The Guardian 21 May, 2008
Extending "people’s power"
in El Salvador
Bob Briton
Jorge Schafik Handal is member of the Central American Parliament representing El Salvador. He is the Vice-President of its Commission for Municipal Development and Citizen’s Participation. He is also a senior figure in El Salvador’s left opposition Farabundo Martí National Liberation front (FMLN) which appears set to assume government in the troubled Central American country at elections to be held next year.
Jorge is the son of the late Schafik Handal, the long-serving General Secretary of the Communist Party of El Salvador (which merged into the FMLN) and famed leader of guerrilla forces that fought against the ruthlessly anti-people, pro-US government of El Salvador from the late 1970s and through the 1980s. The Central American MP is currently touring Australia to promote the participation of international observers in next year’s elections in El Salvador and to rally support for his party among Australia’s sizeable El Salvadorian community.
Jorge spoke to The Guardian during his visit to Adelaide.
Guardian: What is the current political environment like in El Salvador? What are the main issues confronting the people and the popular forces in the country?
Jorge Schafik Handal: El Salvador as a country faces a food crisis, a crisis of development. There is a food crisis because agriculture in El Salvador simply doesn’t exist. The neo-liberal government that we have has been promoting a line that has given preference to capital investment in services — not development.
The agricultural sector and industrial sector are fundamental to development and the policies pursued have resulted in El Salvador having a dependent economy. This is the main challenge facing the country and the FMLN as it prepares to become the government.
The main issues confronting the population have to do with democracy because the right wing — which has been governing for 20 years — is resisting acceptance of the fact that there will be a change in 2009. For that reason they are changing the rules of the electoral system and planning to combine with other parties so as not to lose their privileges.
The popular political forces and the people are living with the day-to-day reality that they have fewer and fewer guarantees of their rights, including labour rights. In order to survive, the neo-liberal system has to curtail civil rights. The God they wish to see reign is the God of the market and for everything to submit to the law of supply and demand. From these criteria, a person is not viewed as a human being but as an object for commerce. These are the challenges facing us as a party and as forces for civil society.
G: How confident is the FMLN that it will overcome this resistance and win the elections next year?
JSH: We are sure we are going to win; public opinion confirms that we are going to win but we don’t take it for granted. We know in politics things can change from one day to the next. The right in El Salvador is desperate. That is why the FMLN is focussing on two main tasks at the moment. First, to consolidate and widen the advantage we enjoy at the moment and second, to convert the political forces we deploy at the moment into instruments for governing. The future we expect will be difficult. We will win but we need to build the victory.
G: How do you answer critics who say the FMLN has not made a successful transition from guerrilla force to political party and those that point to examples of corruption, etc?
JSH: It is clear that the struggle for social change takes a variety of forms. There are moments when you may go to elections and others when you take up arms. But the struggle is always the same because we’re setting out to break with the established order. The struggle will always be accompanied by violence, that is to say we didn’t decide to cease being guerrillas simply to convert ourselves into a legal party — that would have been a desertion of our principles.
The struggle remains the same and you must respond to what the people need and are demanding at each moment. The political right thought that in order to take part in their game, we would have to "behave" and give up our principles. When the struggle is genuine, the principles remain the same. Peaceful struggle for social change does not exist. They know the struggle is always the same so why would they demand that we change the way we are? They never change; they maintain their position as exploiters. The question is why should we change in order to suit them while they need not change.
As for corruption, this is an argument taken up many times by the right to attack the prestige of the left. They say it is not important whether representatives are from the left or right; they are always thieves. This is an idea put into the minds of the people so that they won’t want change — there’s no point in having change because they are all the same. These are arguments that the FMLN will never accept. Of course, we cannot permit that in our ranks we should have corrupt individuals and we must be the first to punish this phenomenon.
G: What measures would the FMLN take as the new government? Does the FMLN have a vision for development of the region?
