Two Weeks in El Salvador with CISPES: Olympians observe El Salvador elections

author : Patty Mosqueda topic : Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador | El Salvador

by Patty Mosqueda

Nearly two weeks in El Salvador, including elections day on March 12, was an intense learning experience for nine delegates from Olympia (many from The Evergreen State College) who participated in a tour organized by the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). The nine Olympians -- part of a delegation of 27 people from various cities in the United States -- acted as international elections observers, and also met with social action groups to understand political and economic conditions in El Salvador. To no one's surprise, most of the "learning" was related to United States interventionist activities that impact El Salvador. In the various meetings and discussions over the two-week period, a range of human rights issues were discussed, including the activities surrounding the elections, as well as concerns related to CAFTA and ILEA.

CAFTA

CAFTA -- the Central America Free Trade Agreement designed by the U.S. to promote "free trade" in Central America -- has produced deep concern among many in El Salvador. CAFTA was passed in El Salvador's legislative assembly in December 2004. It was introduced at a late night session, and its passage occurred within a few hours. There was no public discourse or debate about the effects of CAFTA, and members of the legislative assembly did not read the document. Following the passage of CAFTA by the legislative assembly, the United States imposed further demands by insisting that El Salvador amend 14 of its national laws and parts of the penal code to conform to CAFTA. These tactics are seen as a violation of El Salvador's right to national sovereignty.

Many people in El Salvador fear the effects of CAFTA, and opposition to the implementation of CAFTA is growing. Privatization of various public services under CAFTA, such as water and healthcare, would transfer control and profits to corporations. For example, the delegation met with Salvadoran union leaders representing workers in the public water system. These union people urge that CAFTA not be applied; they are worried not only about losing their jobs if water is privatized, but they also worry about the large numbers of low-income Salvadorans who likely will not be able to afford water -- a necessity for sustaining life itself.

CAFTA's provisions also allow private ownership of intellectual property -- with harmful consequences for many people. Access to medicines is one example. Currently, many generic medicines are available and are less expensive than brand-name drugs. However, under CAFTA, corporations could own the rights to medicines, making it illegal to produce generic alternatives. Poor peoples' ability to afford medicines would be in jeopardy; already, in fact, access to medicine is out of the reach of the majority of Salvadorans. Another example: Ownership of intellectual property rights could adversely impact the "informal" sector -- which is made up of people who set up small stands in the streets to sell various items, usually small things like food, music CDs, videos, etc. A large portion of "employed" people in El Salvador are those who work in the informal sector, and they have begun to organize to oppose CAFTA. Their concern is that under CAFTA the sale of copyrighted materials -- such as CDs -- could become a criminal offense with a punishment of up to six years in prison if convicted. People work in the informal sector because other employment opportunities are nonexistent. Without the informal sector, they could not feed their families. CAFTA's potential impact for workers in the informal sector would amount to criminalization of the poor.

The concept of "free trade" embodied in CAFTA would be devastating for small producers -- that is, the people and families with small farms or small businesses. "Free trade" would allow El Salvador's markets to be flooded with goods and products produced elsewhere, and sold more cheaply than goods produced in El Salvador. The delegation met with members of a rural farm cooperative, and the cooperative told about the expected hardships that would result when they could not sell corn and beans in El Salvador's own markets. They know that small farmers will not be able to compete with mass-produced products from abroad. Members of the cooperative had met with government officials to explain their concern, and ask what they could export to the U.S. The response from the government was: sell your pupusas (made with tortillas) and orchata (a drink made from grains). In other words, the officials made a joke about the gravity of the situation for poor people.

ILEA

ILEA, the "International Law Enforcement Academy," will be established through funding from the United States as a police training school in El Salvador. ILEA is the latest manifestation of US presence in the country -- which also includes a US military base, FBI office and DEA office. ILEA can be viewed as a partner with CAFTA -- in this partnership CAFTA provides the mechanism for the imposition of privatization and free trade, and ILEA provides police training for purposes of intimidating and silencing opposition to CAFTA.

Members of the delegation heard many speakers voice opposition and concern about the imposition of ILEA. The speakers, representing social action groups, oppose CAFTA and other forms of US domination, and they already endure increased repression, including the recent death of a union organizer and the disappearance of the son of a leader of a social activist group. ILEA will magnify the intimidation.

The elections

Sunday, March 12, 2006, was the day of voting in El Salvador. Elections were held to choose mayors and council members in 262 municipalities, and to select a total of 84 deputies to the national legislative assembly. (In addition, the elections also selected deputies for the Central American Parliament. However, this was not a Presidential election.) The two major parties in El Salvador campaigned intensely. The FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front), the party of the left, includes many who fought against the government during the revolution of the 1980s (the fighting war ended in 1992). ARENA, the party of the right well known for death squads and disappearances of civilians, currently controls the presidency of El Salvador and is seen as a conduit for US domination. Several smaller parties participated in the elections, but most were allied with ARENA.

