Monthly Update

I. High Voter Turnout and Calm Election Day Belie a Troubling Campaign Period:
While demonstrating measurable progress in the strengthening of democratic processes, the 2004 Presidential Election period was also host to numerous electoral code violations, nonfunctioning electoral bodies, observer detentions, and Bush Administration meddling.

II. Thousands Observe the Anniversary of the Assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero:
Thousands took to the streets the evening of March 24 to participate in a procession marking the anniversary of the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. The march commemorating Romero’s life was preceded by two weeks of programming organized by the NGO ASTAC, the Monsignor Romero Foundation, and many other human rights and civil society groups. The high level of participation reflects both the enduring memory of Oscar Romero, as well as the hope that he continues to inspire even in new generations of Salvadorans.

III. Special Election Program Spanish Students Attend Mass for Father Rutilio Grande:
A group of students from the Special Elections Program of the Melida Anaya Montes Spanish School attended a mass on March 12 in the town of El Paisnal to commemorate the assassination of Father Rutilio Grande. Father Grande, a proponent of liberation theology and friend of Archbishop Oscar Romero, was gunned down on that same day in 1977 by presumed death squad members while traveling to El Paisnal from the neighboring town of Aguillares.

IV. Sixth CIS International Election Observer Mission overcomes obstacles:
The Sixth Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad International Election Observer Mission initially met with some difficulties. Immigration Police attempted to deny arriving observers entry to El Salvador. Despite this setback, the electoral observation mission was brought fruition and, because of the dedication and hard work of staff and volunteers, carried out observation in 36 municipalities.

The voting center in San Francisco Chinameca (a quiet municipality nestled in the northwest corner of the Department of La Paz) was bustling with voters on March 21, but otherwise tranquil. While forced to wait in long lines (sometimes in the sun) and navigate an overcrowded voting center, the residents San Francisco Chinameca arrived in masse to exercise their right to vote, and did so in an orderly fashion and respectful manner.

To focus on the tranquility of Chinameca and similarly well run voting centers would obscure the real problems to which the electoral period was host. The unprecedented national voter turnout and relatively smooth-running election day, combined with a campaign period rife with electoral code violations makes these most recent elections at once a reflection of El Salvador’s progress in the consolidation of democracy, as well as its continued shortcomings. The electoral period, while not characterized by the violence of years past, was nonetheless host to observer detentions at the International Airport, malfunctioning of electoral bodies, dirty campaigning, and United States meddling.

The pre-electoral period was, in a word, tense. If viewed within its historical context, it is apparent why. The two largest parties represent former camps of the 12-year-long Civil War. A great deal of Cold War rhetoric was dredged up by the campaigns of both the leftist Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) and the right-wing Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA). The former is a guerrilla movement-turned political party, while the latter was founded by the vehemently anti-communist School of the Americas graduate Major Roberto D’Aubuisson

One of the later (but perhaps most striking) manifestations of this tension was an effort on the part of the Salvadoran Ministry of Governance to deny International Election Observers entry to the country. Four observers from the United States (three of whom were CIS delegation members) were denied entry and threatened with deportation shortly after arriving at El Salvador’s Comalapa International Airport on the evening of Friday, March 12. Immigration police informed them that they had received instructions from superiors in the Ministry of Governance to deny entry to all foreign election observers. The four observers were only allowed to enter the country after the United States Embassy, the Human Rights Omubswoman’s Office, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and representatives of Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS) International Election Observer Mission mediated the process.

The immigration police adopted a similar policy on Saturday, although this time denying entry to nearly all foreigners entering the country. At one point on Saturday afternoon, and estimated 40 people were being detained at the international airport, among them, a Spanish Priest and an evangelical Christian group from the United States. All were eventually allowed to enter El Salvador, but some only after they had spent the night waiting. At one point during the day the United States Ambassador himself came to the airport.

CIS International Election Observation Coordinator Delmy Valencia commented days before the elections that the governing ARENA party was scared of losing the presidency to the FMLN. “They are taking very extreme measures,” she said. “One of them is to scare the international community so that they don’t come to observe the elections.”

In the 2003 legislative and municipal Elections the FMLN retained control of 31 seats in the Legislative Assembly, while ARENA dropped to 29. This, along with the fact that the FMLN obtained a plurality of the votes, led some to believe that the party had a viable chance of winning the presidency. Others opined that support for the FMLN had grown such that, even if they did not take the presidency, there would at least be a second round of elections.

Reality differed quite sharply from this prediction. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) publicized the final results on the Friday following the elections (March 26), declaring ARENA the official winner with 57.74% of the valid votes, enough to eliminate the need for a second round. The FMLN followed with 35.65% of the votes, while the Partido Democráta Cristiano – Centro Democrático Unido (PDC-CDU) coalition and the Partido de Conciliación Nacional (PCN) trailed with 3.87% and 2.72% respectively. Candidate Hector Silva for the PDC-CDU coalition and Rafael Machuca of the PCN did not receive the 6 and 3 percent respectively that they needed to retain their parties’ legal status.

Other problems during the electoral period arose in relation to the malfunctioning of the TSE. A product of the Peace Accords signed in 1992, the TSE was designed to eliminate the corruption and political polarization that had plagued its predecessor (the Central Electoral Council (CCE)). The TSE is comprised of five magistrates, three of whom represent the parties that receive the greatest number of votes in the previous presidential elections. The remaining two are nominated by the Supreme Court (CSJ), and must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Assembly.

The body is currently comprised of one magistrate from the governing ARENA party, one from the FMLN, and one from the CDU. The remaining two have no formal party affiliation, but concerning violations of the electoral code one consistently voted with ARENA with the other taking the side of the FMLN and CDU. The four out of five votes necessary for resolutions to be approved by the TSE made it effectively impossible for the body to prosecute violations of the electoral code.

The Human Rights Ombudswoman of El Salvador, Dr. Beatrice Alamanni de Carrillo, has called for the elimination of party representation within the body, noting that, “the dependence of the TSE on the political parties continues to be an insurmountable problem, affecting more and more its impartiality and transparency.” Of the fifty-three cases presented before the TSE during the electoral period, one was resolved. Distribution of propaganda before the official inauguration of the campaign period (perpetrated by ARENA in August, and later by all parties) was reprimanded with a nominal fine in February.^[1] Both major parties use of “dirty” propaganda went unpunished by the TSE.^[2] (Television adds paid for by one Rafael Menjivar alleged that FMLN candidate Schafik Handal had kidnapped and murdered civilians during the war.^[3] The FMLN countered this by airing adds attacking the integrity of ARENA candidate Tony Saca by playing on a public statement—“my hands are clean”—to highlight the historical relationship between his party and death squad activity.) In both cases resolution was blocked or delayed because of the position taken by the ARENA-aligned magistrates.

The TSE had been planning the implementation of a residential voting plan since 1994. Residential voting was originally slated for implemented in time for the 1997 mayoral and legislative elections, but was still not in place for the 2004 presidential elections. The TSE voted in September 2003 about whether to move forward with the residential vote after the two ARENA-aligned magistrates asserted that the body was not ready to implement the plan. Because of the two dissenting votes, the initiative was struck down.

United States Government officials made national media appearances during the campaign period, as well as several months prior. Many issued thinly veiled threats about the future of U.S.-El Salvador relations in the event of an FMLN victory.

