What is Going on in El Salvador?

You are cordially invited to a very intriguing conversation with Salvadoran experts, tomorrow evening. The topics we will be discuss are the Current state of Politics and Freedom of Expression in El Salvador.

If you want to directly contribute via the Zoom meeting, pre-register @ shorturl.at/goqR5

We can’t wait to see you!

---

Están cordialmente invitad@s a una conversación muy intrigante con expertos salvadoreños, esta noche. Los temas que trataremos son el estado actual de la política y la libertad de expresión en El Salvador.

Si desean contribuir directamente a través de la reunion de Zoom, preinscríbase @ shorturl.at/goqR5

¡Estamos ansiosos por verte!

THE LARGEST MARCH AGAINST NAYIB BUKELE’S GOVERNMENT

LEER EN ESPAÑOL

[Reuters]

On September 15, the same date as the Bicentennial commemoration of Central America’s independence, thousands of Salvadorans took to the streets of San Salvador to express their rejection of different political decisions recently made by the government of President Nayib Bukele.

“No to presidential re-election!”, “No to bitcoin!”, “No to militarization!”, “No to dictatorship!”, “No to corruption!” and “We demand respect for human rights!” were the most common messages seen on the banners carried by protesters.

But the most forcefully expressed demand, both on the banners and the loudspeakers, was the rejection of the adoption of bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador. Last June, Bukele sent a proposal to the Legislative Assembly to adopt this cryptocurrency in the country. In response and without further analysis, the Assembly, controlled by the official party, approved a law that establishes that all economic agents must accept bitcoin as a form of payment.

On Tuesday, September 7, said law came into effect, despite its unpopularity. In a survey conducted by the Central American University (UCA) in August, 95.9% of the population believed that the adoption of bitcoin should be voluntary. This study also revealed that more than half of the population, 54.3%, believed that the prices of basic foodstuffs would increase with the introduction of bitcoin as legal tender. In addition, different social organizations expressed their concern over the fact that bitcoin is an extremely volatile cryptocurrency.

Protesters also showed their contempt for the dismissal of judges over 60 years of age. On September 1, the Legislative Assembly approved another controversial law, a reform to the law of the judicial career that establishes the mandatory retirement of judges who are 60 years of age or 30 years of service. Up until September 1, there was no age limit to be a judge.

According to the administration, the justification for this reform is the purification of the judicial system by removing corrupt judges, however many suggest that the hidden purpose is the control of the judicial body by the executive since the more than 200 vacant positions will be filled by judges aligned with the interests of the ruling party.

One of the judges to be dismissed under this reform, is Jorge Guzmán, the investigating judge of San Francisco Gotera, who is hearing the case of El Mozote, which is in its final stage.

According to David Morales, a notable victims’ and human rights attorney, “this dismissal of Judge Guzmán will directly affect the State’s obligation to carry out, without obstacles, the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the massacre of El Mozote.”

Another clear reason for the protest was the resolution of the Constitutional Chamber, issued on September 3, which enables the re-election of the president.

“This decision allows immediate presidential re-election and is clearly contrary to the Salvadoran Constitution, which establishes that immediate re-election is not allowed,” remarked Jean Manes, ambassador to El Salvador (2016-2019) and who now heads the US diplomatic representation in the country.

On this same topic, Ricardo Navarro, a renowned environmentalist, during the march told the press: “Before there was a decent Constitutional Chamber, now there is a room that is a branch of the Presidency of the Republic.”

As expected, the march did not go unnoticed by the government. That same evening, the president spent a few minutes on radio and television networks attempting to downplay it, as his closest officials flooded the social networks with messages hoping to minimize the protest.

Despite the official narrative, the images speak for themselves. They show that this was the largest demonstration carried out against the Bukele administration. There is no doubt that despite citizen approval of the government remains high, decisions such as the bitcoin law, reforms to the judicial career law, and presidential re-election have activated the emotions and feelings of a good part of the citizenry, which this time legitimately expressed themselves in the streets.

Learn more at our upcoming Virtual Forum: Bitcoin in El Salvador and its Impacts

---

[El Faro]

LA MARCHA MÁS GRANDE CONTRA EL GOBIERNO DE NAYIB BUKELE

El pasado 15 de septiembre, la misma fecha en que se conmemoró el Bicentenario de la independencia de Centroamérica, miles de salvadoreños y salvadoreñas se tomaron las calles de San Salvador para manifestar su rechazo a diferentes decisiones políticas, tomadas por el gobierno del presidente Nayib Bukele, en los últimos meses.

“No a la reelección presidencial”, “no al bitcoin”, “no a la militarización”, “no a la dictadura”, “no a la corrupción” y “exigimos respeto a los derechos humanos” eran los mensajes más frecuentes en las pancartas que portaban los manifestantes.

Pero la demanda expresada con más fuerza, tanto en las pancartas como en los altavoces, era el rechazo a la adopción del bitcoin como moneda de curso legal en El Salvador. El pasado mes de junio Bukele envió una propuesta a la Asamblea Legislativa para adoptar esta criptomoneda en el país. En respuesta y sin mayor análisis la Asamblea, controlada por el partido oficial, aprobó una ley que establece que todos los agentes económicos deberán aceptar el bitcoin como forma de pago.

El martes 7 de septiembre entró en vigencia dicha ley, aún con el desacuerdo, mayoritariamente, de la población. En una encuesta realizada por la Universidad Centroamericana, en el mes de agosto, el 95.9% de la población opinó que el uso del bitcoin debería ser voluntario. Dicho estudio también revela que más de la mitad de la población, el 54.3%, sostiene que los precios de los productos básicos aumentarán con el uso del bitcoin como moneda de curso legal. Además, diferentes organizaciones sociales sostienen que se trata de una criptomoneda que tiene una extrema volatilidad.

