Back in his radical days, former London mayor Ken Livingstone famously quipped that if voting changed anything, they would abolish it. It turns out that in Latin America, elections really do shake things up. The latest proof: Mauricio Funes, the standard bearer of the FMLN party — until not long ago a Marxist guerilla movement — has prevailed in El Salvador’s presidential election.
This is remarkable in a country that for as long as anyone remembers has been ruled, by hook or by crook, by a reactionary oligarchy. If the Salvadoran left’s close electoral victory is peacefully accepted — as it has been so far — it means that Latin America has truly come a long way.
Whether this profound change will be seen as a key moment in the consolidation of democracy in El Salvador, or as the beginning of a slide toward instability, will depend on Funes’ ability to balance two complex and contradictory imperatives: calling for moderation across the political spectrum while implementing the deep social transformations that El Salvador sorely needs. With nearly half the population below the poverty line, the country’s pervasive inequalities underlie its tumultuous political history, soaring crime levels and massive outward migration.
By all accounts a reasonable man, Funes faces an uphill battle in preaching moderation. He will preside over a deeply polarized country, where conservative forces find themselves outside the presidential palace for the first time ever. If the vicious tone of his opponent’s campaign offers any indication, Funes cannot count on the goodwill of those who have yet to learn how to behave like a loyal opposition.
More important, perhaps, is the new president’s relationship with his own allies. A political newcomer who did not participate in El Salvador’s civil war, Funes, along with all of the FMLN’s congressional candidates, was handpicked as presidential nominee behind closed doors by the party’s Political Commission, where diehard Marxist cadres still roam unchecked. The allegiance of the FMLN’s congressional caucus lies primarily with the party’s traditional structure and only accidentally with Funes.
Even more forbidding are the constraints that Funes faces in pursuing a social reform agenda. To begin with, the FMLN is short of a congressional majority, which remains in the hands of its right-wing opponents ARENA and its long-time allies, the small PCN. Funes’ administration seems to be doomed to political gridlock, a chronic ailment of Latin America’s presidential regimes.
Moreover, the current economic downturn is creating especially severe problems for the Salvadoran economy. Remittances from the US accounted for roughly 17 percent of GDP last year, more than the country’s total exports. This vital source of capital is falling at an alarming rate — 8.4 percent year on year in January. Unsurprisingly, El Salvador’s economic growth forecast for this year has been cut to barely 1 percent.
The real problem, however, is less the economic contraction than the very limited room for maneuver that the government enjoys in a country that dollarized its economy in 2001. In the face of plummeting remittances and foreign investment, Funes will rapidly discover that dollarization without dollars is no fun.
Funes is a moderate voice in a country where there are few of them. He needs all the help he can get. The US, which still has significant clout over what happens in El Salvador, would do well to welcome his election and offer him tangible support for key social reforms.
The stakes are high. Confronted with daunting obstacles and a disloyal opposition, Funes may well decide to cater to FMLN hardliners and pursue his reform agenda with no patience for democratic checks and balances as other leftist leaders in Latin America, such as Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and Bolivian President Evo Morales, have done.
For Funes, choosing that path would be a historic mistake. It would endanger the single most important — if slightly ironic — legacy of the FMLN’s armed struggle: the creation of a liberal democracy in El Salvador.
Democracy is a priceless bequest. If, amid the indifference of the world, Funes chose to play fast and loose with it, Livingstone would be proven wrong: Voting can change much, and sometimes for the worse.
Kevin Casas-Zamora is senior fellow in foreign policy at The Brookings Institution and former vice president and minister of national planning of Costa Rica.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
As a person raised in a family that revered the teachings of Confucius (孔子) and Mencius (孟子), I believe that both sages would agree with Hong Kong students that people-based politics is the only legitimate way to govern China, including Hong Kong. More than two millennia ago, Confucius insisted that a leader’s first loyalty is to his people — they are water to the leader’s ship. Confucius said that the water could let the ship float only if it sailed in accordance with the will of the water. If the ship sailed against the will of the water, the ship would sink. Two
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo just dropped the other shoe in the White House’s multidimensional response to the hydra-headed existential challenge from communist China. Yet his sweeping address at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum on Thursday was the most powerful yet — a virtual declaration of a new cold war and a call for global delegitimization of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) rule through what amounts to regime change. Although he did not explicitly mention either a cold war or regime change — terms that send shudders through the foreign policy establishment — Pompeo made it clear that
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties