El Salvador elections: Scare tactics, political violence and US interference

Cynthia Orchard says election scare tactics may be losing their power

Between two and three million Salvadorans (nearly a third of the total population) live in the United States, with some 229,000 residing there legally under Temporary Protected Status. Many send money back to their families in El Salvador, and in a country with very low wages, few job opportunities and rising prices, many Salvadorans rely on these remittances to meet their basic living expenses.

In previous election campaigns, ARENA has used a variety of tactics to spread fear of an FMLN victory among voters, including “remittance scare” propaganda. A typical advertisement might go something like: “If the FMLN wins the presidential elections, relations with the US will deteriorate, and your relatives will lose their ability to send remittances to you”. The ad might also mention that, if the FMLN wins, the US could end Temporary Protected Status for Salvadorans or that more would be deported. In either scenario, the remittances that have such a huge impact on this small country – making up around a fifth to a quarter of the Salvadoran economy - would decrease or be cut off.  Irrespective of whether they were realistic, these threats had a powerful impact on low-income Salvadorans who depend on cash sent home from the US. 

It was not just ARENA that contributed to this scaremongering. During the 2004 elections, there were numerous credible reports of US officials, including Jeb Bush and Roger Noriega, making statements that directly supported these claims, which were used by ARENA to support its campaign.  Only after the elections did the US ambassador clarify that the election outcome would have no impact on US immigration policy or individual remittances. 

This type of tactic is again being used in the current electoral campaign. But there are important reasons why they are less likely to succeed. Salvadorans have heard it before and many now recognise such propaganda for what it is. Temporary Protected Status for Salvadorans has recently been renewed for further 18 months. Mauricio Funes is the first FMLN presidential candidate who is not a former guerrilla, and is thus very different from Shafik Handal, a former commander of the FMLN armed forces who ran in 2004. And many believe US President-elect Barack Obama's administration will be more open to a change of government in El Salvador. 

Other election scare tactics currently being reported in El Salvador include factory owners telling their workers the plant will be shut down if Funes wins, religious leaders making proclamations about the FMLN’s evils, tales of FMLN leaders who want revenge, and reports of links between Funes and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Colombia’s armed FARC rebels. Yet, in contrast to previous elections, it seems that many Salvadorans are now more resistant to political propaganda, and according to the polls, may be ready to vote for change. 

The author is a human rights attorney volunteering with the Electoral Observation Mission of the Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS).

Want to help out?

CIS is looking for Spanish-speaking volunteers to help coordinate its international election observer mission from January to July 2009. Volunteers will help produce and present the election observer report. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal and Legislative Assembly have used these reports as a basis for debate on election reform in El Salvador.
More details and an application form can be found at www.cis-elsalvador.org

Rising political violence

In the past two years, social organisations, human rights monitors, community groups and the FMLN have denounced the alarming increase in politically motivated killings and assaults on their members and leadership.
January: The FMLN mayor of Alegría, Wilber Funes, was killed alongside municipal employee Zulma Rivera. The young, popular mayor had planned to run for re-election in 2009.
May: Héctor Ventura, who was cleared of terrorism charges in February after participating in a protest against water privatisation last summer, was killed in his home on May 2.
June: Ángel Martínez Cerón, coordinator of the January 24 Revolutionary Socialist Student Bloc, was killed on June 26 in the western city of Santa Ana. The student group says other members have been detained and harassed by agents of the National Civilian Police (PNC), following a series of protests against bus fare increases in Santa Ana.
July: Holman Riva, an employee of the FMLN-led municipal government in Ilopango, was snatched from his home and shot on July 2, along with his nephew.
September: FMLN party workers were assaulted in San Salvador, resulting in the hospitalisation of four individuals. The attack, carried out against members of the FMLN’s Communications Brigade, was attributed to armed supporters of ARENA mayoral candidate Norman Quijano.

Less US interference?

At a meeting at the US Embassy in June with delegates from the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), Ambassador Charles Glazer admitted that the US had intervened in El Salvador’s 2004 presidential elections. At the time, US State Department officials made statements denouncing the FMLN, and legislation was put forward in Congress by Republican Tom Tancredo threatening to cut off remittances sent home by Salvadorans should the FMLN win.

When asked if Washington had intervened in 2004 on behalf of ARENA, Glazer replied in the affirmative. However, he indicated that the US will not take sides in the 2009 elections and that Washington is willing to work with any future Salvadoran government which shares the values of democracy, respect for human rights, support for a market-based economy, and “free trade”.

El Salvador’s foreign minister, Marisol Argueta, visited the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington in September, and called on the US government to take more action regarding the threat she felt leftist Latin American governments could pose to US national security. The FMLN denounced Argueta’s speech, saying that it violated Article 218 of the constitution by utilising state resources to carry out partisan activities.