También, se protestó contra la destitución de los jueces de más de 60 años de edad. El 01 de septiembre la Asamblea Legislativa aprobó otra polémica ley, una reforma a la ley de la carrera judicial que establece el retiro obligatorio de jueces que tengan 60 años de edad o 30 años de servicio. Hasta ahora no había límite de edad para ser juez.

El argumento para esta reforma es la depuración del sistema judicial apartando a los jueces corruptos; no obstante, hay reiteradas denuncias que el propósito oculto es el control del órgano judicial por parte del ejecutivo, pues las más de 200 plazas vacantes serán ocupadas por jueces alineados a los intereses del oficialismo.

Uno de los juzgadores que sería cesado con la entrada en vigencia de esta reforma es el juez de Instrucción de San Francisco Gotera, Jorge Guzmán, quien conoce el caso de El Mozote, el cuál se encuentra en su etapa final.

De acuerdo con David Morales, abogado de las víctimas y ex procurador de Derechos Humanos de El Salvador, esta separación del juez Guzmán directamente estará afectando la obligación del Estado de llevar adelante, sin obstáculos, la investigación y enjuiciamiento de los responsables de la masacre de El Mozote.

Otra fuerte razón de la protesta fue la resolución de la Sala de lo Constitucional, emitida el 03 de septiembre, en la que se habilita la reelección del presidente.

“Esta decisión permite la reelección presidencial inmediata y es claramente contraria a la Constitución salvadoreña, que establece que la reelección inmediata no está permitida”, expresó Jean Manes, embajadora en El Salvador entre 2016 y 2019 y quien ahora encabeza la representación diplomática estadounidense en el país.
Sobre este mismo tema, Ricardo Navarro, un reconocido ambientalista, durante la marcha expresó a la prensa: “Antes había una Sala de lo Constitucional decente, ahora hay una sala que es una sucursal de la presidencia de la república”

Como era de esperar la marcha no pasó desapercibida para el gobierno, por la noche, el presidente dedicó algunos minutos, en una cadena de radio y televisión, para restarle importancia, así mismo sus funcionarios más cercanos inundaron las redes sociales de mensajes con el propósito de minimizar la protesta.

Pero las imágenes muestran claramente que fue la manifestación más grande realizada contra la administración Bukele y aunque la aprobación ciudadana al gobierno sigue siendo alta, no hay duda que las decisiones como la ley bitcoin, las reformas a la ley de la carrera judicial y la reelección presidencial han activado emociones y sentimientos de una buena parte de la ciudadanía, que esta vez se expresó legítimamente en las calles.

Aprende más en nuestro próximo Foro Virtual: Bitcoin en El Salvador y sus impactos

THE DOOR IS OPENED TO PRESIDENTIAL RE-ELECTION IN EL SALVADOR

LEER EN ESPAÑOL

On Friday, September 3, the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, through its Constitutional Chamber, issued a surprising resolution that opened the door for the reelection of President Bukele for the period 2024 – 2029. This resolution orders the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to comply with this new mandate and allows the sitting President to participate in the electoral contest for the second time.

The Constitution of El Salvador establishes the prohibition of sitting presidents from holding a second term. In the first paragraph of Article 152, that the person who has held the Presidency for more than six months, consecutive or not, during the immediately preceding period may not be President; however, Bukele has been maneuvering to find a way around this ban.

Last May, he managed to get the new Legislative Assembly to dismiss the magistrates of the Constitutional Chamber and the Attorney General, excusing himself in arguments without legal support. The new law states that the Legislature is empowered to take such decisions, but only after following a procedure based on specific grounds established in the Constitution.

However, these types of illegalities were possible thanks to the fact that the Legislative Assembly is made up of a majority of deputies from Bukele’s party and aligned with the interests of the president. It is important to note that this election was obtained through illegitimate and undemocratic actions, and with a disproportionate electoral campaign, in which the New Ideas party concentrated more than 70% of its spending on publicity, not to mention the use of public resources for electoral purposes.

Although this resolution establishes that: “allowing the sitting President to seek a second term, does not imply de facto that he will be elected, it only implies that the people will have among their range of options the person who at that time holds the presidency, and it is the people who decide whether to place trust in him again or whether to opt for a different option.”

However, it is clear that if he were to compete for new presidential reelection, Bukele would have an extraordinary advantage over any contender, because he has the entire governmental ideological apparatus and abundant state resources.

To many, what’s most disturbing is that this resolution signifies a new violation of the Constitution with no consequences because the government has no significant opposition, nor institutional counterweights.

An article by investigative journal El Faro entitled “Salvadoran Democracy is in a Coma“, states that: “We are witnessing the end of the Republic and its replacement by an undemocratic family clan that uses the state for its own benefit. But for Bukele and his circle to achieve their ends, they must rely on a slew of dishonorable, opportunistic, and corrupt officials and bureaucrats who operate at their behest, as well as on a citizenry blinded by propaganda.”

---

SE ABRE LA PUERTA A LA REELECCIÓN PRESIDENCIAL EN EL SALVADOR

La Corte Suprema de Justicia de El Salvador, a través de la Sala de lo Constitucional, en una sorpresiva resolución, emitida la noche del viernes 3 de septiembre, abrió la puerta a la reelección del presidente Bukele para el período 2024 – 2029. La resolución ordena al Tribunal Supremo Electoral que acate que una persona que ejerza la Presidencia de la República y no haya sido Presidente en el periodo inmediato anterior participe en la contienda electoral por segunda ocasión.

La Constitución de El Salvador prohibe la reelección presidencial, en su artículo 152, literal primero, se establece que no podrá ser Presidente el que haya desempeñado la Presidencia de la República por más de seis meses, consecutivos o no, durante el período inmediato anterior; sin embargo, Bukele ha venido maniobrando para encontrar la forma de obviar esta prohibición. 

