PERU: Desarrollo Local con Democracia en Santo Domingo

PRIMERA PARTE:

SEGUNDA PARTE:

TERCERA PARTE:

Youth Participate in Salvadoran Electoral Process

The following article co-written by one of our editors currently in El Salvador highlights the role of youth participation in improving the electoral process in that country. - Editor

Youth Demand Transparency as El Salvador Prepares Municipal and Legislative Elections

by Alexandria Soleil and Maggie Von Vogt
Source: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/maggie-von-vogt/2009/01/youth-demand-transparency-el-salvador-prepares-municipal-and-legisl

On January 18, 2009, El Salvador will hold its sixth municipal and legislative elections since the 1992 signing of the Peace Accords. This year national politicians and international officials are aiming for the most transparent and clean to date, but popular sectors criticize the electoral system and predict that past problems are likely to occur again. A September 2008 poll executed by the University Institute of Public Opinion at Central American University José Simeon Cañas (IUDOP) found that 55% of those surveyed believe there will be fraud in January’s election.

Two activists from Equipo Mapache (Raccoon Team), a youth independent radio collective, show that young people who participate in the electoral process are conscious and critical of such problems. Sabino and Daniel recounted some of their first-hand experiences in order to illuminate the greater problems facing the electoral system in El Salvador. “There is not democracy in El Salvador. What exists is arbitrariness for the election of certain public officials. It would be much better if a decentralized, citizen-powered organism managed the question of popular will,” said Daniel. While critiquing the system, they also imagine possibilities for the development of a more transparent electoral system that would be more accountable to voters.

Youth Participation

Starting out as a teenager serving lunch and coffee to the people running the polls, later directing mobs of voters to their assigned voting center, and finally serving as a vigilante (active observer) for the FMLN party, Sabino became more involved in El Salvador’s elections each time they were held. “You just go get one of those instruction packets, the electoral code, and even if you’re young and bored you are at least in contact with it,” he said of his experience as a youth on the supportive fringes of the FMLN, the leftist former guerrilla party.

While he and other Equipo Mapache activists never joined a brigade or became party militants, he found that working through a political party is the primary way in which to participate in Salvadoran electoral politics. “We have never been party militants, but for different reasons we have always been close to, been tied to, the party, to the basic structure of the party…. In that way we have achieved becoming part of the party, part of that experience and part of everything that the elections involve,” said Sabino.

Daniel volunteered as a national observer in the 2006 municipal and legislative elections, working with one of the few non-governmental law organizations within the country that studies and critiques the electoral process. In a system that depends upon political parties to organize and execute the electoral process, the non-partisan view that Daniel found at The Human Rights Institute at the Central American University (El Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la UCA, IDUCA) is key in providing a non-party presence that fosters transparency. Daniel turned his observations in to IDUCA who in turn reported to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos). This commission is one of many that uses reports from observers to provide Salvadoran electoral and governmental bodies with recommendations to improve the electoral system.

Political Parties in the Electoral Process

The signing of the Peace Accords transitioned the 12 year long armed conflict between leftist guerillas and the US-backed national military to a battle between political parties. Since then, the leftist Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) and right wing Republican Nationalist Alliance (ARENA) have been the two main political parties. While ARENA has held the presidency since 1992, the FMLN currently maintains nearly half of the National Assembly and the mayor of the capital city San Salvador.

Many people, like Sabino, become involved in the electoral process due to family party affiliations. Meanwhile, party members and militants are recruited to serve on one of the temporary electoral boards that organize the elections on departmental and municipal levels, or to sit at the table where votes are authorized and counted. These people who dedicate their time and ideology to the party are trained by the party itself to defend party interests leading up to, and on, Election Day.

The political parties in El Salvador are represented in each of the hierarchically ordered bodies of the electoral system. Each body, starting at the national level with the Supreme Electoral Tribune (TSE) and followed by its municipal and departmental entities, is made up of 5 members and their substitutes. Each of the five posts represents one of the political parties that won the majority of votes in the previous election. These professionals coordinate entities that play a role on Election Day, such as the National Police and the Council for the Defense of Human Rights. They also oversee the final counting of ballots, make sure that accurate information is turned in to the TSE, and direct the groups that hand out and receive ballots at the Vote Receiving Table (JRV).

On the national level, the Supreme Electoral Tribune (TSE) is made up of members from the political parties ARENA (right wing), The National Conciliation Party (PCN, right wing), and the FMLN (left wing). The other two members are appointed by the Supreme Court and, during this election cycle, side with the right wing. This 4-1 advantage for the right is just one place where the involvement of political parties does not serve its purpose of balancing their power.

Sabino expresses these concerns. “Really, all the reforms to the electoral code, as is confirmed by the TSE (which is not a non-partisan tribunal, or that is to say, it is composed of parties) …are suspicious.” For example, the TSE ruled to hold the legislative and municipal elections on a separate date from the presidential election even though they were scheduled to occur on the same date. Members of the left have criticized this decision for various reasons; one being that it doubles the resources and energy necessary to hold elections on two dates.

Additionally, Daniel discussed how right wing support for separating election dates is part of its strategy to generate fear of the left wing, “The reform [of separating the two elections] in this moment, I believe, has an influence within their campaign of fear that they have used for a long time… it is easier for them to run a decentralized campaign of fear on a municipal level… and then later generate it during the presidential elections.”

The TSE, with its responsibilities to international and national law, is the ultimate electoral power, but the fact that political parties control it feeds an ongoing sentiment that it is not accountable to the people. Given this, Sabino stresses the responsibility of people working at the polls on Election Day, “For me that means that the role of the people at the JRV is extremely important. The participation of observation, national and international, is very important to try to have the cleanest elections possible.”

Obstacles to Fair Elections

Despite the TSE's ongoing efforts to assure voters, mistrust in the system is apparent in common anecdotes regarding vote buying (with food, transportation to the polls, or cash), false identifications, and the transportation of foreigners or people from other municipalities. Sabino recounted his experience at the table, “People will vote with false identification cards for dead people, as well as bring people from other municipalities, where they would mobilize people from certain municipalities where it was sure you were going to win, and get them to go vote in places where there is more doubt… in this way the party ARENA would bring buses of people where they needed to be stronger.”

Another source of voter mistrust is the TSE’s use of an inaccurate voter registry based on an outdated census, “The electoral registry does not coincide with the census…you will find people in the electoral rolls who died up to 16 years ago,” Sabino stated. The current electoral registry is based on a census held in 1992, which omits immigration statistics and deaths.

Problems at the Vote Receiving Table

Decisions within the various electoral bodies are made upon consensus, though the varying interests of the polarized and competitive parties can make reaching accord an arduous process. This makes volunteering to serve at the table a difficult job for which one should be well trained, but parties with fewer resources (both financial and human), often lack in this preparation. “There are many political parties that tend to omit training and formation for the people who are going to be receiving the voters and carrying out the elections in the moment. In this way it is possible that in these occasions the system itself fails,” Daniel noted. When political parties cannot or do not train their representatives to lawfully carry out the their positions, voters lose their voice in democracy.

For example, as the voting centers close, the volunteers at the table collectively count the votes and hand the marked ballots to that party’s representative. If questions arise as to whether a vote is valid or for whom it is intended, volunteers with less training are less likely to be able to defend a vote for their party.

Daniel suggests legal reinforcement to regulate the electoral system. “There needs to be a legal support among the people who are on the vote-receiving board, because if this support doesn’t exist, or that is to say that interpretation of the law, which is the electoral code, then in some way there is arbitrariness,” that currently allows the most vociferous representative, not necessarily the most lawful, to win debates. With an impartial referee to interpret a marked ballot according to the law, political parties would not have to fight while counting votes.

This role is the one that Daniel played in the past elections, but it is not one that is present in all voting centers. National observers from non-partisan entities at all voting centers may mediate the heavy conflicts between parties on voting day.

Impact of January Elections

The results of the municipal and legislative elections will inevitably impact the presidential race. The party that wins mayoral seats and representative seats in the Legislative Assembly will greatly impact how much of the party platform a new president can put into place. Daniel sees these elections as an opportunity for change. “We don’t think that the FMLN is the salvation, but it could be a vehicle that can bring about changes in this country or that can facilitate the winning of other parties. But this is where the legislative and municipal elections represent the economic oligarchy. The right is fragmented now between economic and political power—the legislative and municipal elections mean much more than before; legislative could be absolute popular power that the people would be able to manage,” he said.

In areas where the FMLN has won seats by a small margin in the past, the right wing hopes that the results of the January elections will influence the presidential elections in their favor. The FMLN mayor of San Salvador Violeta Menjivar won the mayoral seat in the last election by 44 votes. This election season she is facing off against her main rival, ARENA candidate Norman Quijano. According to Sabino, races like this one are what make the January elections in El Salvador so high stake. “It could be a great psychological wound to lose the capital, when you’ve been governing for 3 or 4 periods… and since past elections have been extremely close, this is where the people from ARENA see a little salvation,” he explained.

