that year, however, they expelled ex-President Tony Saca from the party accusing him of rigging the selection process that named Rodrigo Avila as their presidential candidate; as well as conspiring to divide the party through the creation of the well-financed GANA party.  Before the elections, ex-President Saca called on the GANA and ARENA parties to unite for the 2014 elections to ensure victory over the FMLN.

But after making such an incredible comeback on Sunday, ARENA leaders again called Tony Saca and the Areneros who left to form GANA traitors and said they do not need to unite to defeat the FMLN in 2014. And ARENA leaders are already eyeing the 2014 elections. On Monday night, Norman Quijano, who won his second term as the mayor of San Salvador by handily defeating FMLN candidate Jorge Shafik Handal, said on Channel 33 that he is definitely considering running for president. Tony Saca has also indicated that he is interested in running for another term as President. Ana Vilma de Escobar, who was Tony Saca’s Vice President, has also made it clear that she is interested in running for President again – she had aspired to be the 2009 candidate before Avila was anointed. Vilma de Escobar did well on Sunday collecting more votes in San Salvador than any of the other legislative candidates on the ballot.

In addition to losing seats in the Legislative Assembly, the FMLN took a big hit in greater metropolitan are of San Salvador, which is comprised of 14 distinct municipalities. In addition to Mayor Quijano holding on to his office in San Salvador, ARENA candidates won in Mejicanos, Soyapango, Ilopango, Apopa, San Martín, Tonacatepeque y Ayutuxtepeque, as well as Santo Tomas just south of the city. As La Prensa Grafica pointed out yesterday, the population of these former FMLN strong holds is over 984,000. Though the margins of the ARENA victories were tight, they were victories none-the-less.

In Soyapong, the FLMN incumbent Don Carlos “Diablo” Ruíz” lost by a mere 309 votes.  Many have made the joke that ARENA had to perform an exorcism in Soyapongo to get out “El Diablo”.  Others are wondering what will become of the ALBA contracts, whose operations hinge on their partnerships with FMLN municipalities.  The Mayors of Apopa and Soyapongo hold the vice president and secretary positions, respectively.

FMLN spokesperson, Roberto Lorenzana, summarized his party’s losses yesterday during a press conference, saying that ARENA won 2.9% more votes, and took some of their symbolic strongholds – Soyapango, Apopa, and Mejicanos – four legislative seats, and more than 150,000 votes that they got in 2009. He said the party is accepting the results with maturity and responsibility, and will be looking at what lessons they need to take away from the losses.

Maria “Chichilco” Ofelia Navarrete, the former FMLN guerilla featured in the 1990 documentary “Maria’s Story” and current Vice-Minister of Government, said this week that Sunday’s results were a sign that El Salvador’s voters are maturing. She points to several politicians from the FMLN and ARENA who lost offices they’ve held for many years because voters wanted change instead of voting for the same parties and the same people. She sites examples from her home region in Chalatenango. In Pontonico, the FMLN mayor who has held his seat for many years lost by 10 votes to the ARENA challenger. Similarly, in San José Cansaque the ARENA mayor who had been in office for many years lost his seat to the FMLN challenger. She says:

“This means that every day the people are maturing in their democratic development… at times the people get fed up with the same government. The leadership from all parties has to reflect, first on the direction of their internal democracy – this is an urgent call.”

Sunday’s voting was not without complaints. On Sunday, officials closed the polls in two municipalities – San Lorenzo, Ahuachapán and San Miguel Tepezontes, La Paz. In San Lorenzo, the Municipal Electoral Board stopped voting to “protect people’s votes.” One report says that election officials closed the polls because FMLN supporters from other places were trying to vote in San Lorenzo. In San Miguel Tepezontes, opposition parties accused the ARENA incumbent mayor of bringing in voters from other municipalities to vote for him, which is of course of a violation of the election code. Because voting in these communities was stopped, the TSE announced that they will try again this Sunday, March 18^th.  Eugenio Chicas, the president of the TSE said that those found responsible for closing the polls could receive up to 10 years of jail time.

In other communities, political parties have not accepted the results of Sunday’s election, claiming fraud. In the municipality of La Libertad, La Libertad, activists from the GANA, ARENA, and PNL parties protested the victory of FMLN-PES incumbent, claiming that he also brought in outsiders to throw the elections in his favor. The margin of victory is almost 700 votes, which would not be an insignificant amount of people to cast fraudulent votes. The ARENA party is also questioning Sunday’s results in other municipalities where they lost seats that they once held. In Nuevo Cuscatlán, La Libertad, ARENA leaders claim that the FMLN challenger won by bringing in outsiders to vote for him, and that they bought off members of the local voting board.

Perhaps the most extreme act on Sunday occurred in San Francisco Menendez, Ahuachapan where vandals broke into the voting center as officials were counting votes and burned the ballot boxes, destroying over 90% of the ballots. The article reporting the incident says that the police and attorney general’s office are investigating and have leads. Others in the community have accused the PDC Mayor Narciso Ramirez of election fraud, saying that he bused in outsiders to vote for him.  Mayor Ramirez has made national news a couple times over the past couple of years. Last October he made news during Tropical Storm 12-E because he was out assisting with the rescue efforts during the extreme flooding when his truck got swept away by the flooding Paz River. The Comandos de Salvamento pulled him and others from the vehicle and got them to safety. In April 2010, the Mayor made national news when he was caught in a shootout over a “business deal” gone bad. Mayor Ramirez was shot three times and three others were killed.

In Pasaquina, La Union, the attorney general has charged three people with electoral fraud. Police caught the men transporting flyers that threatened people going to vote. In Ozatlán, Usulután, officials have charged a man with voting twice.

The municipality of San Fernando, Morazán is going to have to have a run-off. Candidates for the ARENA and GANA parties each received 259 votes, meaning that there is no clear winner. The FMLN and CD parties were not far behind with 236 and 238 votes respectively. The TSE announced that they would hold a runoff after the Semana Santa vacations in April.

Continue to monitor final numbers at the TSE website, or check out the Faro’s all-inclusive time-line for the elections.