These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information. Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web.
By rare special procedures specified in a resolution promoted by PRD leader and northern Veraguas deputy Pedro Miguel González, there was a secret ballot by which each participating deputy could vote for seven candidates, with the top vote getters in each party caucus getting that party’s seats. Apportionment by party caucus was based on the composition of the National Assembly as a whole. The Panameñistas boycotted and are pressing their claims in court. Photo by the National Assembly.
González leads the legislature into a confrontation — perhaps
by Eric Jackson
So, a Credentials Committee of fire-breathing radicals, ready to impeach the president and any high court magistrate who gets in their way? Or a Credentials Committee of tawdry crooks, ready to twist whatever arms need to be twisted to avoid any serious investigation of their own behavior? Perhaps both. Maybe neither.
The new Credentials Committee is PRD deputies Rubén De León, Elías Castillo and Alfredo Pérez; Cambio Democratico’s Sergio Gálvez, Fernando Carrillo and Juan Manuel Poveda; for the Panameñistas Jorge Alberto Rosas and Luis E. Quirós; plus independent legislator Ana Matilde Gómez. Castillo, Gálvez and Rosas have all been mentioned more prominently than most of their colleagues in the swirl of financial scandals around the entire legislature, but none of them are under formal investigation, let alone facing specific charges and much less having been convicted of anything. One might expect, however, that the short-handed Supreme Court may have taken the election as some sort of message about investigating Gálvez over circuit funds, Rosas over Odebrecht or Castillo’s relatives over the Blue Apple affair. Any apocalyptic theories about these things, and whether an impeachment is in the cards, would be diminished by the ephemeral nature of the appointments. The legislature is out of session between the end of April and the end of June, and then they choose the next Credentials Committee. While it is true that committees often meet during legislative recesses and presidents can convene special sessions, this committee’s composition looks defensive rather than offensive.
The way to the new configuration spelled the coming marginalization of the National Assembly’s president, CD deputy Yanibel Ábrego. She was named in too many unsavory situations — purchases of public land for pennies a square meter, circuit fund abuses and so on — and made the high-water mark of her career an ability to build and manage three-party coalitions. But now the public patience with corruption wears thin and the old coalition is irreparably shattered. In order to get his resolution to recompose the Credentials Committee passed, González had to appeal Ábrego’s ruling that his resolution was out of order. That passed easily, with both PRD and CD support. Look for her to step down from the dais in July, probably never to return.
President Varela says that he will assert his authority. How and against whom are interesting questions. With Pedro Miguel González the main protagonist, one lever the president will not have is that he could make sure the González does not get re-elected. That’s because the Veraguas legislator says he will not seek any public office in the 2019 elections. But if atomic weapons are to be flown in, there is this 26-year-old US terrorism warrant against González and there is this troubled US president looking for a distraction.
Most probably the legislature has just warned the executive and judicial branches to back off, and confirmed to the president that there will be no nominees to the high court ratified without some serious negotiations that bring in other matters. The next move, it seems, would be either by President Varela or the Supreme Court. But that next move might just be to wait a few months.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
En enero de 2018 el presidente de EEUU, Donald Trump, cumplió su primer año en la Casa Blanca. El impacto de su gestión ha sido significativo en varios planos. Queremos centrar nuestra atención en tres áreas. En primer lugar, analizaremos el significado de los cambios introducidos por Trump en la política exterior de EEUU. Por un lado, la política económica que abandona la globalización. Por el otro, el manejo de las fuerzas armadas a escala mundial. En segundo lugar analizaremos la política interna – reforma fiscal asimétrica, represión de las llamadas ‘minorías’ y la política de migración – que le ha dado un nuevo perfil a sectores de las capas medias y de la clase obrera. Por último, las relaciones entre EEUU y América latina. La llegada del nuevo inquilino en la Casa Blanca coincide con la ‘ola conservadora’ que atraviesa la región latinoamericana.
Capitalismo y geopolítica
Trump está cambiando el mundo. Tiene músculo militar y económico. El poderío de las armas que posee el arsenal de EEUU le da ventajas. La riqueza que posee alrededor del mundo le da resultados que todos envidian. Los observadores de las políticas del presidente Trump en el escenario mundial se hacen dos preguntas: ¿Qué hay detrás de Trump? ¿Tiene un objetivo estratégico?
En los últimos 40 años, el ‘establishment’ de EEUU y sus aliados (Europa occidental y Japón) se han movido hacia la construcción de lo que llaman un “Nuevo Orden Global”. Este movimiento lento pero seguro según sus arquitectos en las altas finanzas y en la banca es una respuesta necesaria ante el estancamiento de las tasas de crecimiento económico y la débil acumulación capitalista (inversiones).