En el pasado mes de mayo logró que la nueva Asamblea Legislativa destituyera a los magistrados de la Sala de lo Constitucional y al Fiscal General, excusándose en argumentos sin sustento jurídico. La ley establece que la Asamblea Legislativa está facultada para tomar este tipo de decisiones, pero siguiendo un procedimiento basado en causas específicas establecidas en la misma Constitución. 

Sin embargo, este tipo de ilegalidades fueron posibles gracias a que la Asamblea Legislativa está conformada por una mayoría de diputados del partido de Bukele y alineada con los intereses del presidente. Es importante señalar que esta elección se obtuvo a través de acciones ilegítimas y antidemocráticas, y con una campaña electoral desproporcionada, en la que el partido Nuevas Ideas concentró más del 70% de su gasto en publicidad, sin mencionar el uso indiscriminado de recursos públicos para fines electorales.

Con la resolución del 3 de septiembre, los 5 magistrados impuestos por la Asamblea Legislativa, dejan en evidencia que están alineados a los intereses del Presidente, aunque la misma resolución establece que: “el permitir la postulación del Presidente para competir de nuevo por la presidencia, no implica de facto que este llegue a ser electo, implica únicamente que el pueblo tendrá entre su gama de opciones a la persona que a ese momento ejerce la presidencia, y es el pueblo quien decide si deposita nuevamente la confianza en él o si se decanta por una opción distinta.”

No obstante, es claro que de competir para una nueva reelección presidencial, Bukele tendría una extraordinaria ventaja sobre cualquier contendiente, porque dispone de todo el aparato ideológico gubernamental y de abundantes recursos estatales.

Por otra parte , esta resolución, significa una nueva violación de la Constitución, sin la posibilidad de que hayan consecuencias, pòrque práctiamente el gobierno no tiene una oposición significativa, ni contrapesos institucionales, pues, así como lo afirma el períodico El Faro, en un artículo reciente: “La democracia salvadoreña, está en coma”

En dicho artículo se afirma: “asistimos a pasos agigantados al fin de la República y su sustitución por un clan familiar antidemocrático que utiliza el Estado en su beneficio. Pero para que consigan sus objetivos son necesarios funcionarios y burócratas indignos, oportunistas o corruptos que operen a su favor, y una ciudadanía cegada por la propaganda. 

¿QUE SIGUE, LUEGO DE LAS ELECCIONES EN EL SALVADOR?

READ IN ENGLISH

Con los Acuerdos de Paz, en 1992, se pone fin a la guerra civil y se inicia una nueva etapa en la vida política de El Salvador, caracterizada por la desmilitarización de la sociedad, el surgimiento de nuevas instituciones y el ejercicio de elecciones democráticas.

El sistema democrático salvadoreño adolece de debilidad institucional y persisten comportamientos antidemocráticos en la mayoría actores políticos, pero se ha logrado institucionalizar elecciones de manera periódica. Desde 1992 se han llevado a cabo 13 eventos electorales. 6 para elección de presidente y 7 para elección de diputados y concejos municipales.

En una sociedad democrática, la celebración de elecciones justas, libres, transparentes y competitivas son esenciales para el sano ejercicio del poder y sobre todo para que la decisión de la población, expresada en su voto, se traduzca en servidores públicos electos por mayoría, quienes, durante un periodo de tiempo, efectivamente deberían estar al servicio de la población.

Si bien, las 13 elecciones realizadas han sido en el marco de la legalidad, la celebrada el pasado 28 de febrero tuvo ciertas particularidades; en primer lugar, una desproporcionada campaña electoral, en la cual el partido Nuevas Ideas (partido del presidente Nayib Bukele) concentró más del 70% del gasto en publicidad.

Otra característica fue una exacerbada violencia electoral; al grado que, a pocas semanas de la elección, un grupo de militantes del FMLN fue atacado a balazos luego de participar en un acto partidario en San Salvador, como consecuencia dos activistas murieron y tres resultaron heridos. El ataque fue condenado por varios representantes diplomáticos, entre ellos el encargado de negocios de la embajada de Estados Unidos en El Salvador, Brendan O’Brien. Sin embargo, no fue condenado por el propio presidente, quien en cambio culpó al partido FMLN por llevar a cabo un autoataque.

Adicionalmente, hubo una constante violación a la legislación electoral, especialmente por parte de funcionarios del más alto nivel del gobierno y del mismo presidente de la república, así como la utilización de abundantes recursos públicos para fines electorales.

Estos factores representaron ventajas antidemocráticas para Nuevas Ideas; quienes, como era de esperar, ganaron las elecciones, y no solo porque llevaron a cabo una campaña bien planificada que no temía romper las reglas, sino también por una acumulación de instituciones desacreditadas, promesas incumplidas, deficiencia de liderazgo y la corrupción generalizada de los partidos políticos tradicionales.

De confirmarse los resultados preliminares, “el partido del presidente” obtendría 56 de 84 diputados y 145 de 262 alcaldías y concejos municipales. Para tener una apreciación de lo que esto significa, hay que decir que nunca un partido había logrado tantos diputados. La cifra más alta la logró Arena en 1994, al sumar 39 parlamentarios.

Con estos números a su favor, el presidente Bukele no necesitará de ningún otro partido para tomar decisiones como la elección del Fiscal General; elección de Magistrados de la Corte Suprema de Justicia; del Procurador General de los Derechos Humanos y de Magistrados de la Corte de Cuentas de la República; aprobación de nuevos préstamos, otorgar concesiones estatales al sector privado, entre otras leyes. Con lo cual tendría un poder político, casi absoluto.

Otra preocupación tiene que ver con la reforma constitucional, que ya está en marcha, y la cuestión de si el presidente Bukele buscará o no reformar la constitución para permitirle ser elegido para otro mandato, considerando que el actual mandato presidencial es por 5 años, sin oportunidad de reelección.

