Why Central America Is Still Not Democratic

WHY CENTRAL AMERICA IS STDLL NOT DEMOCRATIC Linda Robinson F,or Central America the 1980s have been a decade of war. Now that the region is finally emerging from combat, it has a chance to build democracy in the 1990s. Yet there are no guarantees that it will succeed, even though most Central American countries have ended their wars and held democratic elections. These have been historic steps, but they are only the prerequisites for building solid, functioning democratic systems. Certainly, the wars had to be ended and elections held to get the democratic process started, but the continuing power of the military and of the elites must be reined in before Central America can truly be called democratic . This requires implementation of the rule of law by functioning constitutional organs and socioeconomic reform by legal processes. This is the challenge of the 1990s, but it is already threatened by waning interest in Central American affairs on the part of the United States and the rest of the world. On the bright side, Central America can take heart from the progress made in the late 1980s, and attempt to build on this record. Much credit goes to the Esquipulas regional peace process, which began in 1986 and mapped out the basic principles for extracting Central America from protracted turmoil and military dominance. The process was the brainchild of former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. It enshrined two mechani§ms that have proved to be successful: negotiated rather than Linda Robinson is Latin America Correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. She is the author of Intervention or Neglect: The United States and Central America Beyond the 1980s (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1991). 81 82 SAISREVIEW military ends to wars, and free elections held under some degree of international scrutiny. This specific formula mirrored a global embrace ofdemocratic elections and the end ofthe Cold War geopolitical competition ; that international climate facilitated the adoption ofthe Esquipulas process in Central America. The end ofthe Cold War enabled the United States to drop its attitude ofsuspicion toward negotiated solutions with communists, first in Nicaragua and then in El Salvador. The Central American countries took the lead in seeking an exit from their wars, and deserve credit for their courage. Leftists in the region could see just as well as the United States that the Soviet Union was withdrawing from its internationalist mission, and decided to bargain with their opponents for the best deal they could get. This is a profound change, even if it was initially rooted in a tactical calculation: the leftists ofCentral America today are committed to competing for power through elections. Still to be seen is the degree to which military institutions, long accustomed to dominating politics, will be forced to accept a redefined role in peacetime Central America. The question for Central America in the 1990s is: Where will it go after having secured peace and a nascent habit of fair elections? If the goal is full democracy, what is required is the breaching oftwo outstanding barriers: the power of the military and the power of elites. However, the question of how to surmount these barriers remains problematic. Revolution has been discredited as a method of change, since in practice it merely perpetuated the old ways ofmilitarism and elitism, despite new faces. The mechanisms of negotiation and elections, used in the Esquipulas process, are of some use in fairly deciding who should wield political power. But the task now is for elected officials to make government responsive to the popular will. Above all, they have to implement measures that address the profound inequalities and injustices that were at the core of the decade of war. A return to war or military dictatorship is not an imminent threat, but that danger could again loom large if Central America proves incapable of taking the next steps. The role of the United States in Central America has always been important, and will continue to be a profound determinant ofthe region's prospects. The United States' attention toward the region has historically waxed and waned, but whether in a cycle ofintervention or ofneglect, the U.S. attitude helps to shape events in these...