Last night, Argentina rang in Democracy and Human Rights Day, the 29th anniversary of its return to democracy after the military dictatorship as well as the 64th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, with a flashy outdoor extravaganza in the capital, the centrepiece of which was President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s address.

Fireworks over Plaza de Mayo (Photo by Helena Andell)

Artists, political figures, and activists gathered before large crowds in Buenos Aires’ Plaza de Mayo for what the government named the “Popular Homeland” festival. The event was held on three stages in the capital, broadcast upon large screens, and replicated throughout the country in smaller events. Organisers estimate that 400,000 people attended in Buenos Aires and 400,000 more elsewhere in Argentina.

President Fernández took the opportunity to address the country, touching on the hot topic of judicial independence, foreign relations, activism, and the memory of her late husband and predecessor, Néstor Kirchner. “It is necessary that [the judicial system] is independent, not only from political power, but also from the economic power of corporations. I want full, deep democracy, committed and without privileges.” Her remarks were generally interpreted as a veiled jab at the civil court which chose to extend Grupo Clarín’s injunction against the controversial Media Law just last Friday. “The people are tired,” she continued. “That is why we need a justice system that serves the people, that is less corporative.”

She invoked absent political allies, saying of late former President Kirchner, “He not only left us with convictions but also gave each Argentine life, never tiring.” Of her foreign counterparts, the president gave a nod to Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff and expressed best wishes for Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s successful cancer treatment.

Finished on a valiant tone: “I posit that what is indispensable to have 29 years of democracy, much more so 200 or 300, is popular unity. Know that they do not come through this government or this president: they come through social conquests.” A citizen in the crowd shouted, “Strength, president!” and she responded, “I have all the strength you give me. I will not let up if you do not let up.”

Earlier in the program, the Argentine leader awarded individuals who have made notable contributions to human rights the Azucena Villaflor Prize, named after a founding member of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo. Recipients included playwright Griselda Gambaro, journalist Víctor Hugo Morales, veteran Edgardo Esteban, orchestral director Daniel Baremboin, poet Juan Gelman, and artist León Ferrari, among others.

Live music in front of Casa Rosada (Photo by Helena Andell)

Argentine musical legends such as Charly García and Fito Páez featured with songs referred allegorically to human rights violations suffered during the last dictatorship. The military band from the Regimiento de Granaderos a Caballo and Choque Urbano collaborated on a cumbia interpretation of the national anthem. Dance group Fuerza Bruta succeeded in coaxing the head of state herself into participating briefly in their routine. Singer-songwriter Ignacio Copani, rock musician Fena Della Maggiora, actress Alejandra Darín, singer-songwriter Víctor Heredia, and percussion group La Bomba de Tiempo were along those also included in the line-up.

Today, Venezuela’s presidential elections will determine if incumbent Hugo Chávez will govern the country for a third term, the completion of which would mark 20 consecutive years in office, or if Henrique Capriles Radonski will inaugurate a new chapter in Venezuelan history. Chávez stands upon a socialist platform of extensive social programmes funded in part by the nationally-run oil industry. Capriles characterises himself as “centre-left” and proposes free-market economic policies as well as social programmes.

The implications for Venezuela’s political future weigh on the minds of its neighbour to the south. Who do Argentines think will win? Who do they favour? What would Chávez’s re-election mean for Argentina? What kind of leader would Capriles be? There are few bland opinions on the matter.

Photos by Athena Feldshon

Alejandra Ariovich, 37, paediatrician, Buenos Aires

Chávez came to power because Venezuela has a history of corrupt presidents who cast aside a very important part of the Venezuelan population. Chávez has made mistakes but he’s also been right. He listened to a sector of the people, made interesting social policies, and on an international level, he’s made important policies within South America. At the moment, Capriles hasn’t thought through a model for the country; he’s only succeeded in opposing Chávez.