No obstante, la concentración de poder político en la figura del presidente, incluida la posibilidad de su reelección, no parece ser asunto de mucha transcendencia para la mayoría de la población. En 2018 una encuesta del Latinobarómetro reveló que El Salvador era el país de América que menos importancia le daba a la democracia, solo el 28%, la consideraba importante, mientras que el 54% reportó que le daba lo mismo vivir en una democracia que en una dictadura.

Afortunadamente, la democracia no se reduce al ejercicio del poder institucionalizado, la democracia también se encuentra en la organización y participación de sociedades marginadas movilizadas, que trabajan incansablemente para exigir el respeto de los derechos humanos de sus comunidades.

Nada le haría más daño a la precaria democracia salvadoreña que un rol pasivo de la sociedad civil. Hoy más que nunca, la academia, la prensa independiente, la iglesia progresista y el movimiento social en general deben asumir un rol de contrapeso frente a las estructuras de poder gubernamental que actúan en contra de las necesidades tangibles del pueblo, y hacerlos responsables, sin importar el color de su partido.

---

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

WHAT’S NEXT, AFTER THE ELECTIONS IN EL SALVADOR

With the signing of the Peace Accords in 1992, the civil war ended and a new political era began in El Salvador. This era was characterized by the demilitarization of the society, the emergence of new institutions and the free exercise of democratic elections. Despite all this, the Salvadoran democratic system has continued to suffer from institutional weakness and undemocratic behaviors from the majority of it’s politicians, still, it has been possible to hold elections on a regular basis. Since 1992, 13 national elections have been held, six for the president and seven for the National Assembly and municipal councils.

In a democratic society, the holding of fair, free, transparent and competitive elections are essential for the healthy exercise of power, and above all so that the decision of the people, expressed in their vote, is translated into public servants who, for a period of time, must actually be at the service of the population.

Although the 13 elections held have been within the framework of legality, the one held on February 28, 2021 had certain peculiarities; such as a very expensive electoral campaign, ran by Nuevas Ideas (President Bukele’s party), which concentrated more than 70% of it’s party’s budget on advertising.

Another unfortunate issue was exacerbated electoral violence; which a few before the elections, led to a group of FMLN party supporters being shot at after participating in a party rally in San Salvador. Two activists died in that attack and and three others were injured. The attack was condemned by numerous diplomatic representatives, including Brendan O’Brien, the charge d’affaires of the United States embassy in El Salvador. It was not however, not condemned by the President himself, who instead placed the blame on the FMLN party for carrying out a self attack.

Additionally, there was the constant violation of electoral laws, especially by officials from the highest level of the government and the President of the Republic himself, as well as the abundant use of state resources for electoral purposes.

These factors represented antidemocratic advantages for Nuevas Ideas; who unsurprisingly won the election across the board, not just because they ran a well-strategized campaign that wasn’t afraid to break rules, but also because of an accumulation of discredited institucions, broken promises, leadership deficiency and the overall corruption of the traditional political parties.

If the preliminary results are confirmed, “the president’s party” would secure 56 out of 84 parliamentarians and 145 out of the 262 mayorships and municipal councils. These are historical numbers for El Salvador, before this, the highest figure achieved was by a single party was the ARENA party in 1994, who secured 39 parliamentarians.

With these numbers in his favor, President Bukele will not need any other party to make decisions such as the election of the Attorney General; Human Rights Ombudsman, Supreme Court Magistrates; Magistrates of the Court of Accounts of the Republic; approval of new loans, granting state concessions to the private sector, among other laws. With this level of influence, he would have almost absolute political power.

Another concern has to do with constitutional reform, which is already under way, and the question of whether or not President Bukele will seek to amend the constitution to allow himself to be elected for another term, considering that the current Presidential term is for 5 years, with no oppurtunity for re-election.

However, the concentration of political power in the figure of the president, including the possibility of his re-election, does not seem to be a matter of great importance for the majority of the population. In 2018, a Latinobarometer survey revealed that El Salvador was the country in America that gave the least importance to democracy, only 28% considered it important, while 54% reported that living in a democratic state was the same as living in a dictatorship.

Fortunately, democracy is not reduced to the exercise of institutionalized power, democracy is also found in the organization and participation of mobilized marginalized societies, who all work tirelessly to demand respect for the human rights of thier communities.

Ultimately, nothing would do more harm to El Salvador’s precarious democracy than a passive civil society. Today more than ever, academics, the independent press, the progressive church and the social movement in general must assume a counterweight role against the governmental power structures, that act against the tangible needs of the people, and hold them accountable, regardless of party lines.

TWITTERSTORM! El Salvador 2021 Elections

THIS SUNDAY FEB 28:
Stay tuned and join the conversation!

• 

• 

https://twitter.com/arpassv
https://twitter.com/CISPES
https://twitter.com/SHAREelsalvador
https://twitter.com/USESisterCities
https://twitter.com/VoicesElSal

28F

Elections2021inElSalvador

Elecciones2021enElSalvador

The Swearing In of El Salvador’s New President

Version en Español

On June 1, Nayib Bukele was sworn in as the new President of El Salvador. Bukele dabbled in political life in 2012, under the banner of the FMLN party when he won the mayorship of Nuevo Cuscatlán and three years later, in 2015, when he became governor of San Salvador, the capital. His differences with the left-wing party caused his expulsion from it on October 10, 2017. He won the presidency under the Great Alliance for National Unity (GANA), a right-wing party founded by former members of ARENA.

His first speech as president lasted 24 minutes in which he spoke in generalities, without referring to his outlook for the country, or to what his priorities will be. Generally, in their inaugural address, elected presidents reflect on their vision of the country they receive, and what their strategies will be during the five years of their administration.

For his part, Nayib Bukele called for national unity and asked Salvadorans to work hard to move the country forward; but most of his speech was dedicated to exalt his followers, who were present in Plaza Barrios. He also reminisced about his father in an extensive anecdote; thanked his wife; criticized previous governments for unfulfilled promises and reiterated that he will do what he promised in his campaign… making difficult decisions.