If ARENA were to win the capital or other tight races in the local elections, there would be a significant impact on undecided voters. “This (a right wing victory) could mean that many people believe what the right wing proposes, and other people who are in doubt or indecisive, this could impact them… it‘s a little trick by the right to find any mechanism, even if its illogical…they are always trying to put rocks in the road, confusion, doubt, not letting the people decide” Sabino pointed out.

Suggestions for Change

The popular critique of the electoral process that Sabino and Daniel expressed does not come without positive suggestions for reform. The two activists pinpointed specific changes that would correct the flaws they have witnessed. In the short term, the voter registry must be thoroughly reviewed and cleaned of its errors. Also the Supreme Electoral Tribunal must take more responsibility for enforcing the Electoral Code. For example, they should hold political parties accountable for dirty campaigns that attack opposition candidates.

Meanwhile, the electoral code should be reformed to give civil society more influence and participation in the system than political parties. Creating better systems of communication between electoral bodies and the public would build accountability.

In the long-term, political parties should not have control of the TSE, but be controlled by civil society. “It would be much better if a decentralized, citizen organism managed the matter of popular will…The conformation of the JEM (and other electoral organisms) should not be tied to any political party because any political party, independent of its ideology, can manage or handle the will of the community that comes to vote,” expressed Daniel.

Given how currently inextricable political parties are from the structure and execution of electoral processes, this would be possible only through a complete overhaul of the electoral system. Daniel and Sabino believe that although this kind of massive change is not likely in the near future, some of the previous suggestions are steps toward change. As Daniel commented, “This question depends on a trust and a maturity within the democratic process.”

Things have been heating up electorally in El Salvador for months. Even though the Presidential Campaign didn’t officially start until November 14th 2008, evidence of the upcoming elections has been present all over the country since April. Constant party promotion is evident in party fliers, door-to-door party visits, groups of supporters in party colors waving flags at traffic intersections, telephone poles painted party colors, and constant media coverage. In fact, our interview was interrupted multiple times by one group of Democratic Change (CD) brigades driving around the neighborhood blasting the party song. Salvadorans of all political affiliations are waiting to see not only who their new representatives will be, but if the current electoral system can achieve the democracy and transparency that they demand.

Alexandria Soleil is a US-Latin America solidarity activist from Wyoming. She recently graduated from Seattle University with majors in International Studies and Spanish. She currently works with young people in San Salvador. She can be reached at adelantesoleil(at)gmail.com

Maggie Von Vogt is a Philadelphia-based educator, independent journalist, and social justice organizer who works with Media Mobilizing Project and Labor Justice Radio. She is a recent recipient of the Leeway Foundation Art and Change Grant. She is currently living in El Salvador. You can reach her at: maggievonvogt(at)gmail.com

MEXICO: Impulsan Diputados Plebiscito y Referéndum

Impulsan diputados plebiscito y referéndum

Organización Editorial Mexicana
16 de noviembre de 2008
Fuente: http://www.oem.com.mx/eloccidental/notas/n933996.htm

Víctor Godínez / El Sol de México

Ciudad de México.- El presidente de la Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales de la Cámara de Diputados, Raymundo Cárdenas, aseguró que existe consenso entre las tres principales bancadas legislativas para impulsar en el actual periodo de sesiones las figuras del plebiscito y el referéndum.

Reveló que ya se elabora un dictamen de iniciativa de ley para aprobar estas figuras de la democracia.

Por su parte, el diputado panista Eduardo de la Torre Jaramillo dijo que este instituto político accederá a estas reformas.

Raymundo Cárdenas, presidente de la Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales de la Cámara de Diputados, aseveró que existe consenso entre las diferentes bancadas de esta instancia legislativa, a fin de impulsar en el actual periodo de sesiones figuras de democracia directas como el plebiscito y el referendo.

En una reunión de trabajo realizada en el Palacio de San Lázaro, señaló que las tres fuerzas políticas más importantes en el país como son los partidos Acción Nacional (PAN), de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) y Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), han expresado su interés de abordar este tema.

Por tal motivo, reveló que en la Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales se elabora un dictamen de iniciativa de ley para aprobar estas figuras de la democracia.

Por su parte, el diputado panista Eduardo de la Torre Jaramillo dijo que este instituto político accederá a estas reformas, pero antes se deben resolver las diferencias, pues se tienen que estudiar los modelos utilizados en Latinoamérica y ver si son viables para aplicarse en la vida política nacional.

Sobre el particular, dijo que en el PAN se llegó a un consenso interno para estudiar e impulsar estos mecanismos de democracia directa.

A su vez, el diputado Salvador Ruiz Sánchez, del Partido de la Revolución Democrática, recordó que su partido siempre ha mostrado disposición para tratar los temas y proyectos con los que se pueda perfeccionar la democracia.

Sin embargo, negó que al promover el modelo de referendo se impulse al mismo tiempo la reelección electoral, ya que son temas que se tienen que ver por separado.

PARAGUAY: Participatory Democracy Does not Come Easy

Police Repression and Presidential Promises: The Fight for Social Justice in Paraguay

Written by Lorena Rodriguez
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Source: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1574/1/

Despite brutal police violence, on November 6, campesinos celebrated the victorious ending of a three day long mass mobilization. Some five thousands campesinos from all over Paraguay gathered in the capital city of Asuncion to celebrate what constitutes a first victory for the campesino and landless movement in Paraguay.

The crowd’s chants of “el pueblo unido jamás será vencido” [the people united will never be defeated] and “reforma agraria: urgente y necesaria” [agrarian Reform: urgent and necessary] urged recently elected President Fernando Lugo to represent the campesino movement and also denounced the vestiges of corrupt and conservative structure of the Stroessner dictatorship that continues to prevent true and democratic change in Paraguay.

What happened in this small country in South America is an enormous success to be highlighted in the midst of a global economic, energy and food crisis. In a small country that rarely makes it to the headlines in the international media, last week Paraguayans lived the beginning of a promising historic victory after campesinos mobilized for three consecutive days to demand their first truly democratically elected president in over 60 years to represent the needs of the landless Paraguayan campesinos to put an end to criminalization, violence and repression.

Hundreds of trucks, buses and other vehicles arrived in Asuncion last Tuesday from a number of provinces. Decentralized actions like street blockades, demonstrations and protests in front of key institutions and government buildings took place also in other parts of Paraguay. During the celebration at the end of the mobilizations, it felt like the country had returned to April 20th of this year, when Paraguayans celebrated as never before, hoping that finally democracy had come. Even though the Stroessner dictatorship had come to an end in 1989, many, if not the majority in Paraguay, reject the idea that 1989 marked the beginning of democracy, because since then Paraguayans have been living under the rule of the same corrupt leaders in power: the Colorado Party.

Of course, victory never comes easily. On the second day of mobilization, the police in front of the building of the State General Attorney brutally repressed protesters by beating them, spreading tear gas and shooting rubber bullets from very short distances, resulting in sixty people injured, including women and children.

Demands from the Frente Social y Popular (FSP)

The November 4th through 6th mobilization was coordinated by the Social and Popular Front (Frente Social y Popular –FSP). Born after President Lugo’s election, the FSP unites over a hundred organizations, representing small farmers, indigenous peoples, trade unions, women, homeless people, child laborers, students, among other groups, and functions as a “forum to summarize the debates, analyses and proposals of the social sectors and to report them to the government in order to secure a publicly accountable policy which truly works in the interest of the poor and excluded” and a “platform designed to represent the organizations and the social sectors, and to allow them to influence the policies of the new government based on their grassroots demands.” (See past Upside Down World coverage here).

The FSP presented six concrete demands. First and foremost, the urgency for a contingent plan to address social needs in order to tackle the increasing levels of poverty in rural Paraguay. Another major demand was the removal of the State Attorney General and the dismissal of the nine members of the Supreme Court of Justice. The FSP also demanded an end to the criminalization of social and campesino movements, beginning with the liberation of campesino leaders and organizers who have been unjustly imprisoned as a result of arbitrary detentions. Other demands were the promotion of an integral agrarian reform, the recognition and approval by Congress of the thirteen agreements signed with Venezuela and, last but not least, a demand for energy sovereignty through the re-negotiation of the controversial Itaipú treaty, which is a point of tension between Paraguay and the big and powerful neighboring countries of Brazil and Argentina.