El reordenamiento consiste básicamente en la redistribución de las responsabilidades que han caracterizado a las diferentes regiones en el mundo colonial e imperial de los últimos siglos. Es un cambio en la relación entre el centro del sistema capitalista y la periferia. El centro crece en la medida en que se alimenta de la periferia. La crisis del siglo XX determinó que el centro (que siempre cambia) tenía que profundizar la extracción de mas riquezas de la periferia. A mediano y largo plazos, la periferia tiene que aumentar su productividad y el centro tiene que extraer una porción más significativa de esa producción.
La ‘globalización’ favorece a los grandes capitales concentrados en corporaciones gigantes. Sus intereses monopolizan la producción, la distribución (transporte y medios de comunicación) y las nuevas tecnologías. En sus planes está contemplado sumar las corporaciones que han surgido en China Popular y pensaban hacer igual con Rusia. El ‘establishment’ tiene sus dudas sobre Pekín: su origen revolucionario muy reciente y su lealtad al Estado chino. Con Rusia la situación es aún menos segura por el nacionalismo (de mercado) de los gobiernos de Putin.
Trump tiene un proyecto que rompe con la estrategia globalizante. Propone un proyecto que mantiene a los capitalistas de EEUU a la cabeza del sistema interestatal (anti-global). El proyecto subordina a sus aliados, la ONU y pone fin a los tratados comerciales. Además, trata como ‘adversarios’ a China y Rusia.
Durante su campaña en 2016, Trump trató a China en forma despectiva. En cambio, se acercaba a Moscú. En cambio el ‘establishment’ veía a China como un amigo potencial y a Rusia como enemigo. El ‘establishment’ siempre ha visto a Trump con sospecha. Por un lado, su estilo desgreñado y arrogante. Por el otro, sus propuestas ‘nacionalistas’ que supuestamente privilegian a los capitalistas que invierten en EEUU. Trump alega que los ‘nacionalistas’ compiten en desventaja contra el sector dominante del ‘establishment’. Por esta misma razón considera que los tratados comerciales son contrarios a los intereses nacionales.
El gobierno de Trump publicó recientemente dos documentos con los lineamientos estratégicos para la Seguridad y para la Defensa del capitalismo norteamericano, respectivamente. La Estrategia para la Seguridad Nacional (ESN) augura problemas con “la re-emergencia de la rivalidad estratégica a largo plazo por quienes clasifica como potencias revisionistas”. La Estrategia para la Defensa Nacional (EDN) señala que “la rivalidad inter-estatal, no el terrorismo, es ahora nuestra preocupación principal en cuanto a la seguridad nacional de EEUU”.
Trump es la otra cara de la misma moneda. Es decir, de la misma oligarquía (establishment) que lucha por no perder su dominio sobre la economía mundial. Representa una facción del capital norteamericano que rechaza la idea de ser parte de un mundo globalizado. Quiere mantenerse como ‘primero entre pares’ (“America First”). Quiere regresar a un pasado idílico para garantizar la grandeza de EEUU (“Let’s Make America Great Again”).
Trump entre la oligarquía y la resistencia popular
El sistema capitalista mundial tiene como característica central la lucha de clases. En la medida en que el sistema se expande incorpora a más trabajadores en las relaciones de producción que generan crecientes ganancias y acumulación incesante. Al mismo tiempo, genera resistencia y conflictos. Otra característica del sistema capitalista es la aparición de Estados (con definición territorial) al servicio de la acumulación capitalista. La dirección de los Estados, en manos de burguesías nacionales, compiten por acaparar los recursos naturales, las fuerzas productivas y las rutas comerciales. En el caso de EEUU, después de la segunda guerra mundial asumió la hegemonía mundial sometiendo a los demás Estados a sus intereses de expansión global.
Los dos conflictos son concomitantes: La lucha de clases y las guerras entre Estados. Para mantener su hegemonía, EEUU tiene dificultades en tres planos distintos, relacionados con los conflictos que emergen de la expansión capitalista. En primer lugar, EEUU compite con otros Estados por la hegemonía. Para los teóricos marxistas, se refiere a la teoría del imperialismo. Para otros es el estudio de la geopolítica. Los indicadores de ambos enfoques señalan que la hegemonía norteamericana se debilita. Segundo, la lucha de clases a escala mundial tiende a agudizarse. Prueba de ello las constantes rebeliones de los trabajadores en todos los continentes del planeta. El tercer plano es lo que se refiere a la lucha de clases a lo interno de EEUU. A este punto nos referiremos a continuación.
En un año el presidente Trump ha tratado, con éxito relativo, de cumplir con sus propuestas electorales de campaña. Logró nombrar una cantidad significativa de jueces conservadores en el sistema judicial. Aprobó una reforma fiscal que redujo los impuestos a las grandes corporaciones y a los multimillonarios. Va en camino de aumentar el presupuesto militar en un 10 por ciento (70 mil millones de dólares). Por otro lado, no ha podido acabar con el programa de salud de su predecesor ni con las políticas migratorias. En 2018 promete dar inicio a las inversiones de trillones de dólares en la construcción de infraestructura en todo el país.
