Monthly Update

Despite recent passage of an anti-gang law in the Legislative Assembly, how to curb youth delinquency remains a point of contention in El Salvador. Various judges have declared the new anti-gang law unconstitutional, bringing into question the extent to which the measure will actually be implemented. The Allianza Republicana Nationalista (ARENA) Party insists that the law is the only means of effectively combating gang activity. The remaining members of the Legislative Assembly—including the rightist Partido de Reconciliacion Nacional (PNC), whose votes provided the majority necessary to pass the measure—have denounced the law as unconstitutional.

IV. Healthcare Union Cites Continued Threat of Privatization

The Salvadoran Social Security Institute Workers Union (STISSS) claims that the central government and the Salvadoran Social Security Institute (ISSS) still have plans to privatize the public health system. The union also claims that the government and ISSS have not complied with the signed agreements that ended the healthcare workers strike on June 13, 2003, and have made a concerted effort to undermine the union’s strength. The Social Security Institute denies this, claiming that the unions current outcry is little more than a Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) electoral tactic.

Full Text:

I. Residential Vote Shot-Down in Legislative Assembly

The Legislative Assembly of El Salvador convened on September 18 to vote regarding the implementation of a residential voting plan. Despite apparent consensus just weeks prior, implementation was rejected after the Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA) and the Partido de Conciliacion Nacional (PCN) retracted their previous support for the measure.

“The largest distance between a rural voter’s residence and their assigned voting center should be three kilometers,” says Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) Legislative Deputy Arnoldo Bernal. “In the city it should be no more than one kilometer.” No one in the Legislative Assembly vocally disagrees with him. What has become a point of contention rather, is when a plan should be implemented to make this a reality.

Maria Patricia Vasquz de Amaya of ARENA agrees that El Salvador needs to implement a residential voting plan. She maintains, however, that the government and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) are not ready to implement such a plan in time for the March 2004 presidential elections. “Implementation of the residential vote is going to demand a lot of resources that the government just doesn’t have right now. With the residential vote there are going to be many more voting centers than there are currently. All these centers need to be staffed with election officials and police.”

The FMLN makes clear their belief that this reluctance on the part of ARENA and rightist Partido de Conciliacion Nacional (PCN) to approve the implementation of the residential voting plan is an electoral strategy. “This is a political decision of the parties of the Right,” asserts Bernal. “The legislative assembly passed a decree on May 9, 2002 saying that the residential vote would be implemented in time for the 2004 presidential elections. To date the TSE has met all of their deadlines.”

“This has been in the making for ten years,” adds FMLN Legislative Deputy and President of the Commission on Electoral and Constitutional Reforms Walter Duran. “The government has already spend $1.7 million on implementation of the residential vote.”

Implementation of the residential vote would increase the number of voting centers nationally from roughly 300 to 1700. The FMLN claims that this would greatly reduce the instance of “voter transporting,” a process by which certain parties offer free rides to voting centers in exchange for a vote in their favor. Advocates of the plan say it will also reduce the number of “floating votes,” which result when citizens register and vote in municipalities where they are not residents as a way of changing the outcome of local elections.

According to Duran, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal’s vote to delay the implementation of residential voting is also politically informed. “Two of the five magistrates of the TSE are from ARENA. The vote within the TSE was divided 2-3, with the ARENA magistrates voting against implementation of the residential vote.” Four votes out of five are required for a measure to be approved.

Vasquez de Amaya points to the progress that has been made even without approval of the residential vote. She says that the Assembly has agreed to have voters use the federally distributed identification cards (DUI) at the voting centers instead of obsolete electoral carnet. The DUI system will include photos on the voter register, thereby making it harder for someone to vote in place of a deceased person or with falsified documents.

“The parties that are insisting on implementation of the residential vote for the 2004 elections also know that the TSE is not ready,” says Vasquez de Amaya. “We will have the residential vote no later than 2006.”