As expected, the FMLN harshly criticized the content of his speech, calling it “superficial” through a statement via their official Twitter account. The party argued that the speech did not express commitments or proposals to the important problems facing the Salvadoran people, such as the privatization of water, pension reform and citizen security.

ARENA issued a press release in which it “extends its hand to President Bukele so that he can make a correct government in accordance with the law and institutions; and strive to meet the urgent needs of the people who demand more opportunities that improve their quality of life.”

Both parties agree that the new government faces a country with complex problems. A recent article by the news agency BBC Mundo states that Nayib faces five major challenges as the President of the most violent and poorest country in Latin America.

The main one is the violence. Bukele will face a complex and entrenched issue that is considered a real national security problem, and which has translated into the omnipresence of gangs in the lives of Salvadorans; gangs that sometimes control entire lives. Homicides, extortions, drug trafficking and human trafficking are common crimes associated with gangs.

Poverty is another of the chronic problems. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC), El Salvador was ranked the third poorest country in Latin American between 2015 and 2017. However, 37.8 % Salvadorans still live in poverty.

Corruption, scarce investment to generate sustainable sources of employment and an opposing Legislative Assembly are other obstacles that the new government will face. How will they do? This is still a question that remains unanswered.

The most structured response the incoming government has put forth is their campaign platform, called Plan Cuscatlán, however, it is unknown if this will be adopted as a government plan or if it will undergo substantial modifications. Plan Cuscatlán is an extensive document consisting of 1,075 pages, which identifies parts of the economic model to be implemented, for example, a commitment to mega infrastructure projects such as an airport in the eastern part of the country and train service along the Salvadoran coast.

According to the economist Julia Evelyn Martínez, there are enough signs to conclude that the new government will adopt a neoliberal economic model strongly committed to the interests of the United States. “I have analyzed Plan Cuscatlán and as a result of that analysis I have concluded that what it offers for the next five years is more neoliberalism than there has been in the last 30 years,” Martinez stated during a television interview.

In fact, a few hours after Bukele’s inauguration, President Donald Trump said: “The United States is ready to work with Nayib Bukele to promote prosperity in El Salvador and the hemisphere. Congratulations President Bukele on your inauguration.” With this type of support it can be intuited that the political and economic influence of the United States in El Salvador will increase over the next five years.

What does constitute a positive signal is that the President’s first executive order was directed to the armed force to “remove the name of Colonel Domingo Monterrosa from the barracks of the Third Infantry Brigade.” This is a controversial order because for the Armed Forces, Monterrosa is to this day considered a hero; however, he has been identified as responsible for the El Mozote massacre, so demystifying his name is good for the country’s wellbeing.

Despite both positive and negative signals, it is important to wish the new President all the best, especially since June 1st he became the captain of the ship in which all Salvadorans travel, although it is worrisome when the captain doesn’t point clearly where the ship is heading.

---

NUEVO PRESIDENTE EN EL SALVADOR

El pasado uno de junio Nayib Bukele fue juramentado como el nuevo Presidente de El Salvador. Bukele incursionó en la vida política en el 2012, bajo la bandera del FMLN cuando ganó la alcaldía de Nuevo Cuscatlán y tres años más tarde, en el 2015, se convirtió en el alcalde de la capital, San Salvador, pero sus diferencias con el partido de izquierda lo llevaron a su expulsión el 10 de octubre de 2017. La presidencia la ganó con el partido Gran Alianza por la Unidad Nacional, GANA. Un instituto de derecha fundado por exmiembros de ARENA.

Su primer discurso como Presidente tuvo una duración de 24 minutos en los cuales habló generalidades, sin referirse a la visión que tiene del país, ni cuales serán sus prioridades. Generalmente en su discurso inagural los presidentes electos suelen reflejar su visión del país que reciben, y cuáles serán sus estrategias durante los cinco años que durará su gestión.

Por su parte Nayib Bukele hizo un llamado a la unidad nacional y pidió a los salvadoreños trabajar fuerte para sacar adelante al país; pero la mayor parte de su intervención la dedicó a exaltar a sus seguidores, presentes en la plaza pública donde se celebraba el evento; recordó a su padre en una extensa anécdota; agradeció a su esposa; criticó a los gobiernos anteriores por las promesas incumplidas y reiteró que hará las obras que prometió en su campaña, lo cual implicará tomar decisiones difíciles.

Como era de esperar, El FMLN criticó duramente el contenido de su discurso, a través de un comunicado en su cuenta de Twitter, calificándolo como “superficial”. El partido de izquierda sostuvo que en el discurso no expresó compromisos, ni propuestas ante los grandes problemas que enfrenta el pueblo salvadoreño, tales como la privatización del agua, la reforma de pensiones y la seguridad ciudadana.

De igual manera, el partido ARENA emitió un comunicado de prensa en el que “le extiende la mano al Presidente Bukele para que pueda hacer un gobierno correcto apegado a nuestras leyes e institucionalidad; y se empeñe en atender las necesidades apremiantes de nuestro pueblo que clama más oportunidades para mejorar su calidad de vida”, expresa el texto.

Ambos partidos coinciden en que al nuevo gobierno le tocará hacer frente a un país con problemas complejos. Un artículo reciente de la agencia BBC Mundo expone que al nuevo Presidente le tocará enfrentar 5 desafios en el país más violento y pobre de América Latina

El principal es la violencia, Bukele se enfrentará a una compleja y enquistada cuestión, considerada un auténtico problema de seguridad nacional, que se traduce en la omnipresencia en la vida de los salvadoreños de las pandillas, quienes en ocasiones controlan barrios y colonias casi en exclusividad. Los homicidios, extorciones, el narcotráfico y la trata de personas son delitos comunes asociados al accionar de las pandillas.