Perhaps the most notable of these visits was sfrom Undersecretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega. Ostensibly in response to “inappropriate” use of a photograph from a meeting between FMLN candidate Schafik Handal and U.S. Ambassador Douglas Barclay, Noriega canceled a scheduled meeting with Handal.^[4] He met with the presidential candidates of the three other major parties, and was quoted by the press as saying, “I think it is fair to note that the FMLN campaign has emphasized its differences with us concerning CAFTA and other subjects. And we know the history of this political movement, and for that reason it is fair that the Salvadoran people consider what type of relations a new government could have with us.”^[5]

This was followed on March 14 by similarly ominous comments made by Special White House Envoy to Latin America Otto Reich. The press quoted Reich as noting that, “we are concerned about the impact that an FMLN victory could have on the commercial, economic and migratory relations of the United States with El Salvador.”^[6]

The statements of Noriega and Reich were made in the context of widely circulating rumors that, if the FMLN won the elections, the U.S. government would restrict the flow of remittances sent home by Salvadorans living in the United States. Many also feared that the United States government would attempt to deport Salvadoran residents in the event of an FMLN victory.

On an Election Day free of major problems, an unprecedented number of Salvadoran voters elected a new leader by a margin of 500,000 votes. If measured by those indices alone, one can confidently say that democratic elections were successfully conducted. An examination of the broader circumstances in which many Salvadorans decided for whom they would vote, however, gives a different impression. The malfunctioning of El Salvador’s highest electoral body, as well as the scare tactics employed during the campaign period, indicate some of the steps that must be taken to institutionalize a more comprehensive democratic process in El Salvador.

[1] Article 203 of the Electoral Code (as stipulated in Article 81 of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador) prohibits the distribution of party propaganda earlier than four months before Election Day in a Presidential election year.

[2] Article 228 of the Electoral Code states that “it is prohibited through electoral propaganda to insult the morality or damage the honor or private life of candidates and leaders either alive or dead.”

[3] It is worth noting that Article 227 of the Electoral Code states that, “once the period of candidate inscription is closed only the competing political parties and coalitions have the right to distribute propaganda.”

[4] The FMLN took out an advertisement in a San Salvador daily featuring the photo of Handal with Barclay, presumably to refute rumors that the FMLN had an antagonistic relationship with the United States.

[5] Álvaro Cruz Rojas. “Diferencias con FMLN: Noriega pide tomar la mejor decisión,” El Diario de Hoy. 7 February 2004 <http://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/2004/02/07/nacional/nac15.asp> (21 April 2004)

[6] Milton Grimaldi. “Hombre de confianza de Bush veta a FMLN,” La Prensa Grafica. 14 March 2004 <http://archive.laprensa.com.sv/20040314/nacion/nacion2.asp> (21 April 2004)

The “Tenth Artistic and Cultural Vigil in Honor of Monsignor Romero” was held under a footbridge near that University of El Salvador (UES). In this normally dark corner of the capital city, a stage had been erected, before which hundreds of vigil attendees sat and stood. The strings of light bulbs strung across the open space illuminated the night, and the folk music and later resonant voices giving mass drowned out even the roar of passing traffic.

The vigil, organized by the Salvadoran Workers Association for Art and Culture (ASTAC), was the culmination of an entire week of activities. The week of the former Archbishop’s 1980 assassination was host to another range of activities organized by a number of grassroots organizations and NGOs (among them the Monsignor Romero Foundation) leading up to a procession on March 24 to mark the day of his death. The amount of programming as well as the level of attendance is both a reminder of the anguish generated out of Oscar Romero’s death, and the hope that his legacy continues to inspire.

The week of events organized by ASTAC included the inauguration of a Mural at the Hospital de la Divina Providenica, where Archbishop Romero lived. He was celebrting mass in the hospital chapel on March 24, 1980, the day that he died. While giving the homily, a single shot from an unidentified assassin struck the Archbishop in the chest, causing his death only moments later.

Some of the other ASTAC programming touched on themes resonant with beliefs of Monsignor Romero. The Human Rights Ombudswoman, Dr. Beatrice de Carrillo and musician Lorena Cuerno spoke at an afternoon-long conference entitled “Youth and Identity versus National Policy.” The following Thursday Dagoberto Gutiérrez spoke about “Identity and National Sovereignty in the Thinking of Monsignor Romero.”