La reforma tributaria mantiene en línea a sus aliados más estrechos: La clase de los rentistas y empresarios millonarios. Más difícil será cumplir con sus promesas “populistas” de generar más empleo, frenar la inmigración de nuevos trabajadores y desmontar las regulaciones a las inversiones no sustentables.
Cuando llegó Trump a la Casa Blanca, hace poco más de un año, se encontró con un país con serios problemas. Aún tiene una economía estancada, un sistema político que tiene que refundarse y una cultura que cada vez es más excluyente. La sociedad norteamericana ha sido sacudida por una guerra civil, depresiones económicas, la exterminación de pueblos indígenas y un sistema que discrimina violentamente a sectores sociales por su origen étnico y de clase. El Estado norteamericano tiene fuertes contradicciones y los sectores subordinados viven en permanente guerra con una oligarquía gobernante que logra mantenerse en el poder con una dosis de persuasión y otra más de represión.
En la segunda mitad del siglo XX la economía de EEUU, basada en la producción industrial-militar, creció a tasas superiores al 3 por ciento anual. A fines del siglo pasado entró en una etapa de lento crecimiento y el ‘establishment’ buscó fórmulas – tanto en el interior como en el extranjero – para frenar la caída de la tasa de ganancias de las corporaciones. Las protestas de los sectores más vulnerables fueron reprimidas y neutralizadas con la introducción de un arma usada por los ingleses en China en el siglo XIX: Las drogas.
Mientras tanto, la política neoliberal impulsó la desindustrialización, que aumentó el empleo informal y la pobreza. Los cambios provocaron la ‘recesión’ de 2007-08 dejando millones de familias sin vivienda ni empleo. La crisis golpeó los bolsillos de los trabajadores y de las capas medias. Además, socavó la sensación de seguridad en sectores amplios de la población generando descontento con el sistema político. Como consecuencia, surgieron grupos sociales que añoraban el pasado destruido por las políticas neoliberales.
En la presente coyuntura, esta situación se refleja de manera contradictoria. Por un lado, la protesta se expresa políticamente en una reacción contra las políticas de globalización (menos empleos) y a favor de un retorno al pasado. Este sentimiento se cuadró con el mensaje del especulador de bienes raíces, Donald Trump. El nuevo inquilino de la Casa Blanca promete revivir el ‘sueño americano’ creando nuevos empleos industriales (políticas “proteccionistas”, aún cuando no sean sustentables), levantando ‘muros’ contra los inmigrantes y reprimiendo los grupos históricamente discriminados.
Trump tiene dos problemas para los cuales aparentemente no tiene solución: Por un lado, las demandas de los trabajadores, las reivindicaciones de los excluidos y las aspiraciones de los inmigrantes. Es una lucha permanente para encontrar la legitimidad del sistema. Por el otro, Trump tiene que decidir si descarta a los viejos segmentos de la oligarquía ya improductivos para sumar a los sectores más innovadores. EEUU experimenta en estos momentos un período de turbulencia interna que puede generar tres resultados. Por un lado, al no encontrar una solución a la crisis, puede surgir un régimen fascista catastrófico (populismo oligarca con una base social que reivindica el pasado idílico). Por el otro, la consolidación del ‘establishment’ con su proyecto globalizante cuyo resultado final no es seguro. La otra opción es el surgimiento de un movimiento social en EEUU, desde las bases, que logre promover políticas que generen una economía incluyente capaz de crear empleos productivos, que étnica histórica. incorpore a los inmigrantes y que supere el odio explícito en la discriminación
¿Cambiará EEUU su estrategia fracasada en América latina?
La política exterior de EEUU con Trump en la Casa Blanca descansa sobre la consigna de volver a la grandeza del pasado. La política interior pretende regresar a una alianza ‘populista’ entre una burguesía nacional debilitada y una masa de trabajadores castigada por las políticas ‘globales’ (relocalización de fábricas y pérdida de empleos industriales). Mientras tanto, existía cierta incertidumbre con relación a la política de Trump frente a América latina. Hacia México y Cuba, Washington sigue una línea histórica trazada en función de su política interna: Migración de mano de obra barata mexicana y la cuestión cubana. Con relación a Venezuela, prima el temor en el ‘establishment’ de perder los ricos yacimientos de petróleo.
Aparentemente todo se aclaró a principios de febrero de 2018 con la gira por la región del secretario de Estado, Rex Tillerson. Preparó una adenda a la Doctrina Monroe en preparación de su visita a cinco capitales de la región. El encargado de dirigir las relaciones exteriores de Washington le dio coherencia a los múltiples ‘tweets’ del presidente Trump. En primer lugar, dejó claro que los principios establecidos por EEUU hace dos siglos, estampados en la Doctrina Monroe, están vigentes: El hemisferio occidental le pertenece a Washington.
Le envió un mensaje a China: EEUU es el único ‘predador’ en la región. Señaló que “América Latina no necesita nuevos poderes imperiales. El modelo de desarrollo que ofrece China es una reminiscencia del pasado. No tiene que ser el futuro de este hemisferio”.