The Grassroots and Lugo

Different campesino organizations are divided about the level of support and patience deserved by President Lugo. He owes his electoral victory to a grassroots base that believed in him, and initially found hope in his position as Executive. There are those who will unconditionally support him because they are aware that Lugo is alone in the middle of a political structure that could coalesce anytime to take him out of power to preserve the privileges they have maintained for six decades. The majority of campesinos, however, will not stand passively waiting for Lugo to lead in matters that they have an urgent stake in. Campesinos are aware that without their continued pressure and support, Lugo’s will turn out to be yet another administration that has gained a continuation of the same policies that have protected the private property of large landowners and the profits of international agribusinesses. Campesino communities need Lugo to take immediate action to stop the exponential growth of the agroexport industry, which is currently poisoning entire communities with agro-toxins and benefiting from the ongoing brutal repression of community members during evictions and protests, and to stop the criminalization of the campesino struggle for food and land sovereignty.

Victory of the Campesino Movement

Many times during these last couple of days I head that “democracy started last week in Paraguay,” and as all representative and participative democracies, it will face strong challenges. President Fernando Lugo himself will have to overcome numerous obstacles that will threaten not only his decision-making power, but also his compromise with the broad coalition that allowed his electoral victory, and most importantly, his commitment to a grassroots base that counts on him as their only hope of putting an end to decades of neglect and injustice. The powerful landowners, the majority being soy growing brasiguayos, Brazilians living and working in Paraguay for many years, will not let the campesino victory go unchallenged.

During the brutal repression on November 5th in Asuncion, President Fernando Lugo was traveling from the US to Mexico and arrived only on the evening of the last day of the mobilization without having publicly commented on the committed crimes. Even though he was absent during most of the mobilization and also during previous tense situations in the interior of the country, his meeting last Thursday with leaders from the FSP resulted in the first major victory for the Frente and the diverse and numerous sectors it represents.

As a result of the intense pressure from the successful mobilization and last Wednesday’s meeting between the main campesino leaders and various ministries of Lugo’s administration, the government agreed to establish an emergency and contingency plan for the rural sector and promised to invest in accessibility to food, drinkable water and electricity. Another major success was the government’s commitment to create a National Advisory for Agrarian Reform, which will be supported by the Ministries of Agriculture, Education, Public Health, and Infrastructure, among others. Most importantly, this advisory will be chaired by the National Institution for Rural and Land Developement, the INDERT (Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Rural y de la Tierra), which is responsible for public policies concerning campesinos, especially access to and distribution of land.

The FSP proposed a Social Emergency Plan that promotes the active involvement of a number of state institutions in order to find sustainable and integral solutions and policies that address the root causes of the rural crisis, rather than band-aid or short-term solutions. Among the measures they proposed are: the distribution of seeds to farmers for the purpose of self-sufficiency and land recuperation; access to tools and credit; dialogue rather than repression; recuperation of illegally sold state lands and a return to their right owners through agrarian reform; a participatory budget; a tax to soy and large landholdings; and the careful respect for and enforcement of environmental laws in order to contain the aggressive advance of Genetically Modified soy monocultures which has resulted in deaths, malformations in children, and serious damages to people’s health and the environment due to the abusive use of agrochemicals.

As the National Attorney General refused to resign from his position, there was an agreement for beginning a process of impeachment. The dismissal of the members of not only the State Attorney General but also the members of Supreme Court of Justice is essential for democratic change in Paraguay since these institutions incite the criminalization of social movements through arbitrary detention of campesino leaders and organizers, violent land evictions, and repression during demonstrations and protests. They are not alone, since the local general attorneys in the various departments play their part as accomplices in such injustices in order to protect the property and profits of the large foreign landowners and agribusinesses.

Soy Bean Wars in Paraguay: How Far in the U.S. Backyard?

There is no better example of Washington’s continued policy of interventionism in Latin American democratic changes than the critical situation currently experienced by Bolivia. It is well known that the United States has a long history of masterminding and financially supporting acts of terrorism in foreign soil when the empire’s sees its “national security” (that is, the rights of foreign investors) as under threat.

The opposition’s violent attacks on Bolivia’s vibrant democracy are a terrible reminder of the power that our front yard neighbor still believes to be entitled to have over our sovereignty in the south. The results of this neocolonial agenda visible in the current conflict in Bolivia are also a wake-up call for the state of affairs in a smaller, neighboring country which is rarely in the headlines: Paraguay. Here we can easily point to a thread of U.S. efforts to destabilize the region. We hear little to nothing in the U.S. media about Paraguay, yet for more than 15 years Paraguayan peasant and indigenous communities have been fighting for their lives in of the most unheard of wars: the “soybean wars.” Soybeans in Paraguay are symbolic of the legacy of a U.S.-backed dictatorship and of U.S. economic interests, specifically those of agribusinesses. A convergence of economic and geo-political interests have made Paraguay a strategically significant stronghold for the U.S. in the region.

Paraguay has been a strategic ally in two of profitable wars of the U.S.: the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. In addition, as a member of Mercosur, Paraguay was at one point attractive to the U.S. for advancing the now dead agenda of a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Its biodiversity and wealth in one of the world’s most precious resources, water, also makes Paraguay of special concern to the United States. It takes only a magic combination of terms like ‘land reform’ and ‘justice for the poor’ for Washington to panic in fear of facing another “red threat,” and Chavez’s influence in the region.

Since his election, President Fernando Lugo has shifted sides from left to left of center, placing himself first along the lines of Chavez, Morales and Correa, to a more moderate stand like that of Uruguay’s Tabare Vazquez and Chile’s Bachelet. The inconvenient truth is that, despite being the executive, there is little he can do to make changes within a power structure that has been in place for over sixty years. The interests that continue to control the country in order to maintain the status quo, especially those of the large landowners, soy producers and agribusinesses are currently fighting a silent war to overpower the social and grassroots movements of urban homeless (“los sin techo”) and rural landless (“los sin tierra”) peoples in Paraguay.

Rural Violence

Last month Leticia Galeano, a young student and campesina leader with the People’s Agrarian Movement (MAP- Movimiento Agrario y Poupular) in the department of Caaguazu in Paraguay, went on a speaking tour of the United States. In a number of cities throughout the U.S, she shared the story of the ongoing soybean wars in Paraguay, one of land conflict, the impact of fumigations, disparities, criminalization and repression of the social movements, and the struggle for land and food sovereignty, with universities and colleges, communities, grassroots activists, human rights groups, and NGOs. During her time in the US, her campesino organization (MAP), her community as well as other campesino communities in Paraguay, were the target of more violent evictions, repression, and death threats, resulting in many wounded and one death in the province of Alto Paraná.

On October 3rd, Bienvenido Melgarejo, a landless peasant in the district of Mbaracayu, also a member of the Farmers’ Association in Alto Paraná (ASAGRAPA) became another victim of the of the fight for justice and land sovereignty in Paraguay at the hands of soy producers and the federal police. Sadly, the politics of criminalization and the repression of the campesino struggle continue under Lugo’s administration.

Also, in the districts of Vaquería and Yhu, ongoing threats were on the rise as leaders from MAP mobilized against soy expansion by occupying lands illegally held by foreign landowners. Campesino leaders from the MAP have received direct death threats, and were targeted by the governor himself. Such violence corresponds to campesino movements’ increased mobilization since Lugo assumed power in hopes that he will follow through with promises of agrarian reform. Lugo's recent condemnation, during the United Nations General Assembly, of the fumigation of people with agrichemicals, especially children, as "terrorism," has infuriated soy producers and added to their rage against campesinos.

World Witnesses

International allies and partners have been accompanying campesino leaders in their communities due to the current tension and fear that soy producers will keep up with their threats that there will be bloodshed. Earlier this month a small School of Americas Watch delegation from the United States visited Paraguay on a mission to request that President Lugo cease to send Paraguayan military to the commonly known “School of Assassins” (SOA/WHINSEC). During their visit, the delegation also learned about the current social and political climate of Paraguayan by meeting with various leaders from campesino organizations and visiting a number of communities in rural Paraguay to hear first-hand the stories of criminalization and repression of the campesino movement.

This is a crucial time for the international community to stand in solidarity with the social movements in Paraguay as organized civil society groups. A united grassroots movement remains the only hope for President Fernando Lugo to make real change and to maintain his electoral promises. International solidarity is also vital to exert pressure to hold Lugo responsible for the protection of the human rights of the people who have supported him from the beginning.

As campesinos continue to mobilize to express their support and exert pressure on the government to meet their demands, it is important that the world witness these important times in order for real change to happen in Paraguay.