There was also a variety of programming the week immediately preceding the anniversary of Romero’s death. The entire morning of March 14 was devoted to programming that spoke to issues currently affecting young people in El Salvador. The performance that ended the day was entitled, “With Monsignor Romero the Youth are Reborn.”

The afternoons of March 22 and 23 were devoted the exposition of testimonies from parochial communities whose members were killed by death squads or government security agencies.

On March 24, thousands congregated at the Salvador del Mundo monument, west of downtown on the edge of the Escalon neighborhood. The procession left at six o’clock in the evening to begin making its way to the Cathedral in the center of San Salvador. Each participant carried a single candle, protected from the wind by a small paper shade bearing the visage of Oscar Romero. Music and singing among some portions of the march was interrupted by the periodic crack of fireworks.

There was a marked heterogeneity to the crowd. The participants in the procession were of all ages, some elderly, some clearly too young too have been alive in 1980. Lighter skin combined with style of dress gave away the significant foreign presence at the precession.

The procession made its way down Franklin Delano Roosavelt Avenue among shouts of “Stop the corruption, stop the lies. Long-live Monsignor Romero” and “Romero lives. The struggle continues.” FMLN Presidential candidate Schafik Handal and his wife Tanya were among them.

A banner that nearly stretched the width of the avenue read, “Forgive us Monsignor. Once again we have elected your assassins and the executioners of your people…” After 15 years of control over the executive branch, the marchers were lamenting the March 21 electoral victory of the Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA), now guaranteed another five years in office. Party founder Major Roberto D’Abuisson was accused by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of El Salvador of having given the order to assassinate Oscar Romero.

The second portion of the banner, however, makes clear the hope that Oscar Romero continues to inspire in the people of El Salvador. “Help us to awaken and understand the path to liberation,” it read.

“We follow his example, and he continues to live among us,” said Isabel Vasquez of San Salvador.

“He spoke for those who had no voice, the poor people,” added Jose Santos Rivera, who had traveled from the eastern Department of Usulután for the event.

Fittingly, as the procession passed by Cuscatlán Park some took the opportunity to stop at the Monument to Memory and Truth, inaugurated in December 2003. The monument bears the names of 35,000 civilians killed during El Salvador’s 12-year-long civil war. The list of organizational sponsors engraved on the Monument’s polished, black granite surface highlights the overlap of Romero’s commemoration with that of all civilians murdered in El Salvador’s Civil war. Among them is the “Committee of Mothers of Disappeared and Assassinated ‘Monsignor Oscar Anulfo Romero.’”

The church in the community of El Paisnal, like most, faces the central square. Its whitewashed façade shone brightly in the morning sun as the Spanish students climbed out of the van and entered the church’s cool interior. Vendors outside set up their plantain chip and French fry stands in preparation for the patron saint festival that weekend.

The students had arrived in the town of El Paisnal that morning to attend a mass in commemoration of Father Rutilio Grande. The community in which he was born and lived—and where he worked and spread the teachings of liberation theology—dutifully observes the day of his assassination each year.

The students were to participate in the Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad Presidential Election Observer delegation, but had arrived two weeks early to study Spanish in a special program designed by the Melida Anaya Montes School. Covering electoral vocabulary and imparting knowledge of the process itself, the program also brought the students to places and events of historical importance in and around San Salvador.

A close friend of Archbishop Oscar Romero, Father Grande’s death is thought to have been key in Romero’s decision to begin condemning the violence and repression perpetrated by government security forces. Grande and two companions were shot to death by presumed death squad members while traveling from the town of Aguillares to El Paisnal on March 12, 1977.

Before the mass began the students spoke with Farther Orlando, current Parish Priest in El Paisnal. The nephew of Father Grande, Father Orlando illustrated the life of the assassinated priest through personal anecdotes.