En segundo lugar, Tillerson reivindicó el derecho de EEUU de intervenir militarmente en la región. El llamado ‘poder suave’ de Barak Obama fue engavetado y salió a relucir el ‘poder duro’. “En la historia de Venezuela a menudo son los militares que se dan cuenta de que no pueden servir a los ciudadanos… e intervienen”. Por su lado, el senador Marco Rubio declaró que “el mundo apoyaría a las fuerzas armadas de Venezuela si deciden proteger a las personas y restaurar la democracia mediante la eliminación de un dictador “.
En tercer lugar, el secretario de Estado reactivó la OEA y logró aprobar una resolución diplomática contra Venezuela. Le dejó al Grupo de Lima la tarea de agitar la consigna de la intervención militar en Venezuela.
EEUU tiene tres planes de contingencia para deshacerse del proceso revolucionario bolivariano. Plan A: Promover un golpe militar desde adentro llamando a un levantamiento del Ejército Bolivariano. Plan B: Movilizar los ejércitos de Colombia, Perú y Brasil (con el apoyo logístico de Panamá, Holanda y Argentina) para copar las fronteras venezolanas. Plan C: Lanzar a las fuerzas aéreas, navales y terrestres del Comando Sur en un ataque ‘total’ contra Venezuela.
En Colombia EEUU tiene nueve bases preparadas para atacar. Hay dos bases militares del Comando Sur en las comunidades de Vichada y Leticia, en el Amazonas. Estas forman un arco con las de Palanquero y Tolemaida (altiplano). Otras en Malambo, (costa atlántica), Apiay y Larandia, (llanuras orientales), Saravena, (en el río Arauca) y por último, en la Bahía Málaga (costa del Pacífico). Además, en el cerco hay tropas de asalto de EEUU en Aruba y Curazao, que opera con la base de Palmerola, Honduras.
En la década de 1970, EEUU aplicó el Plan A en Chile, derrocando el gobierno de la Unidad Popular y asesinando al presidente Allende. En la década de 1980, activó el Plan C y el Comando Sur invadió a Panamá poniendo fin al régimen militar del general Noriega. En el siglo XXI introdujo una modalidad nueva dando ‘golpes’ parlamentarios en Paraguay y Brasil.
Tillerson mostró todas las cartas que tiene en la mano el presidente Trump en su juego con América latina. Por un lado, la decisión de intervenir, incluso usando la fuerza militar para proteger sus intereses estratégicos (energía). Por el otro, rechazar las intenciones de Pekín de establecer una relación comercial dominante con América latina. Sin embargo, a Tillerson le faltó presentar la otra mitad de la ecuación: ¿Qué ofrece EEUU a cambio? Las oligarquías latinoamericanas dependen de Washington para mantenerse en el poder. En los últimos 200 años exportan mano de obra barata y materias primas al mercado norteamericano y, en cambio, reciben armas y asesoría militar.
En Texas, el secretario de Estado ofreció los valores que supuestamente comparte EEUU con la región. No serán suficientes. Las oligarquías de la región tienen que negociar con los otros sectores sociales que también tienen intereses. Todo indica que las relaciones entre ambas regiones se encuentran en una encrucijada: ¿Aprovechará China la coyuntura? ¿Aprovechará América latina la oportunidad para independizarse? ¿Cambiará EEUU su crónica de una estrategia fracasada?
~ ~ ~
Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web
Running Iran’s blockade: Reporters Without Borders is helping this Iranian Sufi online magazine — this is from the English page of their mainly Farsi publication — to stay online despite a government block.
#CollateralFreedom: RSF unblocks three more censored sites
by Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
To mark this year’s World Day Against Cyber-Censorship, celebrated on March 12, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is unveiling another round in its Operation #Collateral Freedom, in which it restores access to online media outlets that have been blocked in their own countries.
Blocking access to the websites of independent media outlets is one of the most widely used strategies by information predators. RSF has been combatting this practice since 2015 by creating “mirror” sites, that is to say, exact copies of the original sites.
After unblocking 10 sites in 2015, six in 2016 and five in 2017, RSF is restoring access to three more sites to mark 2018’s World Day Against Cyber-Censorship. So, in all, RSF has restored access to 24 news websites.
The Burundian weekly news website Iwacu is one of the three beneficiaries of this year’s operation. It has been one of Burundi’s few remaining independent media outlets since 2015, when radio stations were closed on President Pierre Nkurunziza’s orders. But, like other news sites, it is now inaccessible in Burundi. Since 10 October 2017, anyone trying to access it arrives at a blank page. They think there is a problem with the web address or even that the site has been shut down.
The second of this year’s unblocked sites is Mowatin (“Citizen”), an independent online magazine that Mohamed al Fazari, a journalist, blogger and human rights defender, founded in Oman in June 2013 shortly after being released from prison. He had been arrested along with other activists in June 2012 and charged with “gathering with the intent of rioting” and “insulting the Sultan.” After the original site was blocked in Saudi Arabia and Oman in 2017, a new one was created that is currently accessible in Oman but not in Saudi Arabia.