The importance of the elections was underscored during presentations for the delegation by speakers from several El Salvadoran social action groups. Speakers noted that outcomes of the elections would be pivotal in determining the direction of the country. The result of the elections would influence the implementation of CAFTA and affect social policies in general -- particularly policies regarding access to healthcare, water, employment and education. Fearing the increased repression posed by

ARENA and its policies of privatization and acquiescence to U.S. demands, social action groups focused their efforts on increasing the numbers of FMLN candidates winning the elections.

On election day, all members of the delegation spent the entire day at one or more voting locations -- starting at 6 a.m. and staying until votes were counted, as late as 9 p.m. Each location, often in the courtyard of a school, had a number of voting stations (or tables); some had over 60 stations. The delegation members had been certified by El Salvador's Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and were given identification badges. As such, they were allowed to witness and observe all activities at the voting sites -- taking pictures and documenting activities. A pervasive impression among the delegation involved the large numbers of "vigilantes" (observers/helpers) at each station associated with political parties. In addition to the five official vote coordinators from the parties assigned to each voting station, each party could have one or two "vigilantes." But much of the time the numbers appeared to be larger -- particularly "vigilantes" associated with the ruling ARENA party. "Vigilantes" had considerable interaction with voters; in some cases they showed voters where to sign or helped insert ballots into the ballot box -- violations of the electoral code. Another observation of the delegation during the voting process was the lack of true secrecy. A voter marked his/her paper ballot with a large X on the logo of the chosen party. The voting booth was a cardboard platform with minimal screening on three sides, but open behind the voter -- making it easy, in many cases, to see how an individual voted.

Members of the international delegation discovered other questionable activities on election day, including, in one instance, under-reporting of FMLN votes on the official tally sheet. Some ARENA vigilantes also told delegation members that they were forced to be part of the elections process, or lose their jobs. And some vigilantes were paid by ARENA to work at the polling place. There were reports (although delegation members were unable to observe this directly) that that the ruling party had transported several busloads of people from Honduras and Guatemala (and possibly Nicaragua) into El Salvador to vote illegally.

However, the more egregious irregularities likely occurred before the day of the election. The President of El Salvador openly campaigned for several months for ARENA, of which he is a member. In El Salvador it is prohibited by law for the President, who is the head of the military, to campaign. The FMLN filed a grievance protesting the President's actions. Furthermore, there were questions concerning the voter registration lists. Prior to voting day, only the ruling ARENA party had access to the lists; no other party was able to authenticate the names on the lists. There were reports that deceased voters were still on the list, and that they voted. Perhaps this allowed non-citizens, from Honduras or elsewhere, to vote?

The final results of the election for the national legislative assembly show that ARENA received 34 assembly deputies, while the FMLN received 32 deputies. The remainder of the winning deputies were distributed among three smaller parties allied with ARENA. Neither the FMLN nor the ARENA party have a majority in the assembly, but ARENA's alliances with smaller parties will provide support for its political agenda. However, the lack of a super majority for ARENA will reduce the possibility of changing some constitutional laws that would require the approval of two-thirds of the deputies.

The most controversial mayoral race occurred in the capitol, San Salvador. After three days of "counting" the votes (which led to street protests by FMLN supporters who suspected the results were being tampered with, and aggression by the police against the demonstrators), the electoral council finally declared the FMLN candidate as the winner -- by just 44 votes -- even though exit polls showed that the FMLN was heavily favored. Questions about the conduct of the elections will continue to be raised.

After the elections

Members of the delegation had two culminating activities on March 14: a press conference, and a meeting with the U.S. Embassy. The press conference was attended by several media outlets, including both television and newspapers. The delegation felt it was important to publicize some of the concerns about the day of the election, and about the questionable campaign tactics of the ruling party and the President himself. The press conference was featured on the evening TV news, and was the subject of an article in at least one newspaper.

A meeting with the U.S. Embassy representatives was an opportunity to express the concerns that the members of the delegation had formulated while in El Salvador. Concerns included not only the conduct of the elections, but also the erosion of human rights that has alarmed social action groups in El Salvador. The tenor of the meeting with the "political assistant" of the Embassy began politely. But as members of the delegation relayed concerns about the elections, and more specifically, concerns and objections about the erosion of human rights embodied in both CAFTA and ILEA, the "political assistant" became visibly angry -- and eventually stormed out of the meeting. For the delegation, it was a clear statement about the U.S. government's attitude toward its own citizens, and toward the people of El Salvador.

La lucha continua!

More information on El Salvador and CISPES is available at http://www.CISPES.org

For local Olympia information, call 867-6513.