Daniel Belzer, 54, systems engineer, Buenos Aires

It seems to me like Latin America is copying [Chávez’s] model, a model that’s died across the world; it died in Cuba; it died in Russia; it died in Germany. They’re copying a model here that doesn’t have any possibility of success. The best thing that could happen to Latin America would be if Chávez loses. Venezuela has the fortune – that Argentina doesn’t: that Chávez has cancer and he doesn’t have much time left. Here, we haven’t been so lucky.

Rafael Mejía, 26, film student, El Salvador

It sucks. The people in Venezuela don’t have freedom because Chávez is a fucked up guy who wants to control his people. If he wins, it will mean the same thing it’s meant for years. Nothing will change. President Kirchner [sic] is becoming like him. From what I’ve heard, she wants a Venezuela/Argentina in which she’ll be president forever and ever. But I think the people are stronger; the masses can overcome him. We need peace!

Juan Fafian, 80, retired shopkeeper, Buenos Aires

Chávez is a very special character. I don’t like him very much; he’s too authoritarian, too crazy. Obviously there’s a big influence – not only an influence, a great agreement – between the government here and the government there. So if Chávez wins I don’t think the situation in Argentina would improve. But if the opposition wins, I think the Argentine government would find itself a little uncomfortable. You’d see a certain lack of trust, as much with him as here.

Esther Rivadeneira, 65, parapsychologist, Buenos Aires

I have all the hope in my heart that the opposition wins and that Chávez doesn’t. Venezuela is a beautiful country, but run by a terrible person. He’s dark. He wants to take control, to move the masses, to divide the poor and the powerful. No, no, no. And Mrs. Kirchner is Chávez’ daughter. If the other candidate wins, us Argentines will be even stronger to fight this woman who wants to run our lives and make her leave. Capriles, Capriles, Capriles, yes, yes, yes!

President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (courtesy of Wikipedia)

When Cristina Fernández de Kirchner won last year’s presidential election with a landslide 54% of the votes, it was not only the amount of support but how far she was ahead of her competitors that made the victory so impressive.

The 46% of the votes she did not win were split between six opposition parties, with second-placed Frente Amplio Progresista (FAP) obtaining a meagre 17%. It was a pretty good reflection of the situation of government and opposition at the time.

After the government lost its parliamentary majority due to a disastrous result in the 2009 election, the opposition did not manage to live up to the expectations placed upon it. Renamed “Group A”, the illusion of a strong, coordinated opposition capable of snatching the political initiative from a weak government quickly faded away. It soon became evident that, unable to set a common agenda, the only thing holding “Group A” together was its animosity towards the government. To paraphrase Borges, they were not united by love, but by horror.

The lack of initiative and fragmentation of the opposition were apparent in the poor performance of an almost paralysed Congress throughout 2010 and 2011, when only 70 and 65 bills were passed respectively, well below the ten-year average of 116.

And so we arrived at October 2011. In the two years since the fateful 2009 election, the government managed to regain control of the agenda, aided by its own initiative, the shock caused by the death of former president Néstor Kirchner, and the lack of a serious and organised political opposition.

It only takes a quick look around, however, to realise that there is an important, and very vocal, sector of society that does not feel represented by the government. As opposition is an integral part of democracy, the question of who represents those people is one that must be asked.

It has become quite evident for many in the past few years, specifically since the campo crisis of 2008, that the weakness of opposition parties has resulted in certain economic groups affected by governmental policies taking political matters into their own hands. At the forefront of this new opposition are those with the most influence on public opinion: the media corporations.

The 'cacerolazos' in Plaza de Mayo (Photo: Luciano Signorelli)

In Argentina, politics has become to a large extent a war between pro and anti-government media groups unabashedly campaigning for their own interests, without much regard for the traditional laws of journalistic ethics.

An interesting debate about the role of the media has since ensued, not only in Argentina, but also in Latin America and other parts of the world. The sanctity of journalism and its classic role as the “fourth estate” have been brought into question as big media groups are, analytically speaking, stripped bare and shown for what they mostly are: businesses. Powerful businesses, with political interests and a massive influence over public opinion and politicians alike.