JSH: For the right, integration is not a solution but nothing more than an opportunity to carry out business. At the moment, the ones for whom integration is opportune are the big commercial enterprises. They will say that to carry on commerce with me there must be an integrated model. For the left, integration is necessary because in a globalised world small countries with small resources just cannot survive.
ALBA [the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America — a progressive project for economic integration first proposed by Venezuela] is a good approach, a correct approach. People are united at the base, not from on high. They share resources and possibilities. ALBA has enabled the sharing of the resources of Bolivia, of Venezuela, of El Salvador, developing agriculture — helping those countries with what they don’t have. We give each other resources that we don’t have — everything at the market price, nothing is given as a gift but on the basis of fair trade. This is real integration, not the integration of mercantilism.
We have ALBA right now. We are participating in ALBA via the mayors from the FMLN in El Salvador. With Petrocaribe [an alliance of 15 countries for trade in oil initiated by Venezuela in 2005] we have formed an enterprise called ALBA Petróleo de El Salvador. We are distributing diesel at 30 centavos below the market price. In June we will start with petrol. We have achieved results. We are proving that the left can solve problems and provide genuine solidarity, that real integration among the people can solve their problems. It is a new way to move the world.
This is helping people to open their eyes. In El Salvador, in the election campaign, ARENA [the ruling rightist party] is saying that we are planning to implement a model like that of Hugo Chávez, that we will do things along the lines of Nicaragua, that we will do things like in Cuba. But when people see that from Venezuela we get fuel and can supply it a cheaper price — not as a gift — those who don’t have money, who want a lower price for petrol, those without means find that they can now do things via the program from Venezuela.
On the other hand, it is certain that you simply cannot copy a model of economic development. History shows this. The ones who are copying a model of economic development are the neo-liberals. They get the recipe from the World Bank and everywhere it has been applied it has failed. But they go around everywhere saying that we are going to copy the economic model of Venezuela.
G: How serious is the threat from the US to the movement towards progressive change in Latin America?
JSH: You have the political right in Latin America that realises that the time for change has arrived and to a great degree. There are now five countries — Peru, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and El Salvador — that are controlled by the right. In the whole of Latin America there are only five! Of course, they support the US because for the US Latin America is their backyard. These governments are now demanding new forms of relating to one another.
You could say that Chile is not on the left, but neither is it on the right. Tabaré [the President of Uruguay] is not of the left, but he is not from the right and with all those who are not of the traditional right there is an opportunity for progressive people. The progressive forces in each country must make the most of the opportunities to develop and transform their countries. But if they fight among themselves there won’t be any such opportunity.
For the US, what is happening is seen like an attack on their camp, the reds have come into their backyard, that they can’t dominate as before, that a new mentality has arisen. This worries and disturbs them. At the world level the empire is falling. On all sides it is going to water. It is resisting this but it can’t succeed. It looked forward to a unipolar world but it is turning out to be multi-polar. In Latin America we have a pole of development distinct from that of the US, distinct from China and India and Russia. It has another model of development based on solidarity among peoples, based on respect for their freedoms, based on the progress of the human being. This is the reason the US is afraid — afraid for their business.
Within this is a very important subject for progressive forces that must be discussed more deeply — what does it mean for progressive forces to "take power"? Is it just to exchange one group of people for another or is it to use power in order to transform the society? In this transformation, which are the forces that are going to carry out that role? How will power attach itself to the people, in other words, will we create people’s power from the government or from the society? We must keep it in mind not to repeat the errors of the Soviet Union. This is a theme in the question you gave me and in the practice that is unfolding and in which Latin America finds itself at the centre.
For example, when Chávez triumphed there was no party. The Movement for the Fifth Republic triumphed but it has taken until now to set about creating a party. Evo Morales the same — he triumphed with the masses. There isn’t a party that represents all progressive forces of Bolivia. It must be built. The same in Ecuador — Correa didn’t triumph with the traditional parties of the left. Fernando Lugo [who became president of Paraguay last month] the same. All over the world, the idea of "taking power" is the main problem for the revolutionary forces, the main task and must be discussed.