The third site is Majzooban Nor, the only source of independent news and information about Iran’s Sufi community. Journalists who work with this media outlet are often targeted by the Iranian regime. In February 2018, the site published reports and video of police violence at some of the protests taking place in Iran. Several of its reporters were badly beaten by police, to the point that two of them spent several days in a coma. The site has been the target of several cyber-attacks and has not been accessible within Iran since 2011. The Iranian authorities have been targeting Sufis for the past decade.
Mirroring — how RSF unblocks sites
To unblock access to a censored site, RSF uses a technique known as “mirroring” in which it creates a “mirror” or duplicate site that is constantly synchronized in real time with the original and is hosted by a major Internet service company such as Fastly, Amazon or OVH. It would be very hard for governments that are information predators to block access to the mirrors without cutting themselves off from all the services provided by these Internet giants, thereby sustaining major collateral damage. Hence the operation’s name – #Collateral Freedom.
Abel Zamorano, who was suplente for the now imprisoned former magistrate Alejandro Moncada Luna — a vacancy that was never filled by a new appointment — has accepted a case in which the Supreme Court would affect the legislative process by which its membership is composed. There appears to be a majority of legislators who say that violates the constitutional separation of powers. Photo by the Supreme Court.
Showdown in the National Assembly
by Eric Jackson
The sun comes up on Monday, March 12 with confrontation in the air. The day before, protesters from the Limpiemos Panama movement started by television comedy and satire producer Ubaldo Davis Sr. were out in front of the legislature. The body’s president, Cambio Democrático legislator Yanibel Ábrego, has attempted to obstruct visibility of the protest by posting Panamanan flags along the fence facing the legislative park, but as the protest continued that just served to concentrate the crowd on the side street, compacting it so as through cameras it appeared to be all the larger.
Ábrego is one of a majority of deputies named in a request for a criminal investigation by Comptroller General Federico Humbert, for abuses of circuit funds during the Martinelli years. The general scheme was to funnel these funds, which ordinarily are subject to audits, through the neighborhood governments — juntas comunales — of compliant representantes. The financial transactions of a junta comunal are not subject to audits, this being one of the central quirks of its time in the 1972 political patronage deal between representantes and the military dictatorship that is the constitution that still rules the way that Panama governs itself. There is a public demand to prosecute all of the legislators who so routed their circuit funds for money laundering, and some of them whose expenditures did become known by other means for embezzlement. But the prosecutors of the Public Ministry do not have nearly enough forensic accountants to handle such a volume of cases and it’s doubtful that the legislature would give them the funds to close that gap. Given that President Varela’s brother is one of the deputies named in connection with the abuse, it’s doubtfult that the president would ask for such funding.
Instead, the National Assembly has on its morning agenda the selection of a new Credentials Commmittee whose membership reflects the constitutional mandate that its partisan composition roughly reflects that of the legislature as a whole. Talks toward that end broke down and the president’s 16-member Panameñista caucus (of 72 legislators in all) asy that it will not participate in the voting or take any positions on a reconstituted Credentials Committee.
The Panameñistas are counting on a Supreme Court stay. At the end of February they had filed an “amparo de garantias” — a constitutional challenge — to a resolution to dissolve the old Credentials Committee, in which the Panameñistas had four of nine votes, and acting magistrate Abel Zamorano accepted the case. Under ordinary procedure, that means that there can be no more action on the challenged procedure and the high court as a nine-member body sets aside all other business for the moment to decide if the case shall proceed. But that has not happened and there appears to be no schedule for it to happen. The plan, so it seems, is to suspend the legislature’s action and let any judicial consideration of the matter slide until it becomes moot.
Whatever happens, President Varela’s last two nominees for the high court were rejected and he doesn’t have the votes for new ones unless some compromise is reached. If the Zamorano stall works, then on July 1 the legislature has its organizational meeting for its last year in office, part of which is the new committee assignments. The Panameñistas don’t have the votes to get more than their share on the Credentials Committee at that point.
So what’s the big deal about this committee? It’s the body that would handle the impeachment of any president, cabinet member or high court magistrate. In the end the plenum of the legislature would have to accept anything that the Credentials Committee approves, but if the PRD and Cambio Democratico caucuses unanimously agree, between the two of them they have more than the 48-vote super-majority for a conviction.
President Varela bellows that he will assert his authority. PRD leader Pedro Miguel González bellows that the legislature will not be blackmailed. Acting magistrate Zamorano may have issued his preliminary ruling, but he and his colleagues are holding their tongues since then — for one thing, their own credibility is down in the pits with the legislature’s, and for another they are very short-handed even if business continues more or less as usual. The usual arguments about separation of powers have been by legislators annoyed by a strong presidency increasing its powers, but he judicial branch is also supposed to be separate and autonomous and its authority to decide legislative committees is being challenged as an intrusion into the affairs of another branch of government.
