---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John W. Lamperti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> El Salvador, 1994: Elections of the Century? by John Lamperti I've recently returned from El Salvador, where I was a member of the U.S. election observer mission (MOECEN). The mission, composed of delegations from 25 U.S. solidarity groups, had some 500 participants and was able to station people in every department of the country. MOECEN observers received credentials from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and so we had no difficulty watching all aspects of the election, at least at the local level. I'm writing to share my impressions, and to make a few suggestions. My unit of the mission, seven of us, observed the election in Zacatecoluca, the capital of La Paz department. (After election day all the teams got together to compare notes, and so I can say that what I saw in La Paz was typical--perhaps even better than the national average.) Prior to the voting we visited city officials and the major political parties, introducing ourselves and asking their impressions. Everyone was glad to see us (and the other international observers), but for differing reasons. The opposition parties hoped the foreign presence would help deter violence and fraud. The right-wing government party ARENA, on the other hand, expected us to validate their forthcoming victory and to report at home that the elections were honest and "pure"--so that U.S. aid could be restored immediately. The results? The glass was partly full; things could have been much worse. We saw no signs of violence or intimidation on election day. In La Paz the streets were patrolled by the old National Police, not the civilian police, but they behaved quite correctly. There were many encouraging examples, in the city electoral committee and at the voting tables, of people from different parties, including ARENA and the FMLN, working together amicably and doing their best to make the process succeed. It is a notable achievement that the FMLN--a clandestine organization only two years ago--has now clearly established itself as the leading political party of the opposition, with a strong base in the national legislature. And the presidential campaign of Ruben Zamora, the candidate of a coalition on the left, did well enough to force a run-off with ARENA's nominee Armando Calderon Sol, scheduled for April 24. But this does not mean the elections were fair; the glass was also half empty--at least. The TSE, controlled by the government, managed the electoral process poorly in many ways. The worst deficiencies concerned the registration process. Many people never received their voting cards, despite repeated efforts to obtain them. (In contrast to Vermont, registering was a difficult process.) Others who did get their cards could not find their names on the voting rolls--rolls which included some persons long dead who sometimes managed to vote despite that handicap. These problems with registration were worst in areas where the opposition was expected to be strong. There was also a great deal of simple confusion on election day. A high level of illiteracy is partly to blame, as well as failure to provide adequate help for those people who, predictably, had trouble coping with the system. In Zacatecoluca there were 97 voting tables, and for many hours long lines of voters moved forward very slowly. A number of people--who may well have been registered--eventually went home discouraged, having been unable to vote after all. The overall voting level turned out to be low, only around 50% of those eligible. There were other problems: reports of the buying of votes (not personally observed by us), reports from the countryside alleging intimidation of voters, the improper display of party symbols (which we did see ourselves) and more. Some country people hid difficulty finding transportation to the polls, mostly located in the larger towns. Financial resources for the campaign were highly unequal, and ARENA dominated all the media advertising. Still, probably the worst problem was the failure to complete the registering of voters and cleaning up the voting lists, which of course had to be done in advance. To the extent that there was fraud, it was largely carried out before March 20. Were fair elections possible? It is instructive to recall how in 1990 the U.S. government explained the conditions necessary for genuine fairness (and denounced their absence) during the Nicaraguan election. Every bit of that criticism applies in full to El Salvador, 1994. But this time around the CIA and the NED apparently felt no need to supply millions of dollars to the opposition in order to promote a "level playing field." In fact, that field (and so the election results) was strongly tilted to the right. And now, some conclusions. The U.S. suspension of aid pending the elections was valuable, and by no means should aid be restored before the presidential run-off election has been honestly carried out. The U.N. presence was essential and must continue; the United States should support it fully. I believe that U.S. help for El Salvador's economic recovery will be necessary and that it is our obligation to provide that help; after all, we spent some $6 billion to finance a decade of civil war. But--equally important--there is no justification for any military aid, now or in the future. The armed forces serve no legitimate function in Salvadoran society, and their withering away would be in the best interest of the nation. (What a boon the absence of a military has been to Costa Rica!) The United States cannot impose that goal but should always keep it in mind when formulating policy. In addition to U.S. military aid, military exercises such as "Fuertes Caminos" are counter-productive to the development of a democratic, civilian society and should be eliminated. The United States should press the ARENA government (or any other government) to respect human rights, clean up the judicial system, and complete the agreed-upon peace process--which, I'm afraid, will go forward only as long as outside pressure continues. If the world forgets El Salvador it may well mean that this year's election, with all its defects, is the last relatively free expression of opinion the Salvadoran people will have. We must not let that happen.