There is a positive side to this situation, as nothing in a democracy should be immune to analysis, discussion, and criticism. Media groups have always had political and economic interests, and it is a positive thing that people have become more aware of this and can see through their supposed neutrality.

The obvious negative side is that businesses are not elected and are not accountable to society as politicians, government officials, union delegates, and other political institutions are. This is not exclusive to media businesses, as it is becoming clear all over the world that uncontrolled corporations are openly displacing elected politicians from their decision-making roles.

In Argentina, this situation has evolved from a more-or-less open support of certain media groups to specific political parties and candidates, to the current situation where they seem to have mostly given up on politicians altogether. Nowadays, it is journalists like Jorge Lanata with his Sunday TV show that seem to set the opposition’s agenda for the rest of the week.

The debilitating effect of such political weakness was demonstrated by the recent cacerolazos in Buenos Aires. They were small, unorganised gatherings of individuals without any clear direction or common ideas, other than a visceral rejection of the government. It is worrying that for many, being unorganised was seen as a virtue rather than a weakness.

A political movement without solid ideas and organisation is doomed to fail. And politics, like nature in Aristotelian physics, abhors a vacuum. If the vacuum left by a weak opposition is not filled by legitimate and solid political institutions, it is going to be filled by whoever has the power to impose their point of view.

Buenos Aires is divided into 15 'comunas'.

On 10th July 2011, after 15 long years of legislative indecision, the city of Buenos Aires finally held its first elections for the representatives of the juntas comunales (community boards). Each of the city’s 15 comunas, approved definitively in 2005 by the Organic Law of Municipalities (ley de comunas), elected seven representatives to their new local governing units.

In the weeks leading up to the elections, which also reaffirmed incumbent Mayor Mauricio Macri for a second term, the city government polled a selection of 1050 residents of Buenos Aires. When asked about their awareness and knowledge of the comunas, a staggering 82% responded that they had no idea what they were.

Finally active after years of political struggle, the basic purpose of the comunas is to address the needs of their neighbourhoods and involve greater citizen participation in the life and governance of local affairs.

“The comunas are completely open to their communities,” says Juan Carlos Quiroga of Movimiento Comunero, an NGO dedicated to forming a non-traditional political movement based on participation and power for the common citizen. “We invite people to get involved in their communities, to freely debate the problems and solutions, and to modify the reality of their neighbourhoods,”

Faced with the reality of their low public visibility, the comuneros’ principal challenge now is to inform the public not only of the promise, but the direct advantages of bringing new voices into the mix of democracy in Buenos Aires. To this end, the history of the comuneros’ struggle can bring to light the factors that have led and shaped their current predicament, as well as their priorities moving forward.

Decentralisation in the City Constitution 

“As in fairy tales,” says a 2009 report from the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLASCO), “the decentralisation of the municipalities of Buenos Aires is a never-ending story: one is always near the end, but it never arrives.”

Consistent with the six-year gap between the passage of the ley de comunas and last year’s elections, a chronic history of delay may be the best general explanation for the lack of public knowledge regarding the function and active status of the comunas.

The plan to create local administrative units in Buenos Aires originated in the ratification of the autonomous City Constitution of 1996. Providing five years for the city to adapt to its decentralised role, the Constitution obligated the municipal legislature to create and define the function of the comunas no later than October 2001.

More significant at the time, however, was the newly elective nature of the mayoral office in Buenos Aires, previously a role appointed by the federal government. The overall move toward decentralisation and the city’s autonomous status now signified a novel political space.

Introduced as part of the same constitutional process, the call for comunas and the adapted role of the mayor in the city initiated spheres of decentralised power, often antagonistic, that have since shared important links in defining themselves and the new political space.

Crisis and Opportunity

As the end of 2001 approached, Argentina was spiralling into an economic, political, and social crisis of historic proportion. The emergence of extreme opinions and public confrontation polarised attitudes toward radical positions.