Militarization in Paraguay and Stroessner’s Legacy

It is well known throughout Latin America and around the world that national security for the United States is synonym of securing the interests of the Hill-controlling, powerful transnational corporations through the criminalization of social movements that constitute a threat to the flow of profits from the exploitation of natural resources. Despite the fact that a CRS report released two years ago stated that there was no knowledge of operation cells of Islamic terrorists in the hemisphere, the State Department’s annual Country Reports on terrorism included Latin America in the region due to alleged concerns over terrorist threats, mainly domestic and also pointing at the fact that Latin American countries have been home to international terrorist battlegrounds.

Different from the interventions of the 1980s, at a first glance U.S. interest and role in Paraguay responds to alleged Islamic terrorist networks (activities of Lebanon group Hizballah and the Sunni Muslim Palestinian group Hamas) in the triple frontier (the tri-border area shared by Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil), and to narcotraffic networks and the suppose extension of Colombia’s FARC in Paraguay.

It is under this pretext that through the U.S. Department of State provides Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) through training and equipment to Paraguay, as well as to other Latin American countries to help improve their capabilities in a variety of areas, including airport security management, hostage negotiations, bomb detection and deactivation, and counter-terrorism financing. Since 1997 there has been an increase in assistance to Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay in light of increased U.S. concerns over the mentioned activities in the triple frontier.

For Anti-Terrorism Assistance provided to the Western Hemisphere in Fiscal Year 2007, Paraguay, with $475,000, was only 3rd to Colombia. In fiscal year 2008, the number was reduced to $268,000. Military cooperation, however, increased from FY 2007 to FY 2008, specifically on international military education and training (from 44,000 for FY2007 to an estimate of 190,000 for FY2008 and a request for $350,000 for FY 2009).

Perhaps unintentionally, the justification for funding and “assistance” to Paraguay perfectly explains the true reasoning behind the U.S. interest in Paraguay, that of its private investors: "As a hub for international criminal activity, including drug and arms trafficking, money laundering, counterfeiting, document forgery, trafficking in persons, and intellectual property rights violations, Paraguay continues to be an important partner against transnational crime. According to the Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations in 2009, the United States will focus primarily on improving the following areas: rule of law and good governance; trade and investment; private sector competitiveness."

During the 35 years of dictatorship under Alfredo Stroessner, the U.S. played an accomplice role with the support of the bloody Condor Operation, for which Paraguay became the center of intelligence exchange among the three repressive countries including Chile and Argentina. Today, the U.S. military presence is allegedly humanitarian with a number of exercises in key regions. Military cooperation between the US and Paraguay also comes in the form of the country’s graduates from the School of Americas, where trainees are indoctrinated in “National Security,” the same doctrine that caused for the disappearance and assassination of hundreds of thousands of Paraguayans during the U.S.-backed military dictatorship. Today the excuse is the fight against terrorism. Currently, SOA graduates hold positions of military power (minister of defense, etc) in Paraguay and exercises within the country continue.

There is an indirect link between US exercises and the violence against peasant communities in Paraguay in order to control the territory, or more specifically, to maintain the control of the land, characterized today by the fact that approximately eighty per cent of the land is in the hands of just two percent of the population. According to a study prepared by Serpaj Paraguay (Servicios de Paz y Justicia), the presence of the US Army through SOUTHCOM manifests itself through military exercises and visits to areas where there is a predominant presence of peasant organizations, GM soy monoculture plantations and agrotoxic fumigations.

When one cross-posts data on the number of campesinos that have been killed in the period between 2002 and 2005, the presence of Paraguayan military forces, campesino organizations in a number of key departments (or states), and US military operations in Paraguay in those departments, there are some striking coincidences. In the department of San Pedro for example, there were 4 campesino organizations during that period. At the same time, there was also the highest number of US military operations. Strikingly, the number of deaths also coincides with these numbers being the highest with 18 deaths. During that same period, in Alto Paraná, home to the campesino organization ASAGRAPA and where the most recent assassination took place, there were 7 campesino organizations, 3 U.S. military operations, and 12 deaths. In Caaguazú, home for the district of Vaquería and Yhu where death threats are on the increase, there were 4 campesino organizations, including MAP, and seventeen deaths.

Even though Paraguay is not under a dictatorship per se, a number of social movement leaders in Paraguay have pointed at the fact that the transition to democracy brought no change to the political power structure, as we can see in the ongoing repression to those who dare speak up against the ongoing corruption and impunity of criminalization and repression.

Going after so called “terrorist havens” in allegedly “authoritarian and populist” regimes in order to “defend democracy and the rule of law” is nothing but the violation of people’s sovereignty and the continuation of misguided foreign policy decisions over what ground-up, grassroots, participatory democracy and human rights really mean.

Terrorist networks or terrorizing with fumigations?

Depending on who tells the story, terrorism has a different face. For the most marginalized communities and peoples from the global south it may well be the everyday struggle to have food on the table, to strive for a piece of land or simply to be able to enjoy the basic right to breath a clean air, as it is the case of Paraguay. During her speaking tour, Leticia Galeano shared the unjust story of the slow annihilation of entire communities, either by literally fumigating them to death, or strategically driving farmers out of their land by trapping them into debt, buying them off their land with absolutely unfair and deceitful amounts of money, thus exacerbating migration to urban slums, and the slow ethnocide of a traditional and indigenous rural culture of subsistence family farmers.

Among Leticia’s stories was the case of a family who lost a child only two months old from a case of hydrocephaly, other children with birth defects, premature abortions, numerous cases of cancer, and respiratory, vision and dermatological illnesses as a result of the industrial fumigations with matatodo [kill-all], as farmers call Monsanto’s pesticide cocktail ‘RoundUp.’

The reality behind US military assistance to Paraguay, allegedly humanitarian in character and directed towards funding anti-terrorism programs, is that these are nothing but excuses to maintain a stronghold in a territory that has been under unrestrained control of the agribusiness sector for decades. The three major agribusinesses in Paraguay are U.S. transnational corporations: agribusinss giants Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge and Cargill, and the genetically modified seeds guru Monsanto.

Today, in the midst of a global food and energy crisis, U.S. agribusinesses have made record profits through the expansion of large-scale industrial monoculture production of Monsanto’s genetically modified soy at the expense of local communities, human rights and the environmental. It is no coincidence that the most organized campesinos and indigenous communities in Paraguay have the higher number of killings. With yet another newly elected progressive President, as part of a wave of left and left-of-center leaders throughout Latin America, who promises of land reform, there is a challenge of the corporate-grab and hence a need for support for Paraguayan social movements that continue to confront injustices and impunity.

The Paraguayan struggle for sovereignty of land, food and life itself needs the solidarity of the international community. Too little attention has been paid to the rampant impunity in cases of human rights violations. Sadly, impunity has the tendency to be the rule rather than the exception.

More and more people are challenging the destructive industrialized agricultural model by constructing local and regional alternatives with a vision for food sovereignty worldwide. As momentum grows in the United States around truly local, sustainable and fair food systems, it is also crucial that the north stand in solidarity with movements in the global south that are actively pursuing these same alternatives and confronting the interests that oppose them—often in the face of violence and repression.

As the world sees hope for change in the recent US-elections and the grassroots mobilizes to demand fair and human policies towards Latin America it is crucial to remember the special role the US played in the past and realize the connection with today's ever powerful remains of the Stroessner regime.

ECUADOR: Alcaldes Hablan Sobre la Participación Ciudadana

Los alcaldes hablan sobre la participación ciudadana

Alcaldes nacionales y extranjeros discutieron ayer, en Guayaquil, sus experiencias locales.

Fuente: http://www.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=238768&id_seccion=10

La participación de la ciudadanía en la gestión pública local fue la fórmula que presentaron ayer los panelistas. Lo hicieron durante la sesión de trabajo, en el IX Encuentro Iberoamericano de la Sociedad Civil, en Guayaquil.

Isabel Noboa, presidenta del Encuentro, dio la bienvenida a más de 300 participantes, de los cuales, 150 son extranjeros.

Ahí mencionó la importancia de promover alianzas entre las entidades públicas, las organizaciones de participación ciudadana y los propios empresarios, con miras a combatir la pobreza.

Jaime Nebot, alcalde de Guayaquil, indicó que para lograr una comunidad sana y segura, la administración local debe generar, junto con los empresarios, grandes obras y fomentar el empleo.

Aprovechó para defender las fundaciones municipales y criticó la Ley de Transparencia de Contratación Pública. “Suprimen los dictámenes de la Contraloría General del Estado y permiten contratar a compañías extranjeras sin domiciliarse en el país y entregar anticipos sin garantía”.

También señaló que este año se incrementará un 15% los sueldos del Cabildo y eso incidirá en la distribución del presupuesto para el 2009. El gasto público subirá del 11% al 13%.

Auki Tituaña, alcalde de Cotacachi, explicó su modelo de democracia participativa. Y mencionó la intención de lanzarse a una nueva candidatura, con el auspicio del partido Pachakutik.