“He would use a piece of sugar cane to show the laborers what a letter ‘I’ looked like,” he said, in relating Father Grande’s efforts to not only address widespread illiteracy but also foment political consciousness. “’This piece of sugarcane represents your effort, your sweat,’ he would say. ‘Don’t forget that.’”

Father Orlando noted his belief that the Catholic Church in El Salvador has experienced a regression in terms of progressive thought and the espousal of liberation theology. The tradition of Father Grande is upheld, but only by a select few. “Despite this,” he says, “we continue moving forward.”

He asked that the students take advantage of their time in El Salvador, not only to observe the electoral process, but also the harsh reality in which many Salvadorans live. Although there were a number of nationalities represented, Father Orlando also made a special entreaty to the United States Citizens, that they be aware of the actions of their government and hold them responsible for wrongdoing. He referred specifically to the estimated $1.5 million that the United States government gave daily to the Salvadoran military during the 1980s.

By the time the mass began the church was packed to overflowing, with many standing along the sides and in the back, and some spilling out onto the front steps. Several priests that knew and had worked with Father Grande, among them Father Orlando, spoke briefly about his life and the importance of his work.

About half way along stretch of road that connects El Paisnal to neighboring Aguillares, there is a monument marking the place where Rutilio Grande and his two companions were gunned down. The bus carrying the students back to San Salvador paused briefly to take in the sight of the simple cement structure featuring a photo of Father Grande. A small fence that surround the monument is ringed by flowers and grass, seemingly as well maintained as the memory of Father Grande himself.

For Warren Erickson, of Newton, Iowa, the 2004 CIS election observer mission was his second.

“I came last year for the mayoral and Legislative Deputy Elections,” he says.

Erickson reasons for coming back exemplify the mission of the CIS. “Medical delegations, educational delegations give immediate relief to a few people, but long lasting sustainable societal change is not going to be produced by those of us who come down for a week or a month. That will only be produced by people who live here

Keeping this mission in mind, the Sixth CIS International Election Observation Mission sought to not only ensure transparency in the electoral process, but also to introduce participants to some of the social realities of El Salvador. Government obstacles to the execution of the mission initially impeded the realization of these goals. These difficulties were overcome, and 270 CIS observers were present in 36 different municipalities on Election Day.

Three CIS delegation participants arriving at El Salvador’s Comalapa International Airport on Friday, March 12 were detained by Immigration police and threatened with deportation. Officials told the three observers that they had instructions to deny entry to the country to any foreigners arriving to observe the elections. The three observers were allowed to enter the country early the following morning after mediation by representatives of the Human Rights Ombudswoman’s Office, the United States Embassy, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and the Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad International Election Observation Mission.

Despite promises to the contrary, immigration police adopted a similar policy on Saturday, although this time denying entry to nearly all foreigners entering the country. At one point on Saturday afternoon, and estimated 80 people were being detained at the international airport, among them, a Spanish Priest and an evangelical Christian group from the United States. CIS Election Observation Coordinator Delmy Valencia spent the entire day at the airport pressuring for observers to be released.

All the CIS observers arriving on Saturday were eventually allowed to enter, and none of the people arriving experienced problems on Sunday or Monday.

Once over that hump, the intended programming could begin. The CIS office was host to a gathering on the evening of Monday, March 15th, at which Leslie Schuld and Board of Directors Member Carolina Vasquez welcomed the observers and explained the agenda for the week.

On Tuesday, following a brief introduction to the CIS’s work and history, the observers heard Center for the Defense of the Consumer Director Armando Flores’ analysis of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The afternoon was spent visiting the embassies of the different countries represented on the mission.

Wednesday the observers were given a choice of a number of different excursions. “We went to the Memorial to Memory and Truth,” says Stacy Morrison from Austin, Texas, referring to the polished granite wall in Cuscatlan Park that bears the names of 35,000 civilians killed during the civil war. Her group also met with the Director of the women’s organization Las Dignas, Gloria Guzmán, who as played a large role organizing support for the construction of the monument.

