Fw: What they won't tell you about Colombia's Elections May 31, 2002

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg@tin.it>]

 ZNet Commentary
 What they won't tell you about Colombia's Elections May 31, 2002
 By Hector Mondragon

 In the midst of all the euphoria in ruling circles over the triumph of
Alvaro
 Uribe Velez in the Colombian presidential elections, there are certain
issues
 that are not being discussed, even though they have everything to do with
the
 elections.

 The first is the high electoral abstention: the right-wing candidate was
elected
 by 53% of those who voted, but 53% of the citizenry didn't vote. In Arauca
and
Caqueta abstention was 75%, in Putumayo 70%, and let's not forget Guaviare
where
 they had to cancel the elections in half the municipalities, with 80%
 abstention. In the former demilitarized zone, there was 95% abstention.

 But if in these zones the cause of abstention could be violence, the same
can't
 be said of the populous and urbanized department of the Atlantic, with
 Barranquilla, the fourth largest city of the country, that had 65%
abstention.

Nor do they remember, any more, the tremendous electoral fraud committed
during
 the congressional elections of March 8, whose final result is still unknown
even
 3 months later. 42% of the polling stations had irregularities, sometimes
for
 substitutions or subtractions and more often because the names of the
electors
 didn't coincide with their voter ID.

 Other forms of fraud on March 8: payments to senate candidates for
reelection by
 means of the 'co-financing' funds of the central government intended for
 territorial entities-- in this way, clientilism was paid for in the name of
decentralization.

 In the end paramilitaries 'selected' 35% of the senators who today sit in
the
 Senate despite the denunciations of the assassinated the archbishop of Cali
 against the presence of narco-dollars in supporting certain candidates.
Nobody
 wants to put this information out into the main media, especially the
 international media, because that would endanger our image as 'the oldest
 democracy in Latin America', not to mention endangering international
support
 for the war we have been promised by the triumphant war candidate.

 Nor will they tell you about the massacre of May 22 in 'Comuna 13' in
Medellin,
 four days before the presidential elections. Nine civilians, four of whom
were
 children, were killed when the Army, Police, State Police, and DAS attacked
the
 neighbourhoods of La Independencia, El Salado, El Seis and Nuevos
 Conquistadores. They were supposedly fighting guerrilla militias, but it
was
 civilians who got the worst of it, including children who were returning
from
 school.

 They will talk about the massacre at Bojaya, but only as the responsibility
of
 the guerrilla, because the only crimes that are mentionable are those of
the
 guerrilla-- never the state. The state is not going to include itself on
its own
 list of terrorists.

 The media have silenced more than ever the daily assassinations against
popular
leaders. The day before the presidential election a councillor of El Tambo
 (Cauca) of Via Alterna, a movement that forms part of the 'Polo
Democratico'
 that was the electoral coalition of left-wing presidential candidate Lucho
 Garzon. Niether the national nor the international television channels said
a
 word.

 The visit of Otto Reich to the president elect has been announced with
great
 fanfare. The media are announcing it as a great honour to a public who
doesn't
 know Reich's past, a past that is even more dirty than Uribe's own. These
are
 items they can discuss with one another and with the Venezuelan
coup-plotter
 Pedro Carmona who has recently arrived in Colombia. Presumably none of this
will
 have any effect on Colombia's relations with Venezuela.

 Until May 28 there was an attempt to be discrete about the economic future
of
 the country under Uribe. Under the president-elect's program of theft known
as
 '100 points', prudence has been thrown to the winds and the real actors
have
 come out. The principal is the ex-Home Minister and cardinal of Colombian
 neoliberalism, Rudolf Hommes. The familiar agenda: structural adjustment,
firing
 of state employees, privatization, dismantling of labour laws and
protections.

 Surrounding Hommes are advisors from the agricultural sector, the same
advisors
who set the national agricultural system adrift under the Gaviria
government,
> the same advisors who oppose any land reform that would redistribute the
highly
concentrated land-holdings.

 They propose opening what remains to transnational agri-business under a
 neo-corporatist system with partial state participation. They pontificate
 against subsidies and protections of agriculture practiced in Venezuela or
by
 small enterprises and communities in Colombia, but have nothing to say
about the
 subsidies of agriculture in the US, nor do they show any reluctance for
state
 support of the owners of the great banana and african palm plantations.

 Nobody voted for the politices of Hommes: not even the right-wing
electorate of
 Uribe who gave a blank cheque to the candidate in a system that has a
genius for
 choosing the worst candidate every four years. If Hommes had campaigned
with
 Uribe, the election might have been different-- perhaps it would have been
more
 like the municipal election when Hommes lost spectacularly in his bid for
mayor
 of Bogota.

As they look around, the patrons of the president-elect will no doubt hear
the
 warning of Standard and Poor's: "Uribe's honeymoon will be short", they
said,
 because of the economic situation, the growing external debt, the high
 unemployment and the structural adjustment.

 S & P suggested reforming the retirement pensions system, and immediately
Home
 Minister Santos, from the family of the vice-president-elect, presented a
new
 bill. The bill was protested by the Labour Minister and mobilizations by
oil
 workers who have begun rotating strikes against the bill. It seems the
honeymoon
 is over, before it even started.


 Hector Mondragon is an economist and activist in Colombia.