The FMLN is attempting to move forward by requesting the implementation of a pilot project. Instead of nation-wide implementation, they are suggesting that the residential voting plan be carried out only in urban areas. This would include all 14 departmental capitals. Implementation in those areas only, however, would cover a third of El Salvador’s eligible voting population. “We have our doubts that they will even agree to implementing a pilot project,” says Duran.

II. High Stakes in the Struggle over CAFTA

The auditorium of La Divina Providencia Hospital in San Salvador was packed to overflowing on September 3 for Economics Professor Raul Moreno’s presentation and analysis of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), known in Spanish as the Tratado de Libre Commercio (TLC). Attendance at the event reflects a growing concern among many sectors of the Salvadoran population about the potentially negative economic and social impact of CAFTA. In Moreno’s assessment, whatever fears exist are well founded.

Despite the growth of opposition to CAFTA, critics within El Salvador continue to fight an uphill battle. The Salvadoran government has made clear its commitment to finalizing the agreement by opting to leave the Group of 20 (G-20)[1] even before Guatemala and Costa Rica. As negotiations move forward at what some consider accelerated pace, powerful business interests are waging a concerted campaign via billboards and television advertisements to convince the Salvadoran population of the benefits of CAFTA. The reach of CAFTA critics pales in comparison to this well-financed effort.

“You can hear the impact of the propaganda in many people’s arguments about the potential benefits of CAFTA,” says Armando Flores, Director of the Salvadoran NGO Center for the Defense of the Consumer (CDC). “CAFTA is being sold in El Salvador as a live or die opportunity – our only chance to develop. That kind of talk gets under the skin of people with little education.” The CDC has attempted to counter this wave through distribution of information pamphlets and coordination of educational events with other NGOs in the region.

The overarching concern of the CDC is that signing CAFTA will subsume all national laws under those codified in the trade agreement. Anything that impedes a corporation’s ability to turn a profit (i.e. labor and environmental regulations) is effectively forbidden, and could be grounds for a lawsuit. For example, under CAFTA it would be illegal for the Salvadoran State, or any other member country, to deny the entry of genetically modified foods into their national territory.

CAFTA would furthermore open up the country to what has come to be known as “bio-piracy,” whereby foreign corporations “discover” certain species of plants and patent them. Flores notes that United States corporations have placed patents on 20 species of corn in Mexico since the signing of NAFTA.

The agreement will also open up all public services in Central America to privatization. Electricity and telecommunications have already been partly privatized in El Salvador, and many fear that water and education, and health will follow. Despite promises that exposure to the market would bring prices down, electricity rates have gone up five times and the cost of telephone service has more than doubled since they were privatized.[2]

Advocates of the trade agreement acknowledge concerns, but believe the possible benefits for the Salvadoran economy far outweigh the dangers. Legislative Deputy for the Allianza Republicana Nationalista (ARENA) party and President of the Commission on Agriculture and the Economy Miguel Bolaños says that “CAFTA will unify the region, and give us access to the largest market in the world. This will result in greater generation of employment for the population.”

Armando Flores argues that the majority of new jobs created would be in the textile factories known as maquilas, where pay is poor and working conditions harsh. “This is what happened in Mexico,” he points out. “Most of the jobs generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] were in the maquilas.”

But in Mexico, talk of “new” jobs has also been deceptive. Timothy Wise, researcher at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University, points out that since the signing of NAFTA, there has been a net loss of jobs in Mexico. In addition, the real minimum wage has dropped 23%, and manufacturing wages are down 12%. [3]

A third major concern of CAFTA critics is the roughly $20 billion[4] in annual subsidies that the United States provides its agricultural producers. Domestic food production in El Salvador has already dropped as a result of lowered import tariffs and a subsequent influx of cheaply produced U.S. agricultural products. CAFTA would completely remove the remaining import tariffs on staple foods (such as rice, beans and corn), causing many to fear an even further deterioration of the agricultural economy.

