Ruben Zamora was the presi- dential candidate of a coali-
tion of leftist parties including the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), the Democratic Convergence (CD), and the National Revolutionary Party (MNR). Melrose Huff inter- viewed Zamora at his campaign headquarters in San Salvador on March 24, four days after the elections. Zamora received 25% of the vote in the first round, compared to ARENA candidate Armando Calder6n Sol’s 49%.
Calder6n Sol went on to decisive- ly defeat Zamora 68% to 32% in the run-off on April 24.
The day after the elections, your staff seemed very discouraged. One young man questioned why “we fought 10 years for 25%.”
Yes, some people were disap- pointed. I think this is good in the sense that people have to learn how to deal with elections. It’s not the same for people like us who have been taking part in elections for years. Half of the people in the FMLN are partici- pating in the process for the first time.
What effect will the election results have on divisions within
the FMLN? How can the Left
achieve the same kind of cohe- siveness and political effective- ness that factions of the Right have achieved within ARENA?
Well, I think that to talk about the cohesiveness of ARENA is an overstatement. There is very, very serious internal fighting within the ARENA party. Now you can-
not see it, but at the beginning of the electoral process it was very evident. For instance, a lot of members of Congress switched from ARENA to other parties. But
ARENA is a single party, while the FMLN is made up of five different
8NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS 8UPDATE / EL SALVADOR
The rebuilding of civilian and military relations in this country seems paramount
to me. Traditionally, you were either a slave of the military or an enemy of the military.
I think that we have to move from that polarization into a new relationship.
political parties joined together. That makes a difference.
It surprised me to see both ARENA and the Left coalition supporting free markets, private enterprise, and export agriculture. The Left in the United States argues that export agriculture has led to the concentration of wealth and land, and has tended to marginalize the poor. How would you com- pare your position on export agri- culture with ARENA’s?
Export agriculture is associated
with a pattern of land tenure
that favors big landowners and
big land holdings. That has led to
problems. But export agriculture
in and of itself is not to blame for
the problems of poverty and mar-
ginalization.
The main problem now is how
we enable the cooperative sec-
tor-which holds more than one-
third of the best land in this
country-and the medium- and
small-sized peasant farmers to
accumulate wealth inside the
agrarian sector. Right now, a lot
of the surplus produced by this
agricultural sector gets trans-
ferred to other sectors in the
form of payments for credit,
marketing, and inputs. If these
small- and medium-sized produc-
ers are able to accumulate
wealth, it would be possible to
push forward a policy of agro-
industry and utilization of the land that in the end is our only
way to absorb the growing pop-
ulation that we have in the
countryside.
The fundamental problem in El
Salvador now is not a problem of
land distribution. Through the
mechanics of land redistribution
not much more can be done in El
Salvador, because quite a lot of
land has already been distrib- uted, and there is this cap of 605
Ruben Zamora campaigning in Zacatecoluca.
acres [per landowner] in the Constitution.
So you feel that the land reform was basically successful?
Oh no, no! Land reform is not the same as land distribution. The land reform was not success-
ful, because the land reform that was implemented at the begin-
ning of the 1980s was an instru- ment of counterinsurgency. For the last five years, ARENA’s policy has been to destroy the coopera- tive movement. To say that our
policy is the same as ARENA’s is
absolutely crazy.
During your campaign, you
talked with people in the bank-
ing industry and big business. In
what areas can you work produc-
tively together?
We can work with big business
in the fight against smuggling,
for instance. Business is also con-
cerned about reducing red tape,
setting up the basic rules for the
economic game, and developing
a serious policy of concertacidn
[mutual agreements] among
management, labor and govern-
ment. I think we can work
together in all of these areas.
What are your views on the issue
of impunity? And how do you see
your relationship with the army?
I think we are constantly mov- ing forward on the question of impunity. The goal of the fight
against impunity is to put people on trial and in jail for the crimes that they have committed. That’s why the election of the new Supreme Court of Justice is so
important. We need to clean up
the entire judicial process. We have been going through a process of demilitarization since the signing of the peace accords.
We have already practically com- pleted what I call the negative
part–cleaning up of the officers
corps, reduction of the army, sep- aration of the army and police, and so on. Now, for the next five
years, the rebuilding of civilian
and military relations in this
country seems paramount to me. Traditionally, you were either a slave of the military or an enemy
of the military. I think that we
have to move from that polariza- tion into a new relationship in
which the military are recognized
as what they have to be: a legiti-
mate part of society with a legiti- mate role entrusted to them by
the Constitution, but subordinate
to the civilian authority in politi- cal matters.
Do you believe the Truth Com-
mission report should be imple- mented?
Yes, all of it.
Wouldn’t there be a backlash from the Right if names were revealed and measures taken to
bring the people named in the report to justice?
The Right is going to act ac- cording to the political tempera-
ture of the country.
Doesn’t it worry you that those people are still at large?
Yes. It worries me very much.
Menu