Antanas Mockus, ex alcalde Mayor de Bogotá (Colombia), explicó cómo, a través de la cultura ciudadana, disminuyeron la criminalidad y los accidentes de tránsito y aumentó la tributación.

Antonio Sánchez Díaz de Rivera, diputado federal de México, propuso que partiendo de lo local se creen vínculos entre la sociedad y el manejo público.

REPUBLICA DOMINICANA: Presupuesto Participativa

Buscan consenso presupuesto participativo

Fuente: http://lainformacionrd.net/index.php?idnoticia=23868&seccion=3&nseccion=Ciudad&cat=noticias&a=1

Ante el cuestionamiento de definir el Presupuesto Participativo, contestaríamos categóricamente, que no existe una definición única, porque los Presupuestos Participativos varían mucho de un lugar a otro.

Sin embargo, en general, el Presupuesto Participativo es "un mecanismo (o un proceso) Por el cual la población define o contribuye a definir el destino de todo o una parte de los recursos públicos".

Ubiratan de Souza, uno de los primeros responsables del Presupuesto Participativo en Porto Alegre (Brasil) propone una definición más precisa y más teórica que se puede aplicar a la mayoría de los procesos : "El Presupuesto Participativo es un proceso de democracia directa, voluntaria y universal, donde el pueblo puede discutir y decidir sobre el presupuesto y las políticas públicas. El ciudadano no limita su participación al acto de votar para elegir al Ejecutivo o al Parlamento, sino que también decide las prioridades de gastos y controla la gestión del gobierno".

"El Presupuesto Participativo deja de ser un coadyuvante de la política tradicional, para ser protagonista permanente de la gestión pública. Combina la democracia directa con la democracia representativa, una conquista a ser preservada y calificada". De hecho, es una forma de democracia participativa, es decir una combinación de elementos de democracia directa o semi-directa con la democracia representativa.

Esta herramienta de Gestión nace formalmente en 1989 en algunas ciudades brasileñas, particularmente en Porto Alegre. Fuera de Brasil, a partir de 1990, en Montevideo (Uruguay).

Se pueden identificar tres grandes fases en su expansión: la primera (1989-1997) caracterizada por experimentaciones en pocas ciudades; la segunda (1997-2000) por una masificación brasileña, durante la cual más de 130 municipios adoptaron el Presupuesto Participativo; y la tercera (2000 en adelante), por la expansión fuera de Brasil y su diversificación. Actualmente, más de 300 ciudades han adoptado esta modalidad de gestión Pública.

Experiencias de Presupuesto Participativo se dan fundamentalmente en el ámbito de los Municipios. Brasil continúa siendo el principal país en donde ocurren (aproximadamente 80% del total). Los países de la región andina (Perú, Ecuador y más recientemente Bolivia y Colombia) son el segundo gran foco de experiencias.
Sin embargo, se dan también con diferentes niveles de consolidación y en forma puntual, en los demás países de la Región (Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, República Dominicana, Nicaragua, El Salvador y México).

En nuestro país se inicia en el Municipio de Villa González en el año 1998, durante la Gestión del Gobierno Local encabezado por el Lic. Víctor José D’Aza, actual Director Ejecutivo de la FEDOMU.

Pero en la tarde de hoy, en esta "media isla ubicada en el mismo trayecto del sol" nos encontramos en el Municipio de Santo Domingo Este, capital de la Provincia de Santo Domingo, donde la transparencia se manifiesta de manera plena, en este acto de rendición de cuentas a sus munícipes, por parte del Lic. Juan de los Santos Sindico de esta demarcación geográfica, de cómo se han invertido los recursos recibidos en las diferentes prioridades del Municipio.

Es de trascendental importancia que no solo en Santo Domingo Este se haga este ejercicio de transparencia de los recursos recibidos, sino que de acuerdo a lo establecido por la Ley No. 176-07 del Distrito Nacional y los Municipios en su artículo No.236 se use la herramienta del Presupuesto Participativo Municipal.

BOLIVIA: Conferencia Internacional de Democracia Participativa en La Paz

Arranca la Conferencia Internacional de Democracia Participativa en La Paz

Fuente: http://www.erbol.com.bo/noticia.php?identificador=2147483914158&id=1


La Paz, 19 Nov (Erbol).- Arrancó este miércoles en la ciudad de La Paz la 8va Conferencia Internacional de Democracia Participativa con la participación de 250 ciudades de los cuatro continentes.

El evento se denomina "Interculturalidad y Participación Ciudadana, Modelos de Inclusión" bajo la organización del Observatorio Internacional de Participación Ciudadana. Hasta este viernes se realizarán mesas redondas, debates, intercambio de experiencias, de generación de mecanismos de diálogo con las conclusiones respectivas.

En la inauguración participaron: el comisionado de la Alcaldía para Participación Ciudadana del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, Ramón Nicolao, el ministro de Educación, Roberto Aguilar, además del anfitrión Juan Del Granado, alcalde de La Paz.

Por qué La Paz

Ramón Nicolao explicó que este evento se realiza anualmente y que para este año se eligió a la ciudad de La Paz por haber propuesto el tema de la interculturalidad en la participación ciudadana.

"Otro motivo es que La Paz tiene una experiencia de Observatorio Local de Democracia Participativa que ha publicado algunos estudios y documentaciones que a muchos otros países nos ha llamado la atención, nos gustaban, nos parecían interesantes", dijo Nicolao.

Precisó que la democracia ya está consolidada en los países con electos escogidos democráticamente por periodos de 4 a 5 años; sin embargo esto no es suficiente, el paso siguiente es conseguir sistemas de enriquecimiento de esta democracia por la vía participativa.

"Es decir que los ciudadanos, que votan cada cuatro o cinco años, sean consultados nuevamente durante la realización de este mandato mediante consejos de participación donde están incluidas las organizaciones y todos los sectores sobre lo que ellos consideran necesario para la ciudad y para comunidad", dijo Nicolao.

Interculturalidad

El evento debatirá temas como la participación ciudadana, la propuesta intercultural en procesos educativos, la construcción de una institucionalidad democrática intercultural y la pluralidad en términos culturales de género y de participación.

Cada año 250 ciudades de todo el mundo, América, Europa, Asia, África se reúnen para reflexionar sobre cómo se está mejorando la democracia participativa, los distintos consejos sectoriales, consejos ciudadanos, consejos de barrio

Explicó que el tema de la interculturalidad es bastante importante porque se puede unir los procesos de participación con una realidad cada vez más presentes en muchas de las ciudades.

"Es un hecho importante que en la misma comunidad, en el mismo territorio residan personas que tengan identidades culturales distintas y que conviven porque el territorio es el mismo y la voluntad de mejora de la población es para todo el conjunto, no sólo para un grupo sino para todos", dijo Nicolao.

Seguir aprendiendo

Por su parte el alcalde Juan Del Granado, a tiempo de destacar la presencia de invitados de distintas partes del mundo, explicó que en el municipio de La Paz existe el Observatorio Local de la Democracia Participativa cuyo espacio sirve para democratizar el ejercicio del poder público y las oportunidades para acceder a los espacios de la decisión.

Señaló que en estos dos días los cerca de 500 participantes, representantes vecinales, de las organizaciones, Comité de Vigilancia y ciudadanía en general que se inscribieron debatirán los niveles de la democracia participativa y el tema de interculturalidad.

"Vamos a tener la gran oportunidad de conocer las experiencias de prácticamente cinco continentes en lo que es la democracia participativa, es una oportunidad excepcional para seguir aprendiendo, para seguir recogiendo lo que es una línea de trabajo especialmente significativa en el espacio local", dijo Del Granado.

VENEZUELA: Direct Democracy - The Case of the Consejos Comunales

Venezuelan Direct Democracy – The case of the Consejos Comunales

November 21st 2008, by Michael Albert and Adam Gill - ZNet
Source: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3967

In 2004, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez created a movement named the consejos comunales (communal councils) aimed at creating more responsive local governance by handing local budgetary and legislative power to the councils. This movement was seen by Chavez as one of the most important of the five motors of the ‘Bolivarian Revolution' in that they should influence policy from the grassroots upwards. Great interest in the councils was evident between 2004 and 2007 in that thousands formed quickly and $5 Billion was given to them during this period. Communal banks are a pre-requisite to receiving funds from the government so as to avoid clientalistic relationships of dependency.

Local councils have the power to vote on issues directly affecting their community and have used this to make significant changes. Major improvements have included building social housing and repairing roads. The local councils are formed with 200-400 families with members aged 15 and above and have an executive council and representatives of groups within the community.

I asked Michael Albert if he might be able to offer his opinion on this movement in Venezuela.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you feel the role of the Communal Councils is strategically and politically?