La pobreza es otro de los problemas crónicos, el referido artículo señala que según la Comisión Económica para América Latina, CEPAL El Salvador se destacó como el tercer país de América Latina que más redujo porcentualmente su pobreza entre 2015 y 2017. Sin embargo, el 37.8% de salvadoreños y salvadoreñas sigue viviendo en la pobreza.

La corrupción, la escasa inversión para generar fuentes de empleo sostenibles y una Asamblea Legislativa contraria a sus intereses son otros de los obstáculos que deberá enfrentar el nuevo gobierno. ¿Cómo lo hará? Aún es una pregunta sin respuesta.

Al respecto la referencia más estructurada que se tiene es su plataforma de campaña, denominada Plan Cuscatlán. Se desconoce si este será adoptado como Plan de Gobierno o si sufrirá modificiaciones sustanciales, el Plan Cuscatlán consiste en un extenso documento de 1,075 páginas, en el que se identifican pistas del modelo económico a implementar, por ejemplo hay una apuesta a la implementación de mega proyectos de infraestructura; un aeropuerto en el oriente del país y un tren que va a recorer la costa salvadoreña, son de los proyectos más emblemáticos.

Según la economista Julia Evelyn Martínez hay señales suficientes para entender que el nuevo gobierno adoptará un modelo económico de corte neoliberal y que estará fuertemente comprometido con los intereses de Los Estados Unidos. “He analizado el Plan Cuscatlán y como resultado de ese análisis he concluido que lo que ofrece para los próximos cinco años es más neoliberalismo del que ha habido en los últimos 30 años”, manifestó Martínez en una entrevista de televisión.

De hecho, unas horas despues de su juramentación el Presidente Donal Trump expresó: “Estados Unidos está listo para trabajar con Nayib Bukele para promover la prosperidad en El Salvador y el hemisferio. Felicidades Presidente Bukele en su toma de posesión”. Con este tipo de respaldo puede intuirse que la influencia política y económica de los Estados Unidos en El Salvador se incrementará en el próximo quinquenio.

Lo que si constituye una señal positiva del nuevo Presidente es que su primer orden ejecutiva fue dirigida a la fuerza armada: Quitar el nombre del coronel Domingo Monterrosa del cuartel de la Tercera Brigada de Infantería. Esta es una orden polémica porque para la Fuerza Armada Monterrosa es considerado un héroe; sin embargo, ha sido señalado como el responsable de la masacre El Mozote, por lo que desmitificar su nombre es bueno para el país.

No obstante las señales positivas y negativas, es importante desearle lo mejor al nuevo Presidente, sobre todo porque a partir del uno de junio se convierte en el capitán del barco en el que viajan todos los salvadoreños y salvadoreñas, aunque preocupa que el capitán no diga con claridad hacia donde se dirige la nave.

An inside look at Voices on the Border

 

Civil Society Marches for Public Health, Food, and Water

This morning 5,000 Salvadorans from 150 civil society organizations and communities took to the streets in San Salvador to demand that the Legislative Assembly ratify a Constitutional Amendment recognizing food and water as a basic human right.

In 2012, the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly passed an amendment to Article 69 of the Constitution recognizing access to food and water as basic rights to be protected by the State. If the current Legislature ratifies the amendment, Article 69 will include the following language:

“All people have the right to adequate nutrition. The State is required to create food sovereignty and nutritional policies for all inhabitants. A law will regulate this issue.

Water is a resource essential for all of life, and as such the State is required to protect and preserve water resources and provide it for all inhabitants. The State will create public policies that regulate this issue.”

The Legislative Assembly first approved the amendment on April 19, 2012, just 12 days before the current legislature took office. To complete the process, this Legislature has to ratify the amendment before their 3-year term expires on April 30.

When the marchers reached the Legislative Assembly this morning, Diputados (Representatives) Lourdes Palacios and Yoalmo Cabrero greeted them and declared that all 31 representatives from their leftist FMLN party would vote in favor of the amendment. They pointed out, as did many marchers, that it was the right-wing ARENA, PCN, and PDC representatives that have blocked ratification. During a meeting last month with members of MOVIAC, Representative Palacidos said that they have brought the ratification vote to the floor twice and both times ARENA, PCN, and PDC [representatives] blocked its passage. She also said that they have yet to give a valid argument for their opposition.

A statement released by MOVAIC (the Movement of Victims Affected by Climate Change), declared that “water and food, like air, are elements essential for human life and other creatures of the biosphere. Human beings are unable to live without food and water.

“It seems like a lie and its shameful that in the twenty-first century, fifty years after we put a man on the moon and reached high levels of scientific and technological development, that we still are fighting for the recognition of such fundamental rights as access to food and water.”

The holdup seems to be privatization. MOVIAC and others believe that the ARENA, PCN, and PDC Representatives blocking ratification of Article 69 are backing the corporations and investors that want to privatize and control water and food. Representative Palacios confirmed that the opposition from the conservative parties is strong.

In addition to calling for the ratification of the amendment, marchers ask Salvadorans to vote against any legislator or party that has refused to support ratification (on March 1, El Salvador will hold elections for the Legislative Assembly and Municipal governments).

Water resources in El Salvador are scarce and for years Salvadoran organizations have fought to ensure that all Salvadorans have access to potable water. Currently, 20% of Salvadorans do not have access to potable water. That means they have to get water for drinking and to run their household from surface waters, 90% of which are contaminated with agrochemical runoff, untreated industrial waste, raw sewage and other pollutants.

Access to adequate food and nutrition has become more difficult in recent years. Neo-liberal economic policies prioritize using El Salvador’s farmland for growing exports like sugarcane instead of corn, beans, and vegetables for local consumption. U.S. policies such as Partnership for Growth, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and others have made it increasingly difficult for families to feed themselves or make a living farming.

Ratifying Article 69 of the Salvadoran Constitution will not mean that everyone will have access to water and food, but it will require the executive and legislative branches to take affirmative steps in that direction – like passing the water law that has been lingering in the Legislative Assembly for 10 years.