“Lastly, we went to speak with Judge Aida Luz Santos de Escobar, who educated us about the Anti-Gang Law,” said Morrison.

On Thursday, three different teams of municipal coordinators led trainings in the voting process for the observers. The trainings were followed by a meeting with the Human Rights Ombudswoman Dr. Beatrice de Carrillo.

The observers headed to their municipalities on Friday afternoon after a meeting with Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) Magistrates. Those who were observing closer to San Salvador returned that night as well as the following. Those observing in more distant municipalities, however, such as those in San Miguel and La Union, did not return until Sunday evening or Monday morning.

Observers gathered at the Office of the Archdiocese to share their experiences on Monday afternoon, after which they enjoyed a banquet of comida tipica at La Violeta Community Center in the El Roble neighborhood of San Salvador.

Delegation representatives held a press conference on Tuesday at which they related preliminary findings of the mission. After a brief refreshment, buses began to leave for airport.

“It was really a wonderful program,” noted Warren Erickson of the weeklong delegation. “I was impressed with the seriousness with which everyone approached Election Day, and the work that went into preparing it.”

Election program coordinator Delmy Valencia shares that sentiment. “The program had general and specific objectives,” she said, “and we met those objectives.”

On Wednesday, March 25 the President of the Republic of El Salvador Francisco Flores Perez announced that he will not seek the position of Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS). Flores had been intimating for several months that he might announce his candidacy for the highest position in the Inter-American body, but waited until after the March 21 presidential elections to make clear his plan. His decision came as a surprise to the man who will take his place in June, president-elect Elias Antonio Saca. Flores says he is leaving politics after his term as president is up, and will not even occupy his guaranteed seat in the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN).

Flores’ decision followed the announcement of the Chilean government that they would support the candidate from Costa Rica, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez. (Chile had previously entered their own candidate in the running, Minister of the Interior José Miguel Insuluza.) With the support of Chile, the number of votes that the Costa Rican candidate can count on has risen to 26. Only 8 undecided votes remain, among them that of El Salvador. Saca, who will have been inaugurated as president by the time the OAS member states elect the new Secretary General, stopped short of formally endorsing the Central American candidate. He said, however, that he supports the notion of a Central American taking the helm of the OAS. El Diario de Hoy, 3/25/04; La Prensa Grafica, 3/25/04.

The now infamous Ley Anti-Mara (Anti-Gang Law) that was set to expire on April 10, was extended for another three months after an April 1 vote in the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Deputies of the Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA) party had failed the day prior to pass a version that would have extended the law for another six months.

The 48 of 84 votes in favor of extending the Anti-Gang law came from Deputies representing ARENA, the Partido de Conciliación Nacional (PCN) and the Partido Democráta Cristiana (PDC). The PCN had said the day prior that they would not approve the measure. Party representatives explained that their decision to vote in favor arose out of concern for citizen safety during the Holy Week vacations, as well as a belief that the unconstitutional aspects of the law had been corrected.

The Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) representatives in the Legislative Assembly did not attend the voting session, claiming that the agreement between the PCN, the PDC and ARENA had been reached by means of pressure. The PCN and PDC are attempting to negotiate the retention of their status as official parties, which they risk losing after not having received the requisite 3% of the valid votes in the March Presidential Election. El Diario de Hoy, 4/1/04, 4/2/04; La Prensa Grafica, 4/1/04; 4/2/04.

[ home ]

[ history & mission ]

[ action alerts ]

[ human rights network ]

[ election observers ]

[ monthly bulletin ]

[ archive ]

[ delegations & brigades ]

[ integrated development

[ language school ]

[ solidarity crafts ]

[ volunteers ]

[ links ]

April 2004 Printer Friendly(PDF)