'Que se vayan todos' (Photo: Nicolas Liuzzi)

Characterised by the cry, “Que se vayan todos!” (“They all must go!”), the agitated stance of the public, reacting to administrative dysfunction, served simultaneously to support differing ideas of reform.

Citizen activists, driven by the extensive loss and distrust sweeping society, could genuinely claim an urgent need for participative democracy to reform the broken politics of Argentina. The city government, meanwhile, vulnerable and in crisis mode, could effectively dismiss the comuna question as a step into further chaos or systemic collapse.

“In the 90s and during the economic crisis, the city experienced tremendous social fragmentation,” Quiroga explains. “The instability in this context, intensified by unemployment and hardship in many sectors of the population, created a scenario for participative democracy to offer hope, opportunity, and better health for the people of our neighbourhoods.”

Since the City Constitution already provided the legal grounds to establish the comunas of Buenos Aires, private citizens and neighbourhood organisations embarked on their long fight to make the constitutional mandate a reality.

‘The juntas comunales were envisioned in the Constitution as the governing power, delegated by the neighbours, to their 7 elected officials, as in traditional representative form,” says Ismael Reaño, a retired agronomist and comunero in comuna 14 (Palermo). “The other governing bodies, consejos consultivos, were to provide the new participative space led freely and voluntarily by residents of the comuna to inform the actions of the juntas comunales.”

Confronted with mounting public pressure, the city legislature returned to the problem of drafting the ley de comunas after the worst of the crisis had passed. While independent neighbourhood networks coordinated to raise motions in the courts, the city government favoured its own transitional centres of citizen participation, the Centros de Gestión y Participación (CGPs), which had served since 1998 as forums for testing administrative models of decentralisation.

With the issue indefinitely relegated to a question mark, the fervour for democratic participation during the critical years of the crisis succumbed to inertia in the eyes of the wider public. Compared to an improving status quo, the comunas lacked the kind of meaningful progress and institutional support on which city residents could base practical expectations.

Not surprisingly, as the traditional party organisations positioned themselves for control of the evolving mayoral office, little was done officially to discourage empty forecasts for the comunas and citizen-led democracy.

The Long Road to Elections

Far from producing definitive answers, the eventual ley de comunas of 2005 exposed fault lines between the city government and neighbourhood organisations fighting to launch the comunas. Gradually, the neighbours’ struggle intensified around securing elections and limiting the degree of executive power the mayor could exert over the comunas’ implementation.

Elections in Buenos Aires (Photo: Beatrice Murch)

While the ley de comunas called for fulfilment by the end of May 2007, the government at the time did not call for elections. Aware by 2008 that Macri’s position was to thwart or fatally amend the comunas altogether, the neighbours’ groups proactively re-engaged the courts. Finally, in 2009, at the order of a judicial decision, the legislature set an election date for June, 2011. The mayor, however, moved the date of the elections to 10th July, making it coincide with citywide elections, and placed the candidates for the juntas comunales on the full city ballot.

“This is a very important factor to consider in our first elections,” says Alberto Silber, coordinator for Movimiento Comunero in comuna 7 (Flores and Parque Chacabuco). “Article 20 of the ley de comunas clearly states that if the elections coincide with other city elections, there must be a measure for separate ballots or commissions.”

The mayor, executing his interpretation of the law, timed the first public action to establish the comunas in the shadow of mayoral and legislative elections.

For the 18% polled who were knowledgeable about the comunas beforehand, the outcome was nevertheless a victory that displayed clearly the government’s complicity in the perception that nobody cares about the comunas.

Local Authority: Limits of Macrismo

As of last December, the 15 comunas operate freely with legal status and territorial jurisdiction. Their limited scope, as per the ley de comunas, defines only green spaces and secondary roads as exclusive competencies. Other powers the comunas share concurrently with the central government to meet local needs and demands, include the execution of plans for public works, projects, and services.

What remains uncertain, in both the long and short terms, is the comunas’ destiny in the realm of city politics.