Well, I believe they are partly intended, in the present, to push forward the whole revolutionary process by increasing current participation, raising consciousness, etc.

But I also believe that for a great many folks in Venezuela, both inside and outside the government, the councils are the evolving infrastructure of a new polity. The idea is that people should govern their own lives, and in that context local councils are the proposed vehicle for doing it. As such, they are intended to become an alternative to rather than just being an adjunct to local governments of mayors and governors and the like.

Would you say the councils have created social change or more that their energies are being pulled in other directions?

I don't feel very equipped to answer this question, and I am not entirely sure, in any case, what you mean by "other directions." I can judge only from a very great difference and based on talks with only a limited number of people what the councils are up to.

My impression, and it is tentative, is that the councils are a vast and evolving experiment and project, by no means final in form and by no means fully up to speed, but coming along, though many problems still exist. First, for example, there is a population which - like our population in the U.S - has almost zero experience prior to this experiment with serious democracy much less participatory self management. So the councils and their members are learning in practice, and for many people that has ups and downs. But second, and less benign, there are obstacles as well having to do not only with past habits or current doubts, but also with real opposition, as in local governing and corporate elites not wanting this experiment to work.

Venezuela seems to me to be uniquely seeking a gigantic revolution in structures and relations - not just economically but also politically, socially, culturally - all non violently and even without much confrontation, none provoked by the agents of change. That is historically ambitious, to say the least.

So in one corner you have corporate media continuing, and corporate ownership in many realms, and governors and mayors and whatnot from the prior history of the country, all also still in place, nearly all still hoping to resurrect that prior history. In the other corner you have the Bolivarian activists, and Chavez, and a large proportion of the non elite population, instead trying to escape that past into something fundamentally new.

Venezuala is, in other words, a daily economic, political, social, and cultural cauldron of experiment and opposition - and thus a site of intense struggle. Or that is how I see Venezuela, at any rate, and in that context the local communal councils are partly a tool of the struggle but are also partly seeds of a new future being built in the present.

Should Communal Councils be free of political party influence?

This depends, I think, on what you mean by party influence. So, for example, it wouldn't make sense to say there should be no party influence. Imagine a council with people in it, of course. Some people are in one party, some people are in another party. The parties they are in influence those people's desires (and vice versa). The people then bring their desires to the councils, so through their members the parties influence the councils as well. That much is fine, in my view. It would make no sense to say that shouldn't occur.

So, for example, there are councils in communities that are very Bolivarian, and they have views and aims quite like those of the Bolivarian revolution. There are other councils in communities that are opposed to Bolivarian projects, and those councils reflect those opposition views. The parties are in part carriers of the views and the people form parties, in turn, influence the councils.

On the other hand, I think you might mean should parties as entities be able to themselves direct or otherwise impact councils, other than by the fact of their members indirectly doing so. Here I think the answer is no, they should not be able to do that.

Your question is a bit like asking, in the U.S., should local government (just imagine, for the sake of the discussion, that it was actually grassroots and participatory) be in any way at all subject to instruction or control by political parties (other than being impacted by the local members of the community who happen to be in parties)? Well, of course it shouldn't, and ditto for Venezuela. A party should impact councils simply by impacting the population that composes the councils, but not by some sort of collective or structural authority.

Do you think that party influence and political movements still operate as clients of central governments?

I am not sure I understand this question. In Venezuela, at present, the Bolivarian revolution is very much a manifestation of the ideas and will of President Chavez. We might prefer that the movement had bubbled up, instead, from the population, and that Chavez was merely one among many carriers of their intentions - but that isn't the case. In fact, Chavez is constantly trying to impact what the population thinks and wants, not just to hear from it. The government is not only administering Venezuela, as it is seeking to use state power as a tool to build social involvement and activism. It is very unusual, of course.

So in that context, the recently created revolutionary party Chavez is in is certainly affected greatly by him, as are the social movements whose members typically consider him a repository of valuable ideas and plans, as is the government. Again, this is arguably not an optimal picture, and it is certainly an unusual one - a president seeking to build movements that will replace authorities, including the old government structures, including himself - at least that's the current agenda - throughout the country - but that is what is happening, or so it seems to me, from my admittedly limited contact.

Can the Communal Councils in your opinion, become the only form of local government in Venezuela? What obstacles do you perceive to be happening now and possibly in the future?

I certainly think that is possible, and that that is the goal, not just conceivable, at least in many people's minds, including in the relevant political ministries. I sat in offices and heard them explain their hopes for these councils becoming the seat of governing power throughout the country, describing the 50,000 councils that were needed - with about 30,000 currently formed - and describing the gains in confidence and methods also needed within the councils, and explaining that yes, these would be above majors and governors and even the President. So, yes, having them be the primary locus of government power is the aim. Might that aim be swept aside as a goal? Sure, it might. But it also might come true as a reality.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL ARTICLE

VENEZUELA: The Struggle Continues

The following article dicusses some of the stumbling blocks in the process of bringing participatory democracy to Venezuela, while recognizing that the country is slowly advancing the transition of power and control of resources to the people. - Editor








Sounds of Venezuela: Part 8
Grass Roots Democracy

by Ron Ridenour / October 25th, 2008
Source: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/10/sounds-of-venezuela-part-8/

Participatory democracy: people actively organizing in the communities and attending meetings where local issues are discussed and solutions are proposed and voted on—is a major element of the Bolivarian Revolution. By August 2007, 2.2 million citizens were organized in 25,000 community councils (CC). In February 2008, community councils, their elected spokespersons and municipal officials and advisors engaged in lively meetings to evaluate progress and lay a course for the future. These meetings were followed by gatherings of two of the three largest and most important political parties backing this process: the new PSUV and Venezuela’s oldest, the Communist Party (PCV). I attended some of these events.

In Las Mercedes district, where I lived, nearly 100 members of five CCs gathered at a local hall. A large majority were women, mostly 40 years old and over. They met to consolidate their social organizing and take a position on a structural change proposal. Direct participation had allowed each CC to take individual directions but this was leading to a bit of chaos: differences in how to use resources, what programs took priority, which CC should house the local bank that distributes the funds allocated for community councils. Most of these funds come from the federal government, some from municipalities. These authorities were proposing that the structure be changed to accommodate a bit of centralization and control, which could lead to greater effectiveness.

I was surprised and impressed with how people openly complained about the failure of the municipal government to disseminate adequate information and provide basic training for community leadership and organizers, and about how people’s admiration for Chavez did not hinder several in objecting to the new proposal. A few rose in opposition to the mancomunidades proposal, which would bring several CCs inside an umbrella body that would work with authorities from “above” the individual CCs, as some viewed this.

“There is nothing in the law under which community councils operate that mandates such a direction,” said one opponent. “On the contrary, it speaks of direct power, and resources going directly to each council. Some of the municipal advisors are saying things here that is not the law, nor what Chavez has said.”

Another man spoke sharply from the podium:

“We lack training. We lack information from our local leaders. Some do not know how to manage administratively, either our projects or the moneys allocated. Too many of us are still driven by egoism. We have to learn how to motivate our councils, the spokespersons and our neighbors.”

The issue of where the bank administering CC funds should be located led to a hefty debate. The majority wished to move it from the CC where it was, because that council was not active and there was suspicion that the funds were not well utilized. Representatives from one council said the money they should have received was not forthcoming.

Solutions to these matters would be decided upon at another round of meetings and after street debate.

That evening I attended a local PSUV meeting. The main topic was the current round of CC meetings and the issue of mancomunidades. The general attitude among these one dozen members, mostly over 45 years old, was that “a small group tried to sabotage the assembly”, as the chairman characterized the protest. Not all were caught up in heavy-handed terminology and limited condemnations, and some saw the need to struggle internally to solve significant problems not being addressed by their local government. Among those was the lack of caring and adequate medical treatment at the hospital, which was raised by a retired doctor who volunteers at the local hospital.

After the meeting, five of us went to a café to imbibe in national brews. They asked my opinion on a variety of issues, and what did I see as the number one problem within the revolutionary process. I hesitated to render conclusions after such a short time observing, but they insisted. My spontaneous answer was: the lack of follow through.

Everyone agreed. Example after example plopped onto the wobbly table. I presented one and asked their opinion about the cause. I recalled what a young taxi driver had told me. As a supporter of the Chavez government, Gabriel had applied to take a Francisco Miranda course in Cuba. The idea behind this mission is to create a civilian cadre, which would form a military reserve for defense. The volunteers were often sent to Cuba to acquire a political understanding of revolution and some discipline. So far about 3000 had participated. My driver told me that when he returned from three months “enjoying the generous hospitality of Cubans, not the least the women”, there was nothing to incorporate into, there was no follow up at home. What little he considered he had learned in the brother nation he had forgotten with disuse. Gabriel was so disgruntled he said he would not vote for Rosa León again, albeit mayors have nothing to do with this mission.