Looming over all of this is the fact that three witnesses and a paper trail say that President Varela took millions from the Brazil-based criminal corporation Odebrecht, and that after initial flat denials Varela changed his story to say that it was a campaign contribution. It’s the making of an impeachment case if the votes are there. But where are the votes in the legislature? Where are the votes on the high court? If push comes to shove, whose orders will the police follow?
We are about to witness another showdown in a battle among three much-weakened branches of the Panamanian government.
The current composition of the Supreme Court
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
The last time the system changed. White House photo.
Changes in the political system
by Marco A. Gandásegui, hijo
What happens in the transition between the expired system and the consolidation of the new system?
Panamanian society is asking for a change of the political system. We can say that the same thing is happening on the world level. That includes countries with supposedly solid institutions — like the United States — going through a moment when systemic political changes are the order of the day.
Political systems are always changing. They adjust to accommodate the changes in social relations, in ways to produce and distribute wealth. When they can’t adjust they are transformed. So what happens in the transition between the expired system and the consolidation of the new system?
In Panama’s case, in the middle of the 20th century the political system passed through significant changes at two moments. First, the 1968 military coup transformed the political order, recognized the news social reality and consolidated an economy in which it tried to regulate relations among the producers. The new order followed the pattern recommended by the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL), which promoted economic growth based on “import substitution.” It created a model with a strong dose of planning.
It was not a novel model, as it has been applied in most countries. In Panama the notions of a “new order” (regulation) and planning met very strong opposition from the conservative sectors — the financiers and speculators — who were counting on the grand caudillo, Arnulfo Arias. This politician was not really to the taste of the ruling classes — the oligarchy — but they knew that he was sure to win any electoral contest. The conflict between the liberals and conservatives was resolved in 1968 by the military coup that introduced a “change of the political system.”
The liberals and their allies, who had been marching propped up by the bayonets of the Guardia Nacional, failed at the consolidation of a new political system. Under the leadership of General Omar Torrijos, the people recovered full sovereignty over the territory of the Canal Zone. However, the nation could not consolidate a new political system due to the contradictions among the popular forces, the inflexible opposition of the conservatives, and also US intervention. The two elections convened by the military — so that bourgeois factions could compete for governmental power — failed.
Again, the end of the 80s produced what could be called a “catastrophic tie” on the political field. Despite Torrijos’s accomplishment, his successors could not politically capitalize them. Morever, the United States now promoted a new development model that discarded planning and favored neoliberal deregulation. To dismantle Noriega’s military experiment Washington — Bush Sr. — opted for an armed US invasion. The United States changed the political system and within a few years installed a new regime that deregulated the economy, privatized the state sector and made the worker-employer relationship flexible.
Despite the full incorporation of the transit economy — the Panama Canal — into the formation of wealth at the start of this century, the elevated GDP growth rates and the apparent success of the electoral games, the political system has not been able to consolidate itself. The system enjoys no credibility, it projects no confidence and has reached intolerable levels of corruption. All social sectors talk about and have begun to demand a political “system change.” Is Panama at the threshold of a change similar to the ones that were already experienced in 1968 or 1989?
All of the elements that justify change are present. We have the corruption, the bankruptcy of the productive sector and the consolidation of power in an oligarchy of rentiers. What we lack is the actor that was present in 1968 (the liberals and their armed element) and in 1989 (conservatives and the armed element of the US Southern Command). Worse yet, there isn’t an actor — a social class, a social group or a political party — with a renovation proposal or a project for the country.
Lacking little for the 2019 electoral tournament, there is boredom in many social sectors. They think it’s going to be more of the same. One social sector raises as its flag an originating constituent assembly. It is known that the person who calls the Constituent Assembly orients it according to their own interests. There are three possibilities. The first is that the government (including the opposition parties) summon it: again more of the same. The second, a fracture in the system that allows new sectors to compete for the domination of the assembly. The third is that a collapse of the government will allow sectors that are now unknown to take the lead and turn a Constituent Assembly into the prelude to a change in the political system.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
multimedia graphics and note copyright Kermit Nourse
WC+ is my latest project that involves a hand painted watercolor inset on one of my own photos. I don’t think I will ever dominate watercolor but this is my attempt to record Panamanian life in a colorful way.
Also, I wish to give thanks to my colleague Manuel Montilla for his support and inspiration to do watercolor in the first place. I would also like to thank Solon Javier from Gama Print in Panama for doing such a good job printing these photos on watercolor paper. Please send me your comments, good or bad so that I can decide what to do next with watercolor, a medium that can drive any artist crazy.
~ ~
WC+ es mi último proyecto que implica una acuarela pintada a mano en una de mis propias fotos. Creo que nunca voy a dominar la acuarela, pero este es mi intento de grabar la vida panameña de una manera colorida.