Guido Palazzo of Eudemocracia plans steps on the white board (Photo courtesy of Eudemocracia)

Looking at the big picture, the elaboration of future goals depends necessarily on the citizens, NGOs, and other social organisations that participate to create an impactful role for the comunas in Buenos Aires. Right now, however, with the consejos consultivos formally opening only last month, the focus is on asserting the comunas’ immediate practical authority against Macri’s rival policies of local administration.

“The situation between the Macri government and the comunas is full of tension,” says Pablo Nanini, a comunero and activist with the Asociación Civil Eudemocracia, which advocates incorporating technology into the exercise of direct democratic decision-making. “There is a void of distribution, a budget held to the minimum, and efforts at co-optation.”

With respect to the last point, Nanini was referring to the mayor’s creation of Units of Citizen Attention (UACs after their name in Spanish) to overtake the previous CGPs. The UACs, enacted by decree of the mayor, consist of 17 units staffed directly by the mayor and charged with duties that interfere with the transfer of local functions to the comunas, diverting their resources and cutting back their already minimal budget.

Prohibited from imposing taxes on residents in their respective territories, the comunas are dependent on allocations from the city budget. For the first two years of operation, this amount is not to exceed 5% of the total city budget, divided as chosen among the 15 comunas. However, in the 2012 budget the comunas were given a scant 0.002%, or $71.8 million, for their first year of operation.

“If we don’t have money, we don’t have real autonomy. We can’t serve the people in our comunas,” says Ernesto Altamiranda of comuna 14. “This is why we are so focused on preparing our budget for 2013.”

Local Participation: The Future of the Comunas

It could be argued that the city government’s basic attitude toward the comunas all along—that they first need to prove their worth among the citizenry—was not so wrong in light of the poll numbers published prior to the elections.

The NGO Movimiento Comunero holds a community meeting in 2010 (photo courtesy of Movimiento Comunero)

Active members of the comunero movement are well aware of the need to reach a wider demographic; and in essence, given the city government’s feeble attempts at promoting the new system, this is the comunas’ de facto bottom line for survival.

“Salud. Siempre, salud…por el 5%,” Altamiranda jokes over a round of beers following much discussion of what is wrong instead of right—corruption, waste, the corporate nature of traditional politics.

Many of the men and women long involved in the creation of the comunas understand that what they have fought for will be for the benefit of future generations.

“For these guys,” says Pablo Nanini, indicating his elder peers, “the struggle came from the generation of the dictatorship, to first rebuild democracy. For my generation, it’s about carrying that idea through and bringing direct participation to the people.”

Alarmingly, however, per the government’s poll, the demographic least informed about the comunas fell between the ages of 18 and 29.

“I think this is one of our most important tasks,” Nanini reflects. “We need the participation of young people, and we are working online, with the technology we have, to bring the comunas to the to the attention and interest of all to participate.”

To see what porteños think about the decentralisation process in Buenos Aires, click here.

Buenos Aires’ communes or comunas, represent the 15 separate districts that were outlined after the city’s reassignment to autonomous status. Despite being designated in 1996, the city’s comunas are just now beginning to wield power.

They held their first elections in 2011, and are mainly responsible for secondary roads, public parks, sidewalks and local maintenance issues. The decentralisation of power is meant to democratise the city’s funds, and allow neighbours, social organisations and NGOs to weigh in and propose community and cultural projects.

What do the locals think of the redistribution of power? Do they think that the city’s barrios should have more access to funds? Also, what does this say about the nature of participative democracy in Argentina? Will it work?

The Indy’s reporters set out to see how the people feel about handing power over to the people.

Photos by Allison Kate Cherkis

Dora Tamara, Accountant, Palermo

I think the neighbourhoods should have more power over the funds.  For example I just got a 200% raise on my taxes. They (the government) always take your money to fix other things. It turns out that here in Palermo, it’s more advanced than the neighbourhoods in the southern area. But there are things here that also need to be fixed and maintained. So why would I have to pay for people from other neighbourhoods and even from the province? I’m not lacking money, but I also don’t have money to spare.