Yes, that was all too familiar, the PSUV activists replied. “Lack of infrastructure; most people look after self-interests; some generals don’t want an independent militia; too much talk-not enough action.”

I encountered the same problem with the voceros. At the weekly meeting for all spokespersons of the more than 100 CCs, 17 showed up. They spoke about problems in advancing some projects, about too many activists meeting late or abstaining, problems balancing family, a job and volunteer work. One of the agenda items was an invitation for me to hold a lecture-seminar about communication, how to better reach people in the neighborhoods.

Many spoke enthusiastically about the need for learning. I could also offer advice about a newsletter soon to be launched. Agreement was reached on a day session with lunch and a date set. I prepared for this important initiative. I heard nothing in the week to come. The day before the event, I phoned the municipality’s paid coordinator of the voceros. Oh, he said evenly, no one arranged anything. He did not understand my disappointment and dismay of the frivolous manner of unfulfilling decisions.

Why is making a revolution so difficult?

Ah, imagine your neighbor Sarah. She gets her news from the national and international corporate media. She does what pleases her. If she doesn’t see the fun in doing something she doesn’t do anything. Yeah, we know a lot like her. It might even ring a bell inside. So, what does it take to have Sarah change into a person who wants to cooperate with many others, taking her time, using her energy to create something new, something great for everybody, if everybody works at it? Just what are the tools we need—mental and spiritual as well as physical and emotional ones—and how do we develop them? That is not so easy to conceive let alone practice and transform society in a few years, right?

Already, through the energy generated by the mass behind the committed leadership, wonders have been created. Alongside those I’ve portrayed earlier in these writings, is an essential and historical one. Vicente Vallenilla, the Venezuelan ambassador to Denmark, told me before I departed for his homeland:

“We say that what is happening now is real sovereignty, and for the first time in our history. We are taking our natural resources into our own hands. We are transforming from the sole objective of profit-making for a few to greater distribution of the wealth, commonly created, replacing the raw materialism of today with a more spiritual life tomorrow, one of sovereignty and independence, of wholeness in fellowship and, thus, happiness.”

PERU: Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos

ASAMBLEA NACIONAL DE LOS PUEBLOS
8 DE NOVIEMBRE SESIÓN DE INSTALACIÓN
CONVOCATORIA.

Fuente: http://www.congresobolivariano.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4949

Dirigentes y delegados de organizaciones sociales, sindicales, campesinas, políticas y de diversos sectores ciudadanos, convencidos de la necesidad de construir la gran unidad del pueblo peruano para lograr los grandes cambios que el país demanda, nos hemos autoconvocado ... (sigue)

... para dar nacimiento al proceso de organización de la Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos, concebida como un espacio amplio y plural, de profundo contenido democrático y protagonismo ciudadano en la formulación y aplicación de políticas de Estado.

La Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos surge como una necesidad frente a la crisis del Estado y a la “democracia” deformada, restringida y excluyente que ejercitan los sectores dominantes. La verdadera democracia es integral: Social, económica y política; es representativa, participativa, descentralista, sujeta al control ciudadano. Tal democracia está por hacerse, tan igual como la justicia social, la igualdad de derechos y oportunidades para todos, el reconocimiento de los pueblos originarios y minorías étnicas, asume y fortalece el protagonismo de los jóvenes, la igualdad de género, la plena soberanía nacional; en suma, la equidad en la distribución de la riqueza y en la conducción del Estado para garantizar el desarrollo sostenible y bienestar para las mayorías.

La Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos se plantea también como respuesta al desvergonzado entreguismo del gobierno actual, su creciente tendencia autoritaria y prepotente, su indeclinable sometimiento a las trasnacionales y los poderosos del país; además de su corrupción sin límite ni control. Ello exige proponer alternativas prontas y firmes, que sólo pueden surgir de los ciudadanos concientes de sus responsabilidades, organizados, unidos, dispuestos a hacerse oír y respetar.

La Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos representa un reto para millones de peruanos que son víctimas del injusto modelo económico y no aceptan la prepotencia, ni la intolerancia; que quieren ser actores de su presente y su futuro, que sueñan con una Patria libre, digna, solidaria y soberana, y anhelan un nuevo régimen económico, social y político. Sin renunciar a la democracia representativa, depurándola de sus elementos corrosivos, y apoyándose en la lucha social y política, la Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos se propone dar curso a la democracia participativa y directa, como expresiones genuinas del principio “el poder emana del pueblo” y del verdadero cambio que ello exige.

En ella caben los hombres y mujeres de buena voluntad con sed de justicia y de Patria, de todos los credos y culturas, de las organizaciones sociales, sindicales y políticas nacionales, regionales y locales comprometidas con el cambio, de las comunidades campesinas y nativas, de las rondas campesinas, de las minorías étnicas, de organizaciones de emprendedores, micro, pequeños y medianos empresarios, comerciantes, productores del campo y de la ciudad, de los movimientos regionales descentralistas, estudiantes de todos los niveles, profesionales, trabajadores de la cultura, de la investigación y de la ciencia, de la intelectualidad y de la prensa crítica, de los movimientos de mujeres y de jóvenes, de las iglesias vinculadas a los pobres, identificados todos con el cambio social que el pueblo peruano demanda.

Buscamos que la Asamblea nazca del pueblo, se nutra de sus luchas y tradiciones, y le sirva como una poderosa herramienta de cambios, de defensa y de conquista de derechos. Queremos constituirla para defender el derecho al pan y al trabajo, a la educación, salud y seguridad social para todos; el derecho a la organización, la participación y el control ciudadano sobre las autoridades; así como a un medio ambiente sano, protegido y equilibrado.

Llamamos a todos los que aspiran a vida digna y solidaria a incorporarse a este proceso unitario y los convocamos este 08 de noviembre a sesión de instalación donde se elegirá la correspondiente Comisión Organizadora de la Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos, en la perspectiva de forjar una amplia unidad por un nuevo régimen económico y social y por una democracia verdadera para todos.

Otro Perú es posible. Ese es el sentido de la historia por escribir con la acción protagónica de las mayorías excluidas y los sectores olvidados.

¡La Asamblea Nacional de los Pueblos inicia su Marcha!, ¡Nadie la detendrá!

COMITÉ PROMOTOR DE LA ASAMBLEA NACIONAL DE LOS PUEBLOS

CGTP, CUT, CCP, UFREP, SUTEP, FEP, COLEGIO DE PROFESORES DEL PERÚ, CUNARC (Rondas Campesinas), FRENTE CÍVICO DE LIMA, FRENTE REGIONAL DE SAN MARTÍN, CONFIAR (ambulantes), CPS LIMA SUR, CPS LIMA CENTRO, CPS SAN JUAN DE LURIGANCHO, CPS VILLA EL SALVADOR, CPS LIMA NORTE, CPS LAMBAYEQUE, SUNTTTERP, COORDES, CTE, JUVENTUDES CGTP, ANCIJE, FENTUP, FACA AREQUIPA, FENUTSSA, FESIDETA, FREDELL LA LIBERTAD, ACCIÓN INTERNACIONAL POR LA PAZ, COLECTIVO MANOS LIMPIAS, SINDICATO DE TRANSPORTES, SUCHOCOP, FOROMIPE, CPS RIMAC, CPS OXAPAMPA, FEDERACIÓN MÉDICA DE CUSCO, SINDICATO CONSTRUCCIÓN CIVIL HUANCAVELICA, CONSTRUCCIÓN CIVIL TINGO MARÍA, CONSTRUCCIÓN CIVIL MOQUEGUA, IDPA, CGTP APURIMAC, CGTP HUÁNUCO, CGTP PUNO, CGTP TUMBES, CGTP LORETO, GRUPO DE ESTUDIANTES IP, PRESUPUESTO PARTICIPATIVO SJM, CONFERENCIA AGRÍCOLA, OTRO MUNDO ES POSIBLE, PARTIDO COMUNISTA DEL PERÚ – PATRIA ROJA, PARTIDO COMUNISTA PERUANO, PARTIDO NACIONALISTA PERUANO, PARTIDO SOCIALISTA, MOVIMIENTO NUEVA IZQUIERDA, FOCEP, LIBERACIÓN POPULAR, FEDEP, PUEBLO UNIDO, VOZ SOCIALISTA, COMITÉ MALPICA, PARTIDOSOCIALISTA REVOLUCIONARIO, COORDINADORA POLÍTICA REGIONAL AYACUCHO, JUVENTUD FOCEP, COMISIÓN DE MUJERES CPS (MNI, PCP, PS, FOCEP, LIBERACIÓN POPULAR, VOZ SOCIALISTA, PCDEL P – PATRIA ROJA, CGTP)

La Asamblea de la ANP se realizará en: Local de la Federación de Trabajadores En construcción Civil del Perú, sito en Prolongación Cangallo Nº 670 – La Victoria. A partir de las 10.00 a.m. del día sábado 8 de noviembre del 2008.

