Promoting Democracy. Manal A. Jamal
Читать онлайн книгу.
this period women also founded the first association for indigenous women in El Salvador, the Asociación de Mujeres Indígenas Salvadoreñas (Association of Indigenous Salvadoran Women).
These organizations were more formal and also in a better position to access foreign funding than their predecessors, especially from Western solidarity groups and foundations. Given the high levels of repression of the late 1970s to the mid-1980s, most of the mass-based organizations worked in the FMLN-controlled zones, and not in the capital city, San Salvador. By 1985, however, these women’s organizations were predominantly openly based in San Salvador.
Goals of the Mass-Based Women’s Organizations
In general, the FMLN’s five political organizations shared the same goals in establishing the mass-based women’s organizations: These were to address women’s basic needs, including literacy; to raise their awareness and consciousness; and to incorporate them into the struggle. As with the founding of other associations and organizations during this period, each respective political organization also sought to gain mass support. One of the main distinguishing features of the newer women’s organizations was that they were more likely to incorporate feminist gender analysis into their work.107 Moreover, the last wave of women’s organizations differed from the previous waves in that they also sought to gain the support of and to mobilize women in the urban center, San Salvador, while continuing to work with their grassroots communities in the FMLN-controlled zones.
Organization, Membership, and Decision-Making
As with the Palestinian women’s sector, the most important and uncontested accomplishment of these women’s organizations was their ability to recruit and organize women in large numbers from the remotest parts of El Salvador. When the security situation permitted, there was an attempt to develop radical democratic structures in which the local community organizations elected their own representatives, and then the elected representatives would meet on a regular basis to coordinate the activities of the organization.108 In most instances, however, much of the organizing was very discreet. As Carmen Medina explained, “Everything was dangerous, so the approach was very low profile. Even in the association, the meetings were not open.”109 For the most part, women in each community decided on their priorities when the situation allowed.
Although the membership of these organizations was in the thousands, exact numbers were difficult to come by given the clandestine nature of much of the work. In many cases, leaders did not keep official records of the exact membership. Some of the organizers, however, were able to provide rough estimates of their membership. For example, by 1982, AMES was estimated to have approximately 8,000 members—most of whom were members or supporters of the FPL.110 Similarly, by March 1988, AMS claimed to have enrolled nearly 4,000 women in literacy and self-help training,111 and, by 1985, ORMUSA was estimated to have 2,000 members.112
Programs
The programs and projects of these organizations addressed women’s practical needs, but were sometimes distinguished by the particular needs of women in a given region. As Yanera Argueta succinctly explained, “We [AMS] addressed three systematic demands: health services for women, literacy, and sustenance.”113 Many of the women’s organizations also ran literacy classes, health workshops, and nurseries. The newer women’s mass-based organizations were more likely to set up programs that went beyond practical gender interests, especially in the 1990s. The geographic demarcation of territory between the different groups ensured that there was less replication of programs and projects.
Consciousness-raising was central to the programs of the various women’s organizations. In addition to running literacy courses, they provided workshops on health issues, such as first aid, hygiene, prenatal health, and childcare. Some of the organizations also provided ideological and political training, as well as lectures and discussions on domestic violence. Azucena Quintera further elaborated, “A number of the comrades beat up their wives, so we tried to address that problem.”114 ORMUSA, for example, organized consciousness-raising sessions and reflection groups in which the women discussed issues pertaining to labor, violence, and political participation.
Many of the organizations also focused on improving the material conditions of women by addressing their most basic needs, as well as providing material support to women combatants. As Jeanette Urquilla explained, “The main concern of our members was not to die of hunger during the war.”115 Accordingly, various political organizations distributed food through the women’s organizations. Women in ASMUSA, for example, cultivated beans and corn in the various communities. The women’s organizations also attempted to improve women’s economic conditions by providing them with more opportunities to produce goods. ORMUSA, for example, had a clothing production center in one of the communities, and AMES provided sewing classes for its members. They also provided women combatants with boots, clothes, sanitary napkins, and spending money; food was also provided for their children.116 Moreover, women members of the FPL leadership began demanding that the FMLN-FDR adopt a “Minimum Women’s Program”—a program of basic women’s demands.
Resources and Funding
During the war, most of the funding to mass-based women’s organizations was predominantly from committees of women’s organizations based abroad, from solidarity organizations, and from women’s organizations based in other countries, especially in Europe.117 Most of the popular women’s organizations in El Salvador had committees or women members who were responsible for fundraising. ASMUSA representatives, for example, fundraised in Nicaragua, Mexico, and Costa Rica.118 Similarly, the FPL set up a committee to organize solidarity work and raise funds in Nicaragua and Mexico for their women’s groups.119 These organizations also received funding from abroad, especially from solidarity NGOs whose primary raison d’ȇtre was to fundraise or lobby for the Salvadoran left. Among these solidarity NGOs were the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador and the Salvadoran Humanitarian Aid, Research, and Education Foundation.120 These solidarity groups seldom distributed the funding directly to the women’s organizations, but rather funneled it through their affiliated political organizations.121 Besides the payment to women combatants, almost all women’s work in the organization was voluntary, and therefore members were not paid for their work.
Conclusion
As in the Palestinian case, among the important accomplishments of the different Salvadoran women’s organizations during the 1980s was their ability to recruit women from all walks of life and locations, including the remotest parts of El Salvador, and to address their most basic needs, while involving them in decision-making when the situation allowed. By the early 1990s, the Palestinian and Salvadoran women’s sector shared substantial similarities in terms of their social and political organization, their functions, their social reach, and their relationship to political organizations. Ultimately, the unfolding political settlements in these two societies, and the mediating role of Western donor assistance that was introduced to buttress these processes, resulted in dramatically different outcomes for the women’s sectors in these two contexts. In what follows, I discuss the contrasting political settlements that emerged in the Palestinian territories and El Salvador.
3
Political Settlements and the Reconfiguration of Civic and Political Life
Life, Works
… Discovering,
deciphering,
articulating,
setting in motion:
the old works of liberators and martyrs
that are our obligations now …
—Timoteo Lue, pen name for Roque Dalton, student of law and Salvadoran poet; born in Suchitoto in 1950
In the early 1990s, the Palestinian territories and El Salvador began their conflict-to-peace transitions. A key difference between the evolving settlements in the two cases was the level of inclusivity. This distinction would have important implications for how the political organizations would develop in the postaccord period, especially related to their patterns of professionalization of their mass- based organizations, their relationship to mass movements, and the creation