Unfortunately, my generation could not participate as much [in politics] because of all of the military governments. There was a short lapse of democratic government. When democracy came back in 1983, I was just over 30, and wanted to participate. But, of course, they gave more room to older people, those who had experience, and those who had been in jail during the Peronist years. I’m talking about the socialist party. Now they prefer to have young people that they can manipulate over older people with more political activism. So they don’t give room for “cult” older people to participate.

I never found room to participate in the party. They have younger people who are not even from the neighbourhood.

Julieta Ginter, 25, Student, Palermo

I think that each neighbourhood should have at least a small budget, because there are some neighbourhoods that are very abandoned and left behind. The [centralised budget] may only fix a park but that’s it. But yes, each neighbourhood should manage at least a small budget.

I think participative democracy will work in this case, for the same reason that the budget will work. This neighbourhood (Palermo) is pretty well looked after because it’s more touristy, and the mayor pays a lot more attention to touristy neighbourhoods, and not so much to the other ones.

Brenda Asuscfli, 25, Student, Palermo

I think that the neighbourhoods should have a base budget that they can count on, to develop different touristy parks, and other places. So that people can also make the most [of the city] not only in the more centrally located and touristy places, and also so that everyone can look after [public places].

Participation of the people will be good. People will learn to look after things, to have a budget, and develop activities with that budget.

Ariel Zichichi, 37, Clerk, Caballito

[Having a budget in the neighbourhood] will be more equitative and will give people the opportunity to participate. People could have more participation, and have their opinions heard more by the government. It will be good if there is a representative for each neighbourhood, who will know the specific problems of their neighbourhood. Whereas, government doesn’t know the specific problem of each neighbourhood. I think that in the future, this could work.

Flavia Galdo, 38, Lawyer, Caballito

I don’t know whether the funds should be centralised, or whether more access to the funds will help. I’m not sure about the funding, because that’s a more delicate economic issue. I don’t really have a clear opinion on whether it will be better for the budget to be decentralised, or centralised and managed by the government. But I do believe in more participation for the people.

We are still very far away from a participative democracy. I think there is a tendency towards decentralisation, but we’re still far away from that in Argentina. There’s a lot of talking about it, but we can’t actually see it in action.

The Middle East and North Africa are currently being shaken by popular unrest. In January, a Tunisian street vendor’s suicide resulted in the protests that removed the country’s autocrat. The next month the Egyptian president stepped down after popular demonstrations.

This week US president Barak Obama has called for the removal of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as the unrest continues to escalate violently. In a domino effect, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran and others have also begun speaking out against their governments.

The situation in that part of the world could redefine the role of democracy everywhere. The Argentina Independent took to the streets to learn how locals feel about the uprisings.

Juan Pablo López, 26, student, Barrio Lugano

“It is demonstrating that there is another form of thinking. I also think that it opened up thanks to, in some way, the exposure that internet has in the world. The possibility that who ever from wherever, if they have the possibility of having a computer or access to the internet, to be able to open up there minds a little more and at least, get to know another view on the world, another way to live. In this case, those contrasts allow someone to realize that they feel things are bad in the relationship people have with their country. I think it is something logical that is going to happen and keep happening if closed off countries – oppressive of culture, and different forms of thinking – continue to exist. I celebrate that it is happening. Not the consequences – obviously not – there are a lot of people dying and that is never good – but a least its changing so something good can come out of it.”

Ingrid Mueller, 34, artist, Chaco Province

“I believe that after so many years, it is good. It was, or still is, a repressed population. It’s a domino effect because one rose up, the others saw and they began to rise up and realize – they could see beyond the walls. I don’t know if they’ll all succeed. Hopefully they will. Hopefully the people will wake up to liberate themselves. It going to cost them after some many years. It seems to me it is going to be a fight to get democracy. But at some point hopefully they will be able to live democratically. Maybe not everywhere but in the majority of countries.”