Enviado el viernes, 07 de noviembre a las 04:04:00 por unidadlatinoamerica

MEXICO: Questioning the Efficacy of Institutions

Democracy Under Construction

Filed under: Democratization, Latin America — Jason Lakin @ 12:58 pm
October 27, 2008
Source: http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=331

In 2006, when supporters of Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), then candidate for the leftist PRD, took to the streets to protest alleged vote fraud during the presidential elections, many carried banners that said “Democracy Under Construction.” The implication was clear: democracy at the institutional level, where elections were organized and votes counted, was not working. Real democracy was happening in the streets, where the people were organizing and raising their voices against these same institutions.

This “institutions versus the people” dichotomy in Mexican democracy is the most important legacy of the 2006 election. It continues to define the ideology of AMLO and his supporters up to the present. Last week, speaking about the energy reform which was approved by the Mexican Senate, AMLO said that what mattered was not what the legislature said, but what “we decide, the people.”

The logic is familiar to analysts that distinguish between republicanism (rule by democratic institutions, indirectly controlled by the people) and democracy (rule by the people directly). Though we most often use the term democracy in everyday discussions of regime type, what we usually mean is republicanism: rule by democratic institutions. No one believes that rule by institutions is a panacea. Advocates of direct democracy are correct to note that institutions frequently deviate from the will of the people, pursuing their own interests instead. On the other hand, advocates of republicanism presume, also correctly, that direct democracy is neither more realistic nor necessarily fairer than rule by institutions. Republicans point out that democratic publics are easily swayed by dangerous group-think, which, in the absence of institutions that force deliberation, can lead to the repression of minorities, and the prioritization of short-term gains over long-term development.

In general, the relevant question in a republic is whether or not republican institutions are legitimate. When institutions are legitimate, which minimally requires fair elections, then we tend to think that these institutions should be respected, even if we allow citizens to protest, file lawsuits, or lobby to change decisions made by them. What happens, however, when the institutions are not legitimate? This is the position taken by AMLO and his followers, who argued that the 2006 elections were illegitimate because the institutions that organized them were illegitimate, and because the process was not free and fair.

There is no question that AMLO’s attack on Mexican republican institutions is self-serving. However, whether AMLO is motivated by self-interest or not, many Mexicans do doubt the legitimacy and efficacy of their institutions. The only solution to widespread doubts about the legitimacy of institutions is the re-foundation of those institutions with renewed legitimacy, not, as Mexican conservatives sometimes seem to believe, to repeatedly restate that institutions are legitimate because they are institutions.

In fact, Mexico’s legislators are slowly achieving institutional renewal. The PAN (the president’s party) and the PRD were able to reach a consensus earlier this year to renew the leadership of the electoral institute (IFE), whose credibility was severely damaged in 2006. Although President Calderón was among the worst purveyors of the “institutions exist therefore they are legitimate” doctrine during the 2006 elections, he has pursued negotiation and consensus-building on key initiatives, such as fiscal and now energy policy. The result has been limited reform, but increasingly legitimate procedures for arriving at it.

The biggest threat to Mexico’s institutional renewal today comes from a different source: the spiraling corruption engendered by the war on drugs. Today, El Universal reports that officials working for SIEDO, a special government office dedicated to investigating organized crime, have been on retainer for the drug lords since at least 2004. These officials, who earned as much as US$450,000 per month, passed along government information to one of Mexico’s most notorious cartels, that of the Beltrán Leyva brothers. The revelations were the result of the government’s own Operation Cleanup, which means, of course, that they represent a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they should increase confidence that the government is functioning to police its own abuses. On the other, they reinforce the perception that the government is riddled with corruption, so much so that the war on drugs is doomed to failure.

Young democracies frequently struggle to renovate a large number of weak institutions all at once, but many do survive. The renovation of institutions is a tricky business, and there are plenty of reasons to worry that Mexico is not up to the task. But if there is one thing Mexicans proved during the twentieth century, it is that they are exceptionally creative at reinventing institutions. The one-party regime waxed and waned, but it survived intact for decades by adapting to radically changing international and domestic circumstances. Mexico’s leaders have demonstrated, since the crisis of confidence in 2006, a surprising ability to work together to avoid the worst. Many more surprises will be needed to push the country’s democratization forward. On this gloomy Monday, overshadowed by the disillusion of new corruption allegations, the country’s leadership may look down, but I wouldn’t count them out.

COLOMBIA: The Referendum that would Allow a Third Term for Uribe in 2010

In a recent post we featured a scheduled referendum in Colombia desiged to protect water rights. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum. - Editor

Colombia's Uribe eyes one more run

Enjoying great popularity after suppressing guerrilla violence, Colombia's president has declined to discourage a movement to let him run for a third term.

BY JOHN OTIS
Houston Chronicle
Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/latin-america-and-caribbean-politics/story/708316.html


BOGOTA -- Will he or won't he?

Halfway through his second term, Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's wildly popular president, remains coy about whether he will seek a third four-year term in 2010.

Earlier this month, he strongly hinted he would sit out the next election and perhaps attempt a comeback in 2014. Days later, Uribe said he might run in 2010 if his political allies failed to unite behind a single candidate who would continue his hard-line security policies.

Uribe has done nothing to stop a citizen-based drive to change the Colombian Constitution to allow him to run again. For the moment, the charter prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms.

But this month, the Colombian Congress received a petition with more than five million signatures obliging lawmakers to consider a referendum on eliminating the ban on third terms.

''People say that he's doing good work and, if that's the case, he should continue in the job,'' said Carlos Alberto Jaramillo, one of the organizers of the petition drive.

RIDING HIGH

Many analysts believe Uribe would win if allowed to run.

Thanks to a string of military victories against the country's Marxist guerillas, Uribe is riding high in the polls. A Gallup survey puts his job-approval rating at 78 percent.

But critics warn that Uribe could damage his reputation and Colombia's close relations with the United States by seeking three consecutive terms.

Latin America has a history of military dictators. Thus, when democracy spread across the region in the late 1980s and early '90s, the constitutions of many of these nations were rewritten to prohibit presidential re-election.

Uribe engineered one constitutional change that allowed him to run for a second term in 2006. That effort led to allegations that members of his Cabinet had secured congressional support by promising jobs and other favors to legislators.

Going for a third term in 2010 ''would display an authoritarian tendency,'' said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. ``It would also hurt his legacy which, on balance, has been very positive.''

Uribe has been vague, keeping all of his options on the table and thus avoiding the handicap of becoming a lame-duck leader.

Speaking before a university audience, he said he preferred to promote new leaders and to improve national security during his remaining two years in office and that the reelection issue would be a distraction.

''I think it's much better that Colombians consolidate the policies of democratic security, investor confidence and social cohesion rather than worry about the president remaining in power,'' he said.
Shortly afterward, however, he indicated he would run should the campaign of the would-be successor from his political coalition falter.

But Uribe's maneuvering has prevented Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and other pro-government candidates from launching their own campaigns, which could provide an opening for the opposition.

First sworn in in 2002, then reelected in 2006 by a landslide, Uribe made his mark by improving security in a nation plagued by kidnappings and where left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries held control of huge swaths of the countryside.

ENLARGED ARMY

Uribe added more than 100,000 troops to the armed forces. They have captured or killed key guerrilla leaders while thousands of paramilitaries have disarmed.

The military's most spectacular feat was a July 2 operation that rescued 15 high-profile hostages, including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. military contractors.

ECONOMY IMPROVED

Although the illegal drug trade remains robust, improved security has brought more tourism and foreign investment to Colombia and sparked six years of economic growth.

Still, everyone from Uribe's advisers to leading businessmen and his wife reportedly have urged him to step down in 2010.

''We shouldn't confuse the admiration that the business community has for Uribe with the danger of extending his rule longer than is advisable,'' said Luis Carlos Villegas, president of ANDI, an influential business association.

CLOUDS LINGER

Uribe has been weakened by a long-running investigation into ties between paramilitaries and his political allies in the Congress. Nearly 70 legislators, almost all of them pro-Uribe, are either in prison or under investigation, a scandal that has led to calls for the election of a new Congress.

In addition, Uribe has feuded with Supreme Court justices investigating the paramilitary scandal, has traded insults with former Colombian presidents and accused human rights organizations of working with the guerrillas.

''The president should consider taking a break to re-charge his batteries,'' declared a recent editorial in the

Bogotá newspaper El

Tiempo.