News out of El Salvador is generally bad – gangs and violence, and 60,000 youth showing up on the U.S. border. That won’t change with the government doubling down on “mano duro” policies and tougher law enforcement. Things will only get better when the government is ready to engage in long-term solutions that ensure Salvadorans have what they need to survive, and nothing is more fundamental than access to food and water.

The inability for some politicians to recognize that people should have the right to access food and water indicates just how far El Salvador has to go before it can resolve its more complicated issues.

Marching for Food Sovereignty

Last Wednesday, October 15^th hundreds of people stepped out into a soft rain in San Salvador to celebrate Food Sovereignty Day and World Food Day. Perhaps more than celebrating, marchers were demanding that the Salvadoran government take specific actions so the population can achieve food sovereignty.

MOVIAC Banner

Jose Acosta (Voices’ Field Director) with Dr. RIcardo Navarro (CESTA), Orlando Aguiluz (ABAZORTO), and Rina Navarrete (ASIC)

Civil Society Organizations speaking to the press

No to the use of Agrochemicals (they are toxic and the kill)

Community Water Associations

Food sovereignty is a fairly straightforward concept articulated first by La Via Campesina in 1996. It simply asserts the right of people to define their own food systems, placing the individuals who produce, distribute, and consume food at the center of the decisions on food systems and policies.

Marchers had some very specific policy points they want their government to address. (If this post and these demands sound familiar, they held a similar march last year making many of the same demands.)

First, marchers want the current Legislative Assembly to ratify an amendment to article 69 of the Constitution recognizing food sovereignty as a basic right enjoyed by all Salvadorans. The previous Legislative Assembly passed the amendment but to complete the process the current Assembly has to ratify it. Similarly, over the past two years, civil society has also lobbied the Legislative Assembly to pass a Law on Food Sovereignty, which would promote the sustainable production of food production and regulate other activities that affect food sovereignty.

The marchers also want the Legislative Assembly and President Sanchez Cerén to ban a long list of toxic agrochemicals. Last year the Legislative Assembly passed a bill banning fifty-three agro-chemicals (the bill amended an existing law that regulates agrochemicals). Instead of signing the bill, President Funes (2009-2014) took out the eleven most common (and harmful) agrochemicals, including Glyphosate, and sent the bill back to the Assembly. When the Legislative Assembly received the Funes’ changes, its members could have ignored them and signed the original bill into Law, or accepted them and signed it into law. Instead, they did nothing. This all occurred during the campaign for the March presidential elections, and the business sector was pressuring on the Funes Administration not to sign the ban. They argued that coffee plantations were combating leaf rust and a ban on agrochemicals would result in a loss of agricultural jobs and harm the economy. Marchers and civil society organizations, however, reject the dependence on agrochemicals and demand that the Legislative Assembly finally ban the use of all harmful agrochemicals in El Salvador.

Another important issue is the Water Law. Eight years ago civil society organizations drafted a law that guarantees all Salvadorans have a right to water. If passed, the Water Law would also ensure that the government could not privatize water resources. Instead of approving the draft law proposed by civil society, the Legislative Assembly began a long process of drafting its own. Unfortunately private interests such as ANEP (National Association of Private Business), and conservative political parties (ARENA and PCN) have been able to stall the process.

Another obstacle to achieving food sovereignty is sugarcane production. In regions like the Bajo Lempa of Usulután, sugarcane producers are buying and leasing large amounts of farmland. For example, two weeks ago Voices’ partners in La Tirana learned that a wealthy landowner that owns the land adjacent to their mangrove forests is leasing 400 manzanas (691 acres) of farmland to a sugarcane producer. United States economic policies are driving  the demand for sugarcane. The Central American Free Trade agreement is allowing the U.S. to import more sugarcane at lower prices, and Partnership for Growth is providing incentives for El Salvador to increase exports rather than grow food for local consumption.

While sugarcane will make landowners wealthy, sugarcane production has a large, negative impact on the environment. Sugarcane producers use a lot of chemicals on their crops – fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Just before a crop is ready to harvest, producers apply the herbicide Glyphosate (sugarcane is “Roundup Ready”) in order to ensure all the cane is ready to harvest at the same time. These agrochemicals, which are generally sprayed using a crop-duster, contaminate local water sources and nearby farmland, as well as villages, schools, soccer fields and homes. These chemicals are believed to be contributing to the extremely high rates of renal failure that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in recent years.

Sugarcane production affects food sovereignty in a few ways. First, farmland that could be used to grow food for local consumption is being used to grow sugarcane for export. This means that El Salvador’s dependence on food imports will continue to rise. The environmental impact of sugarcane also makes it harder for small farmers to produce food. Farmers complain that the spraying of agrochemicals contaminates their fields and destroys their crops. The herbicide Glysophate is one of the worst offenders. Upon contact it kills foliage, flowers, fruits, and vegetables that farmers cultivate. And large monoculture crops upset the ecosystems where farmers grow, diminishing bee populations, disrupting forests and animal life, and harming soil structures.

Marchers also demand that the government do more to protect the country’s fragile ecosystems, especially the mangrove forests along the coast. Families in and around the forests often sustain themselves by harvesting the crabs, clams, and fish that live in the mangroves. And an estimated 75% of all commercialized fish in the Pacific off the coast of El Salvador are hatched in the mangrove forests. If developers and sugarcane farmers are allowed to destroy these forests, they will also be destroying the livelihood and food source of tens of thousands of people.

Another threat to food sovereignty is mining. El Salvador currently has a de facto ban on mining. But there is nothing in place to prevent government officials from granting the extraction permits that allow mining companies to mine for gold, silver, uranium, and other minerals. Salvadoran civil society has argued for years that if the government allowed mining it would result in the contamination of the country’s farmland and water resources, greatly diminishing El Salvador’s capacity for food production.