Mauro DiCarlo, 27, student, Núñez

“I agree with the objective they are looking to achieve but I’m not sure of the form of solving their problems. Here, for example, this happened in 2001, people took to the streets and there were also many deaths and although it wasn’t to the same escalation – when people don’t have another option I think people express themselves this way and it is not the correct way but neither is enduring a government that does what it wants and suffering, or in some cases going hungry, and watching some get richer while the people stay poor.”

Hugo Massaccesi, 64, consultant, Microcentro

“These are countries with a culture very different than ours. They have recognized the leadership of European countries and the United States – it is inevitable. All the Middle Eastern countries have always been a boiling pot. This is a domino effect. It happened in Egypt, and it has had repercussions in many countries but it could also happen in Qatar and other countries that are run like kingdoms. They are different from our democratic spirit. With the cultural problems there are, they will never have a democratic system like the ones that exist here in the Americas.”

Cynthia da Silva Evora, 21, bartender, Recoleta

“I think it is good, in reality I think everything should be this way. Society always is afraid of the government when in reality it should be the other way around. The government should respect the people and society, so I think it is good – it is good to fight for what you think is just. This is a process because these are countries that have never had a democracy and it is a fight that wont end from one year to the next – its a good road and a good start and hopefully they’ll be able to maintain democracy.”

Photos by Andy Donohoe

The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, said the defense of democracy goes beyond the ideological orientations of the various governments in the region. This was after the visit of Chilean president, Sebastián Piñera.

Piñera made an official visit to Ecuador to ratify the backing of his government to President Rafael Correa and the democracy in the country.

After the meeting, the Ecuadorean leader said, “the integration and defense of democracy are unyielding points in the South American region.”

He further stressed the values of peaceful coexistence in the region.

For his part, Piñera considered that all Latin American countries want to “defeat underdevelopment, defeat poverty and strengthen democracy.”

He also stressed the need to establish, for part of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), more effective mechanisms to prevent “even tempted to change the constitutional and democratic order.”

The president of Chile said that he needs the commitment of UNASUR, in the sense of rejecting the group, unified through their intent, who took part in a uniformed sector in Ecuador.

The meeting between the leaders came after the attempted coup Correa denounced on 30th September.

On Tuesday, the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, will also visit Ecuador to reaffirm their support and solidarity to the president.

Additionally, Morales will attend the fifth Congress of the Latin American Coordinator of the Field Organization (CLOC).

Story courtesy of Agencia Pulsar, a news agency run by AMARC-ALC network of community radios.

Uruguay’s National Directory of Telecommuncations (DINATEL), during a formal process to develop a new media law, welcomed proposals to enact a new Television and Radio Law in Uruguay.  Proposals were open to the public.

The event took place last Thursday at the De La Torre Auditorium for Telecommunications and was transmitted live by Antel virtual satellites to different classrooms and workspaces across the country.  At the outset, the original law was presented for analysis and discussion concerning how the law can improve.

The government also created a Technical Consultation Committee to draft the new law. The Committee is comprised of representatives from academic, corporate and civil sectors. Also participating were Edgardo Ortuñez, subsecretary of the Ministry of Industrial, Energy and Mining sectors, and Gustavo Gomez, the National Director of Telecommunications.  From Washington, Dr. Catalina Botero represented the Organisation of American States to ensure freedom of expression was a component of the new law.

Ortuño demonstrated that “this move towards a new media law began several years ago with the approval of Access to Public Information law.”  The Ministry stressed the importance of the initiative, considering there are many parties involved.  They expressed that “Uruguay needs a modern television and radio law that serves democracy, culture and the people of the country.”

Dr. Botero expressed that the process is just as important as the content of the law, and applauded the Uruguayan government’s effort in creating a new law.  She also commented that the procedure for assignment of radio frequencies should be “non-discriminatory, transparent and clear.”

The law will be written in digital format and can be viewed on DINATEL’s website and authorizes public consultation and opinion.  In September, there is to be a round table discussion, in order to garnish more contributions to the law.  It is projected that the law will be presented to Parliament and voted on in early 2011.