“It is obvious that our producers can’t compete with subsidized agricultural products,” says Bolaños. “But the United States has been very flexible in the negotiation. At the last round they essentially gave us exactly what we wanted with regard to the textile industry. We are still in the process of negotiating agricultural subsidies.”

Opponents of CAFTA do not take such an optimistic view. “We do not doubt the importance of international trade,” says Flores. “But El Salvador is not in a position to negotiate as an equal with the largest economy in the world.”

Central American governments and the United States will meet for the next round of negotiations on October 20 in Houston, Texas. According to the current schedule, CAFTA will be finalized by December of this year. Many in opposition to the agreement think the establishment of this deadline has a great deal to do with the rapidly approaching March, 2004 presidential elections in El Salvador. The Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) has a better chance than in previous years of wining those elections. The FMLN has voiced its opposition to fundamental aspects of CAFTA, and would not likely approve the agreement in its current form.

Derailment of CAFTA could furthermore have consequences for trade agreements on a hemispheric level. Armando Flores asserts that CAFTA is but a step on the way to creating the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). “CAFTA is a compromise because the FTAA negotiations are moving too slowly. This is a way of assembling the Free Trade Area of the Americas piece by piece.”

The success or failure of CAFTA could therefore prove crucial in convincing already wary South American governments to sign on to the FTAA.

[1] The Group of 20 is comprised of developing nations that are demanding--as a condition for negotiating further trade agreements--that the United States and Europe stop providing their domestic agricultural producers with government subsidies.

[2] Leslie Schuld. “El Salvador: Who Will Have the Hospitals?” North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA). 36, no. 4 (2003); 44.

[3]Timothy A. Wise. “NAFTA’s Untold Stories: Mexico’s Response to North American Integration.” Interhemispheric Resource Center, 6/10/03. <http://www.americaspolicy.org/reports/2003/0306globalization_body.html> (10/14/03)

[4] Daryll E. Ray, Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte and Kelly J. Tiller. Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide. University of Tennessee: Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, 2003. <http://www.farmingsolutions.org/pdfdb/RAP.pdf> (10/14/03)

III. ARENA Party Pushes Anti-Gang Law Through Legislative Assembly

The Saturday, October 4 issue of La Prensa Grafic––one of two major dailies in San Salvador––featured a cover story about the murder of 13-year-old Vanessa Raquel Bonilla. The sixth grader was making her way to school when she was shot twice in the chest by members of the “mara Salvatrucha,” a gang with members in the United States and throughout Central America. Although the young woman was not a member of any gang, the police assume the motive to have been retaliation against the rival “M18” gang, to which some of Vanessa’s family members belong.

Stories of brutal acts perpetrated by gangs (or “maras” as they are known within El Salvador) capture headlines with alarming frequency. There appears to be wide consensus that gangs are a problem in El Salvador, and indeed Central America as a whole. Despite recent approval of an anti-gang law in the Legislative Assembly, how best to curb gang activity remains a point of contention.

President Francisco Flores announced on July 23, 2003 the implementation of Plan “Mano Dura,” (literally translated as “strong hand”) the intent of which was to give police greater maneuverability in capturing and convicting gang members. Flores introduced the law the following day to the Legislative Assembly.

Some believe Flores’ party, the Allianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA), to be responsible for whipping up frenzy about gang activity to distract attention away from El Salvador’s economic woes. The gang problem also presents an ideal opportunity to highlight ARENA’s highly marketable “tough on crime” posture.

ARENA in coalition with the Partido de Conciliacion Nacional (PCN) constituted the slim majority (43 to 41) that passed the measure on October 9, making gang membership a criminal offense. The vote represented a turnaround for the PCN, which had previously refused to support the law. The reason for the PCN’s change of heart is difficult to pin point, beyond an obvious desire to not be characterized by the President as “soft on crime” as were the parties of the Left and Center.