Además, deseo dar las gracias a mi colega Manuel Montilla por su apoyo e inspiración para hacer acuarela en primer lugar. También me gustaría agradecer a Solon Javier de Gama Print en Panamá por hacer un trabajo tan bueno imprimiendo estas fotos en papel de acuarela. Por favor, envíenme sus comentarios, buenos o malos para que yo pueda decidir que hacer a continuación con la acuarela, una técnica que puede volver a cualquier artista loco.
El Mercado Abasto
La Reina de Río Alejandro
El Visitante / The Visitor
Colon City is mighty pretty
The Unphotographed
Hecha tu cuento
Rollos / Rollers
Colón lucha — vida corazón Colón
Cuando la fula pasaba
La Casa Lau
Cell call
La cartera / The purse
It’s a Colon gal buay
La niña guaymí
Tomates / Tomatos
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information. Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web.
It’s not that Patricia Quinn, an actress whose roots trace through Panama, is rehearsing for a werewolf movie. It’s that she befriends wolves. The last time she lived in Panama, about a decade ago, she also played an important role in thwarting a Canadian company’s plans to capture dolphins in Panamanian waters and export them to dolphin parks around the world. Photo by Caleb Quinn.
Patricia Quinn: the #MeToo moment and
the importance of what people are taught
Patricia Quinn, interviewed by Eric Jackson
What follows is a conversation between two people of different generations who have the old Canal Zone among their several formative experiences. Patricia Quinn has had a long theatrical career, including film, television and stage acting, a bit of teaching, a bit of directing and office jobs on the ways up and in between. Perhaps she is best known for playing Alice in the movie Alice’s Restaurant, but that’s a small part of her career, which also included, well after that, coming back to some roots and directing a play for the Theatre Guild of Ancon. The occasion in the first International Women’s Day after the entertainment world and beyond were rocked by terrible sexual harassment scandals. Those abuses go way back, but Quinn’s perspective is not so much of a Hollywood Hell but of a certain minority of men who will make life hellish for those who don’t stand up to them, especially for those who have not been taught to defend their rights and dignity.
EJ: It always seemed to me that the subculture of theater people was fairly promiscuous. One might say let everyone have their fun, except that it appears that first of all the culture attracts those who would exploit it, and second that the higher up one goes and the more money is involved the abuses of power become very much worse. But then, people more cultured than myself have noted that my sense of taste is located entirely in my mouth. Where would you say my impressions are right, and are wrong, and entirely miss major issues?
PQ: We begin with education. “You Have To Be Carefully Taught,” from the musical “The King and I” says is all profoundly.
There were a few occasions when I was treated as a sex object in New York City. Once I was chased around a desk (for real!) by the editor Mel Mandel of Downbeat Magazine while fulfilling a “day job” while I studied with the great Stella Adler. Not an actor he!
Another more aggressive occurrence came while typing in the CBS pool, being assigned to a Playhouse 90 production of Hemingway’s “For Whom The Bell Tolls” and its director John Frankenheimer. He told me to go across the street and get him a coffee. I said no, automatically. I’m here to type. He fired me. However, that night he somehow found my apartment address and showed up banging at my door with a bottle of booze. I refused him admittance.
The next morning a hero showed up in the form of producer Fred Coe, who called to tell me I was to be his secretary on the production, and he was sending his own secretary to Frankenheimer. That was the difference in being taught to respect and defend women or seeing them as objects to be manipulated.
On a film in which I played Belle Starr I was told to get naked and refused. The threat came immediately: do it or lose the part to Sally Kellerman. I replied they could go ahead as long as I was paid and if she could fit the custom corsets! I stayed. And the reason is that I was never frightened into saying yes. I knew who I was. And I didn’t want to be famous, which helped a lot.
However, as a seven-year-old watching a Roy Rogers matinee at the Balboa Theatre, a man sat next to me and exposed himself. At a War Bonds Fair at the Balboa Gym, my brother Bruce was then six and I was five and we were separated from our older brother. We began to walk home to Barnaby Street when a GI came out of the bushes and actually said, and I will never forget, “You show me yours, and I’ll show you mine.” He, too, was no actor.
And, too, of course, being followed by a man in car as I was walking to school.
EJ: The laws about discrimination and hostile workplaces have been around for many years now, which I suppose is why Mr. Weinstein had to settle all those lawsuits instead of scoff at them. Then the money people took notice. But you were working as a professional before those laws went into effect. What was it like? And if the laws changed but powerful people’s behavior did not, what does that say about not only the industry but American culture?
PQ: Global culture, in truth. Some take it for granted, but America’s power is its freedom found in its amendments. We are considered equals. Again, the mother or father must instill those inalienable rights in both their boys and girls.
EJ: You are a member of the Screen Actors Guild. What do you consider the high and low points of the union’s defense of its members against these sorts of abuses?
PQ: I am now an honorable member (non-dues paying) of SAG/AFTRA due to the length of time as a member. I think the unions, as I know them, are protective of women’s rights.