In February 2014, then presidential candidate Sanchez Cerén spoke at an event hosted by MOVIAC to discuss environmental issues. During his comments, Sanchez Cerén said that as president he would sign legislation to ban mining. But five months into his presidency the Legislative Assembly and President Sanchez Cerén have yet to pass a ban. One reason given for the delay is that the legislatures don’t have enough votes. But some annalists say (behind closed doors) that politicians from all political parties give the impression they don’t want to ban mining, and use the lack of votes as an excuse to do nothing.

Again, none of these issues or demands is new, but people are protesting because there has been little to no action. While many celebrate the Sanchez Cerén administration as the second consecutive leftist government elected into power in El Salvador, many in the FMLN’s base are grumbling because they have not seen the kinds of changes they expected. Some have been reluctant to protest against the government officials they voted into power, believing the alternative to be far worse. But others are tired of the perceived inaction on issues related to basic rights such as food sovereignty and access to water, and are speaking up.

U.S. and El Salvador Ready to Sign Second MCC Compact

Beach in Corral de Mulas on the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula. Behind the fence is an incubator for critically endangered sea turtles. The land is owned by a wealthy investor who is allowing locals to incubate the sea turtle eggs until he is ready to break ground on a tourism project.

After more than a year of delays, the governments of El Salvador and the United States seem ready to sign a second Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact. Last weekend, Salvadoran President Salvador Sanchez Cerén said they would close the deal on September 30th.

The U.S. Embassy says the second MCC compact, which includes $277 million from the U.S. and $88.2 million from El Salvador, will “spur investment through public private partnerships and better regulations, improve the quality of education, and strengthen key logistical infrastructure.”

After the agreement is signed, the U.S. will disburse $10 million to FOMELINIO (the Salvadoran organization managing the grant) to lay the groundwork for MCC projects. From then it will take six to nine months before other funds will be released and projects can begin.

While the $277 grant from the U.S. is popular among Salvadorans and politicians, communities in the Jiquilisco Bay of Usulután remain strongly opposed to the aid package. They believe the MCC grant will help finance the destruction of the region’s fragile natural resources and agrarian culture.

As Voices has discussed elsewhere on this blog, developers want to use MCC funds to promote tourism along the coast. They are particularly interested in the Jiquilisco Bay, which they have proposed turning into the “Cancun of Central America.” The communities targeted for development argue that large-scale tourism projects will cause irreversible harm to the mangrove forests they rely on for their survival and beaches that critically endangered sea turtles use for a nesting ground.

A community leader speaking to a group about how land speculation and tourism projects are already affecting the health of the mangrove forests and destabilizing the community.

Hundreds of families in the Bay region make their living by fishing and harvesting crab. For generations they have cared for the mangroves and beaches, protecting them and taking only what they need to survive. In theory the Ministry of the Environment is supposed to enforce laws that protect the forests and the right for local communities to harvest what they need to survive. But residents say the State does not get down there much, and few have faith in the Ministry’s ability or willingness to enforce laws.

Community leaders emphasize that they are not against tourism; they welcome visitors who want to tour the mangrove forests, bird watch, and even surf. They are opposed only to the kind of large-scale, unregulated development that investors are planning for the region.

Most of the opposition to MCC is due to the complete lack of public consultation. Community leaders are quick to point out that MCC and FOMELINIO officials have never been to the region to discuss development priorities or what is at stake when investors talk about turning the Jiquilisco Bay into the Cancun of Central America.

Manuel Cruz, a representative of El Chile, says his community is united in their opposition to the MCC grant. He says MCC or FOMELINIO representatives have never come to the region to discuss the grant, much less ask how it might benefit (or harm) the region. All they have heard is that investors want to use funds to develop tourism and that land speculators have been acquiring land all around them, denying access to mangrove forests and beaches that are supposed to be public land.

Another community leader who wishes to remain anonymous says that the closest thing to consultation he knows of was an informal conversation he had in March 2013 with a supporter of the MCC grant. The supporter, who works for an international NGO, said his community had to support the MCC because opposing it would be going against the FMLN party, for which there would be consequences. The community leader ignored the threat and his community remains united in its opposition.

Jose “Mario” Santos Guevarra, representative of the United Communities of the Bajo Lempa and the President of MOVIAC, has voiced opposition against MCC and FOMELINIO on several occasions. His concerns also focus on the lack of consultation from MCC and FOMELINIO. He argues that if MCC and FOMELINIO were really interested in building infrastructure and had consulted with the people, they would know that one of the biggest barriers to economic growth along the coast is the poor condition of the levees along the Lempa and other rivers.

Mario and many others see the lack of consultation as an indication that the MCC grant is meant to benefit rich investors – creating conditions for them to extract value out of the coastal region. He says that if the MCC was to benefit the people, it would not require a $100,000 counterpart to access grant funds. In theory, communities like El Chile, La Tirana, and others could apply for MCC funds to finally install potable water systems or connect to the electrical grid, which they need. But they are unable to front the $100,000 needed to receive MCC funds.

Residents of Chile during a recent meeting to discuss tourism and the impact of land speculation on their ability to access mangrove forests.

Over the past year and a half, Voices staff has shared these concerns over the lack of consultation with policymakers at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador. We have extended at least three invitations to host meetings between Embassy staff, who have a role in the MCC grant, and coastal communities. The Embassy has declined each of these invitations.

According to newspaper articles, $110 million of the MCC grant will be used to expand a section of the Litoral Highway between the airport and Zacatecaluca. Another $100 million will be for education. That leaves another $155.2 million to cover administrative costs and support tourism and other development. Communities in the Jiquilisco Bay have not had a voice in the MCC planning or approval process, and it is unlikely that that they will have a voice in deciding which proposals for MCC projects get approved. That does not mean, however, communities are going to allow developers to destroy their mangrove forests, beaches and agrarian way of life. They will be paying close attention to how MCC and FOMELINIO use the funds and ensure none will be used to harm their fragile ecosystems.