For two months the Legislative Assembly was mired in debate about the constitutionality of the measure, as well as the specifics of the language used. The law was further bogged down by political rivalries all the more pronounced because of the rapidly approaching March 2004 presidential elections.

“The President launched this initiative for political ends,” says Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) Legislative Deputy Manuel Melgar. Whether or not this is true, Flores certainly took the opportunity presented by the delay to publicly disparage “opposition” parties—via government sponsored television adds—that he says are more concerned with their electoral success than with the safety of the Salvadoran people.

The FMLN agrees with ARENA about the necessity of addressing the gang problem, but disagrees that the course of action set out in Mano Dura is the best way to do it. “Without a doubt youth delinquency is one of the biggest problems we are facing,” says Melgar. To curb gang activity, however, he asserts that, “we need to plan social programs for youth: Access to recreation and education, and generation of employment.”

The position of ARENA mirrors that of the President. “For us this law is a response to the gang problem,” says ARENA legislative deputy Guillermo Gallegos. “We cannot assure that it will completely solve the problem, but the only way to combat the ferocity of gang activity to date is with a strong law that punishes severely.”

Irrespective of its efficacy, however, the constitutionality of the law is highly questionable. A legislative forum was held on August 25 and 26 at which Melgar says Mano Dura was determined to be unconstitutional. Among other things, the law makes it legal for police to arrest youth congregated in groups of three or more, as well as to try youth between the ages of 12 and 18 as adults. Since passing the Legislative Assembly, several judges have also taken issue with unconstitutionality of Mano Dura.

Prior to its approval the National Civilian Police (PNC) had begun to execute certain aspects of the plan. Suspected gang members were arrested and jailed without evidence of a specific crime committed. Previously these gang members were released within a few days of their initial capture for lack of evidence that could lead to conviction. Now any evidence of gang membership is sufficient for conviction.

This tactic appears to have received mixed reviews from groups and organizations that work with gang members. “One good thing you will see out of this is that there will be fewer gang members huddled on street corners,” says William Huezo, Art and Culture Coordinator at the youth organization Homies Unidos (translated Homies United).

Huezo is also quick to point out, however, that the Mano Dura will free up police to commit more abuses and violations of human rights. “I already know of cases where police beat up family members of suspected gang members,” he says.

“I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be hard on criminals,” he adds. “People who commit criminal acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.” What is missing in Huezo’s opinion is a willingness to understand the difficult circumstances in which many youth live. “With the unemployment rate what it is in this country, it is no wonder that some young people become involved in gangs.”

Apart from getting gang members off the streets, Huezo questions the effectiveness of the law. “The plan has only minimized gang activity because people are scared to go out,” he says. “Gang members are meeting in houses now instead of parks.”

With the new legal backing for Mano Dura, the PNC has already intensified their onslaught against gang activity. The extent of implementation, however, is dependent on the cooperation of a judicial system that has largely denounced the law as unconstitutional. In the meantime youth will continue to be locked up, at least temporarily, for real or perceived gang membership.

IV. Healthcare Union Cites Continued Threat of Privatization

On September 20, San Salvador saw the convocation of a “white march” in the tradition of those held during the 9-month public healthcare strike that began on September 18, 2002. Those in attendance wore white clothing as a demonstration of solidarity with the doctors and healthcare workers who had taken to the streets to protest the privatization of the public health system.

Although the strike formally ended on June 13, 2003 the march on September 20 was held to highlight the continuing threat of privatization of the public health system, as well as government and Salvadoran Social Security Institute’s (ISSS) failure to comply with the agreement signed by both parties.

For representatives of the Salvadoran Social Security Institute Workers Union (STISSS), the struggle to prevent privatization is far from over. The way in which the union has voiced its current demands, however, is dismissed as a Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) electoral tactic.