EJ: A pretty common male slur across all professions where there were glass ceilings was that with every successful woman there was some guy asking who she had to sleep with to get ahead. And you read about actresses who were forced into degrading situations, had some success, and internalized all that stuff, sometimes to the point of self-hatred for being frauds of sorts. Have you seen the casualties from such stuff, psychological and otherwise? What damage do you see that sort of doubt having done to individuals, to the entertainment industry and to American society?
PQ: I see no more suffering than is printed in the news or on TV. Once again, women with ambition to become movie stars – and men, too – may go too far with their dreams and forget themselves, selling short. In any profession, continue to be honorable and self-loving. It’s not easy, but it’s part of living an enlightened life journey.
EJ: Has the increased number of women in positions of power in the film industry changed things very much?
PQ: I believe so. Change comes with persistence. I believe the high school students will persist. They have so many more options available to them — internet, social media, increased awareness and obviously, determination to change things.
EJ: #MeToo gets pigeonholed as a “women’s issue.” But like domestic violence, the solution is very much a men’s issue. And so many of us who were used to old rules can look back with shudder and regret. So what, to you, is the meaning of all of this for men? And should it matter what men think, anyway?
PQ: Men like Fred Coe are the majority. They protect women. And as a grandmother of a 24-year-old college student, I just began a FB group “Grandmothers United” to encourage others to call their congressperson and governor to oppose assault weapons being sold to the public. One argument against my goal has been that the public needs these weapons in the event of a government takeover. I don’t see that in my crystal ball, but I have to understand their fears. We have to rid ourselves of fear and hate and practice love and compassion to the best of our hearts’ abilities.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
There was little opposition and only a few questions were addressed at the committee hearings. Photo by the Asamblea Nacional.
Medical marijuana extract sails through, LGBT rights bashed on the same day
by Eric Jackson
Unless President Varela has an objection and issues a veto, people with a variety of ailments will soon be able to get prescriptions for liquid cannabis extract. At other time and places this issue has been the stuff of bitter battles, generally with fundamentalist preachers and “get tough on crime” demagouges in the opposition, with patients, physicians and potheads hoping to get a foot in the door in favor. But those battles have been fought and people with conditions like glaucoma and epilepsy have been able to get some relief without any noteworthy crime waves as a result.
In Panama the pressure to legalize medical marijuana has come from patients and physicians. The legislation was sponsored by José Luis Castillo, president of the National Assembly’s Labor Committee. Early in the legislative process the committee received an opinion from the United Nations drug control agency, warning that medical marijuana leads people to disregard the dangers of smoking marijuana for recreational use. The Colegio Nacional de Farmaceuticos, the nation’s main pharmacists’ group, did not object to the law but opined that under present laws liquid marijuana extract could be put on the same schedule with a number of other drugs that are not legally available without a prescription. Psychiatrists dismissed stereotypical fears, while other physicians who treat more than 100 different conditions supported the change. The big boost, however, was from parents of children who have severe epileptic seizures that are best controlled with cannabis.
Was it to allay fears or to distribute economic benefits? Committee member Crispiano Adames got assurances that liquid cannabis will not be legally produced in Panama — no cash crop for farmers, no local manufacturing, another line of business for the medicine importers. And on March 6 the legislation unanimously sailed through the Labor Committee before a large crowd, none of whom seemed to be protesters. It is expected to pass the full National Assembly without a problem and be sent to the president for his signature or veto.
“Queers and dykes have no rights: grasp that, deviant.” A comment from La Estrella by one of the supports of the religious right’s hate march.
That afternoon a coalition of church group held their “March Against Gender Ideology.” So what is “gender ideology?” It’s a right-wing caricature, not an actual belief system that anyone advocates by that name. But central to the caricature is that notion that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people have rights. The hot-button issue was whether same-sex couples have a right to marry, which is before Panama’s Supreme Court and which was recently supported in a decision by the Inter-American Human Rights Court. That latter court is by treaty the tribunal of last resort for criminal cases coming out of Panama, but its decisions in civil cases are persuasive rather than binding in Panama.
With buses coming in from churches and church schools from several provinces, a crowd of several thousand people was mobilized. The Evangelical politicians who are running for office as independents or trying to put a new party on the ballot emphasized that it really wasn’t a march against anybody or anything — something belied by the signs and banners that people were carrying. The Catholic hierarchy just limited it to a restatement of church doctrine that marriage is about a man and a woman. Some of the Catholics expressed disappointment with President Varela, who is also Catholic, for his position that people of the LGBT communities have rights that the government ought to respect. The march was less well attended than the same coalition’s prior events.
Meanwhile, the balance of public commentary was shifting against the religious groups. The anti-gay rhetoric was as strident as ever, but there was less of it and there was more criticism of it than in the past. Much of the criticism of the protesters’ position was also quite strident. This march still outnumbered last year’s Pride march — which was held on a rainy day — but not by all that much. The high court will make its decision and the issue will not end with that, but at a glance it seems that Panamanians are less polarized and emotional about it.
One of the gay rights movement’s more positive counterpoints to the march.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
