Did_the_Neoliberalism_in_El_Salvador_Failed_

SHIFT FROM THE RIGHT TO THE LEFT IDEOLOGY IN EL SALVADOR. DID THE NEOLIBERAL MODEL FAIL' In El Salvador, according to the Antonio Saca’s Administration, Local Governments and Legislative Assembly Evaluation Survey 2009, published by IUDOP (Universitary Institute of Public Opinion), 55 percent (%) of the people decided who they wanted to be the next President one year before the elections. After 20 years of neoliberalism government, and for the first time in El Salvador’s history, a left-wing political party won. Was this because people wanted to end with neoliberalism' Did they believe that by changing government, their situation would be better' This paper is orientated to analyze these questions. DESCRIPTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN Presidential elections were held in El Salvador on March 15th 2009. The result: Mauricio Funes (FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front) was declared winner, ending with 20 years of right wing ideology government. The candidate of the political party in the government (ARENA Nationalist Republican Alliance) was Rodrigo Avila. According to the Electoral Supreme Tribunal, the Institution in charge of the electoral process in El Salvador, FMLN received the 51.3 percent (%) of the valid votes, while ARENA received 48.7 percent (%). The elections were held only between the two major political parties, and FMLN won in the first round. The other 3 small political parties quit the competition. ARENA was the political party in the government from 1989 to 2009 and it adopted a neoliberal system of government, which included open markets, privatization of banks, telecommunications and water, as well as dollarization, influencing the national economy and hence, the individual economy in Salvadorans. According to the Politic Constitution of El Salvador (Art. 81) the electoral campaign is allowed 4 months before the presidential elections. Nevertheless, FMLN declared Mauricio Funes as their presidential candidate on September 28th 2007 (almost 2 years before the elections), causing an immediate reaction on ARENA, who, just a few hours later, named Ana Vilma de Escobar (Vice-President of El Salvador at that time) as their presidential candidate for 2009. This caused an almost 2 year electoral pre campaign. Ana Vilma de Escobar was no more than the needed name to publish with the purpose of the announcement made by FMLN not to have a greater impact on the braking news. In the end, there was an internal election process inside ARENA to choose the candidate, who was Rodrigo Avila. Public opinion surveys made by various institutions (IUDOP, Political preferences survey 2008) during this time always gave Mauricio Funes the advantage over Rodrigo Avila, and showed the feeling of dissatisfaction on people toward the government of ARENA, expressing their perception about the worsen of economy and a need of path change in the country. INQUIRY Did ARENA lose the presidential elections because the neoliberal model failed in El Salvador' JUSTIFICATION Relevance With a per capita income of $2,850 (2007 census), El Salvador is considered by the World Bank to be a lowermiddle- income country. It achieved notable stability and economic growth in the 1990s following the Salvadoran government’s embrace of a neoliberal economic model, cutting government spending, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and adopting the dollar as its national currency. El Salvador is now one of the most open economies in the world. After posting strong growth rates in the 1990s, however, the country registered only 2 percent (%) growth from 2000-2004 and 3.6 percent (%) growth from 2005-2008 (El Salvador Central Bank) While El Salvador’s economy has priced better than some other nations in the hemisphere, the country’s growth rates have not been high enough to produce remarkable improvements in the standards of living of the country’s 7.1 million people. With 40 percent (%) of the population living in poverty and more than 25 percent (%) reportedly feeling they must migrate abroad in search of work, the average Salvadoran household has not benefitted from neoliberalism. Dollarization increased the cost of living while its primary benefits, lower interest rates and easier access to capital markets, have not resulted on the whole decline in poverty levels. Between 1989 and 2004, poverty levels increased from 47 percent (%) to 51 percent (%.) Additionally, the benefits of stable economic growth have not been equitably distributed. After having been immersed into an almost 2 year electoral campaign, which ended up in a shift from a right ideology Government to a left ideology Government, it is necessary to know what really happened. Was it a fail of neoliberal model' Was it just the expected result regarding the tendency of the process of left ideology governments conquering Latin America' Or did Salvadoran people just wanted a shift on the country’s path' Practical implications After the shift of Government in El Salvador, very little or none formal research has been done in order to find the cause of the result of the presidential election held in March 2009. This paper is to analyze the reason for people to decide they needed such a change in the system of government. OBJECTIVES General objective • To analyze the reason of the shift of government in El Salvador during the Presidential Elections held in March 2009. Specific objectives • To analyze whether the unemployment, economy, dollarization, corruption and privatization were determinant in people’s decision vote during the Presidential Elections held in March 2009. • To analyze the impact of neoliberal policies in the national and individual economy.