Although ISSS denies any plan to formally privatize the healthcare system, various government officials have continued to speak cryptically about the issue of privatization. As early as October 2002 President Francisco Flores attempted to quell the outcry against privatization by presenting an ostensibly different proposal to “modernize” and “democratize” the public healthcare system. More recently, the new Vice Minister of Health Rafael Eduardo Lorenzana Interiano was quoted in a September 28 La Prensa Grafica interview as saying, “If we want healthcare, we are going to have to pay for it.”

For STISSS Secretary General Ricardo Monge there is but one conclusion that can be drawn from this. “They still want to privatize the public health system,” he says.

STISSS also claims that ISSS is making a concerted effort to reduce union membership and undermine the union’s power, presumably as a means of paving the way for later privatization. Throughout the period of the strike, leading up to the present, they say the Social Security Institute has been threatening union members with dismissal if they maintain their membership. The Institute has also apparently stopped removing union dues from members’ paychecks as a way of further undermining the union’s already depleted resources.

STISSS says that another tactic employed by ISSS has been to end the union membership of any employee that participated in the strike, claiming that they need to re-affiliate if they wish to remain members. Union Representative Walter Orellana says, however, that many of these people do not know that they have had their union membership terminated.

If the intent of these measures is to reduce union membership, it seems to be working. “We lose approximately five union members every day,” says Orellana.

Director of Communications at the ISSS Marvin Quinteros agrees that some ISSS employees have chosen to leave the union during the past year, but says that is was a relatively small number.

Citing the signed agreement and several follow-up reports, Quinteros denies that ISSS is out of compliance with agreement. He furthermore claims that the two “white marches” following the end of the strike—as well as the ongoing demands of the STISSS and other healthcare unions--are nothing more than an FMLN electoral tactic. “From the beginning the FMLN has been heavily involved in this effort,” he notes. “This is made most clear in the case of Guillermo Mata’s invitation to be vice-presidential candidate for the party.”

Dr. Guillermo Mata, former President of the Medical College and spokesperson for the movement against privatization, was invited to be vice-presidential candidate for the FMLN after the strike was over. He had not been an FMLN party member prior to accepting this offer.

It is true that in the midst of the last year’s strike, the FMLN gained municipalities and Assembly seats in the mayoral and legislative elections held in March 2003. Even STISSS representative Walter Orellana says that, “We interpreted the success of the FMLN to be a reflection of the support for our struggle.”

Quinteros denies that any plan to formally privatize social security or other aspects of public heath currently exists. “There were plans to carry out reforms within the Social Security system,” he notes. Those very reforms, however, were readily interpreted by union members as an effort to privatize the public health system. Quinteros furthermore notes that nowhere in the signed agreements does it stipulate that ISSS or the Ministry of Health cannot move forward with the previous plan of reforms.

Aside from continuing to highlight the threat of privatization, STISSS is going to continue their struggle on an electoral front. “The union has a very clear objective right now,” says Ricardo Monge. “We need a change in government. That is how we are going to come out ahead.”

[ home ]

[ history & mission ]

[ action alerts ]

[ human rights network ]

[ election observers ]

[ monthly bulletin ]

[ archive ]

[ delegations & brigades ]

[ integrated development ]

[ language school ]

[ solidarity crafts ]

[ volunteers ]

[ links ]

cis_elsalvador@yahoo.com

October 2003

I. Residential Vote Shot Down in Legislative Assembly

II. High Stakes in the Struggle over CAFTA

III. ARENA Party Pushes Anti-Gang Law Through Legislative Assembly

IV. Healthcare Union Cites Continued Threat of Privatization

Article Summaries:

I. Residential Vote Shot Down in Legislative Assembly

II. High Stakes in the Struggle over CAFTA

III. ARENA Party Pushes Anti-Gang Law Through Legislative Assembly

Full Text:

I. Residential Vote Shot-Down in Legislative Assembly

II. High Stakes in the Struggle over CAFTA

III. ARENA Party Pushes Anti-Gang Law Through Legislative Assembly

IV. Healthcare Union Cites Continued Threat of Privatization