Story courtesy of Agencia Pulsar, a news agency run by AMARC-ALC network of community radios.

Students are protesting in support to political prisoners in Venezuela. More than a hundred of them started a hunger strike today in front of the Organisation of American States (OAS). The protest asks for a visit from the delegation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in order to check on the captives situation.

The gathering which started five days ago got stronger on last Tuesday when the strike spread to five new states of the country. In the Anzoátegui state, four students who have been in strike from last Monday decided to get more radical and sew their mouths. The demonstrators claimed that they would add on stitch to their mouth per day of strike.

Miguel Henrique Otero, head of Movimiento 2D expressed that the students attitude was an “extraordinary expression of defence of the democracy” in a country where “spaces are shut” and “dissidence becomes a crime”.

“The government will have to give up and allow the IACHR to come to the country because it absurd that a government who ask them to go to Honduras do not allow them to come to its country” added the democratic movement leader.

The release of Julio Rivas, who was incarcerated during a march earlier this month, initiated the protest.

“Now, people know that Venezuela also has political prisoners” says Ana Julia Jatar, a Movimiento 2D demonstrator. “Thanks to them the national feeling of freedom is expending in whole country” she added.

Among the political prisoners are Lázaro Forero and Iván Simonovis, two commissioners accused of conspiration, as well as journalist Leocenis García.

The OAS Venezuelan ambassador called the hunger strike a pantomime. He also declared that they pretended to give support to private media and groups who conspire against the government.

Venezuelan National Assembly Vice-president, Saúl Ortega, accused the IACHR to manipulate public opinion in the country.

“With democracy we eat, with democracy we educate, with democracy we heal” is one of the many quotes from the recently deceased president Raúl Alfonsín.

Thousands filled the streets to witness his burial in Recoleta cemetery on 2nd April, bringing with them flowers, holding banners saying “thank-you” and chanting his name.

Alfonsín, Argentina’s first democratically elected leader following decades of military dictatorships, interspersed by weak democracy, has been described as not only a symbol of but the “father” of democracy.

The Argentina Independent takes to the streets to see how you view Aflonsín’s legacy, and whether or not porteños believe he indeed was the “father of democracy”.

Ramón Ugaldey, 23, administrator
I think he’s known as the father of democracy precisely because the people voted for him; it wasn’t that he ended up in power against the wishes of the people. I don’t know so much about the history but in the cases of his opposition I think he managed it well, he managed to maintain peace, and he boosted morale. So, yes, he was the father of democracy, but I think it was his fight for human rights that remains the most important aspect of his leadership.

Valeria Herrera, 23, administrator
In my opinion, he was the father of democracy. He was an excellent person who never stole from the people, and the truth is he was a great man. His integrity was noted by everyone, and I think all of Argentina. I think we all have great affection for his good work. He will always be remembered as someone who really brought a difference to the country.

Hector Romero, 41, businessman
I think that Alfonsín was a president who was really generally approved of by society, and he also managed himself with a quite a few precautions in all areas and in all the conflicts he encountered. However, maybe with a consensus of opposition, he actually lost a little of his force. But in my opinion, he has been one of the best presidents so far.

Cecilia Suárez, 24, OSDE employee
In my view, he was very important for the country. He was a very important politician because he took on a very difficult task that was taking on the government in a fragile position, post military coup. I also think something of utmost importance was the way he fought for human rights. I think that is one of the characteristics that most stands out. This is one of the reasons why so many people love him and he is considered so special.

Eduardo Jalon, 67, ministry worker
It touched me to see someone so in touch with the people. He was a valiant man, he was a man who taught us the same thing that fell into the sphere of thought of Ricardo BalbÍn. He endorsed a democratic ideology, coexistence and non-violent policies, and emphasised the state of rights and respect of opinion. Perhaps most importantly he highlighted the importance of coexistence, with obvious emphasis on human rights.

Photos by Jess Kraft