|
|
|
Last Updated: Apr 1, 2009 - 9:36:04 AM |
With the May elections approaching, and if nothing seems amiss,
Panamanian voters may decide to repudiate the incumbent PRD hold on the
presidency and Panama City mayoralty with surprising results. As early
as mid-March, the Electoral Court already had begun receiving ballots
from nationals living abroad. The contenders for the presidency
include, Balbina Herrera, a former Minister of Housing and a prominent
member of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) and protégé of
President Martin Torrijos; Ricardo Martinelli, a conservative
businessman and candidate for the opposition party, Democratic Change
(CD); and Guillermo Endara, a former controversial Panamanian
president, running for the Moral Vanguard of the Fatherland (VMP).
The Contenders
Martinelli has resorted to considerable political maneuvering to unify
a number of significant opposition parties under a common banner of
solidarity against the current ruling PRD. As a result, he now has the
backing of the Patriotic Union (UP), the Nationalist Republican Liberal
Movement (MOLIRENA), as well as the Panameñista Party (PP). His
unification of most of the opposition is contributing to his growing
and now widespread appeal. Herrera, for her part, is also the nominee
of the small Partido Popular (former Christian Democratic) and Liberal
parties. In the Panama City mayoral race, in which some of the smaller
parties have gone their own ways, Bobby Velásquez of the PRD has
maintained a pronounced lead over the highly regarded independent
candidate, Miguel Antonio Bernal and the PP’s Bosco Vallarino. But in
recent days, the fate of the PRD candidates has taken a surprising and
untoward direction.
The Curious Case of David Murcia Guzmán – President Maker
During the past month, a shocking turn of events has cast a dark cloud
over the upcoming balloting. On March 11, David Murcia Guzman confessed
from his La Picota Jail cell in Bogota, Colombia, that he recently had
donated $6 million to the PRD presidential and mayoral campaigns,
distributing the funds evenly between Balbina Herrera and Bobby
Velásquez. Murcia is currently awaiting trial on charges of money
laundering and fraud. His group of companies, DMG, had devised a large
pyramid scheme that ended up defrauding numerous individuals and
institutions out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Most recently,
Murcia has been indicted in the New York U.S. District Court on charges
of money laundering, in which Federal prosecutors allege that some of
the proceeds from drug trafficking activities in Mexico, the United
States and Colombia were laundered through DMG. Furthermore, the
indictment claims that Murcia used the Colombian black market peso
exchange to launder US dollars made in the drug business. Various
Colombian media for some time have been alleging connections between
Murcia’s operation and the drug fortunes of jailed figures in the
mostly defunct Valle del Norte Cartel drug organization and the
partially demobilized AUC paramilitary.
Rumors of Murcia’s financial involvement in the mayoral campaign of
Bobby Velásquez began to surface in early February, but at the time, no
tangible confirmation of such allegations existed. Now, however, Murcia
claims he has security videos documenting his meetings with Velásquez.
In a statement reported in the Panama City daily, La Estrella, Murcia
explicitly described his involvement with the two PRD candidates: “I
personally dealt with Bobby Velásquez’s father, who is one of the PRD’s
founders, and with Bobby himself. So I donated $6 million in cash, $3
million for Bobby and $3 million for Balbina. Everything went through
the [elder] Velásquez, who came in the name of the PRD. They even told
me that [Bobby] Velásquez was Torrijos’s blue eyed boy.”
According to Eric Jackson, a well respected investigative reporter and
editor of the hard-hitting Panama News, the alleged arrangement was in
exchange for Murcia’s contributions to the campaigns. These terms
included the use of agents of Panama’s Institutional Protection
Services (SPI), the bodyguards of the president, who would also provide
personal security protection for Murcia during his stay in Panama.
Assuredly, part of the $3 million paid to Velásquez was used to
compensate the American political consulting firm, Greenber, Quinlan
and Rosner, which the latter had hired at a monthly rate of $150,000 in
exchange for their advisory services during his campaign. Complicating
matters even further for the two beleaguered PRD politicians was the
fact that the consulting services were not registered with the
electoral tribunal, a legal requirement in Panama. This is just another
example of an increasingly questionable Velásquez bending the rules to
advance his campaign.
All the President’s Men
The nature of the agreement made by the PRD mayoral race candidate
serves to exacerbate the magnitude of the scandal. Under the laws
governing the SPI, members of the protection services are strictly
prohibited from holding outside security jobs unless the President
specifically authorizes this. On the face of if, this would then seem
to implicate President Torrijos’s involvement in the arrangement. Of
course the President has denied any allegations of his participation in
the scheme. On March 13, he flatly denied that the SPI had guarded
Murcia. The Torrijos administration backed this denial with SPI records
that reveal no mention of protection for Murcia. Yet, on March 18, the
Minister of the Presidency admitted that the SPI had provided
protection to Murcia.
Three SPI guards, including the head of the president’s advance
security squad, confessed to serving as personal bodyguards to the
fallen financier and were subsequently fired. They admitted to
receiving $200 a day to protect Murcia during his time in Panama, but
are appealing their dismissals, claiming that what they did was with
the authorization from above. Two of their supervisors, including the
SPI’s personnel director and its number three man, were subsequently
arrested for their alleged involvement in the case. In a recent COHA
interview with Marcos Wilson, a Panamanian political analyst, he
observed that such a revelation implies falsification of official
government records, which would be a criminal offense. Wilson finds it
highly unlikely that Torrijos was unaware of these unscrupulous
activities. In fact, Murcia claimed that Rafael Mezquita, who is
Torrijos’s Minister of the Presidency, personally arranged his security
detail.
The evidence suggests that Herrera and Velásquez may have been caught
red handed. Yet the two PRD candidates have vehemently denied any
financial involvement with Murcia. At first, Velásquez dismissed any
affiliation with Murcia, citing that he had never met the man. However,
after the security guards’ confessions and Murcia’s threats to provide
investigators with security tapes, Velásquez confirmed they had, in
fact, met briefly once, at Murcia’s apartment at the Miramar Tower. It
was a devastating admission for the PRD mayoral candidate to make,
because he initially denied knowing Murcia. But that admission was soon
shown to be a lie, with one of the three fired SPI guard’s published
story of a meeting between the two Velásquezes in the presidential
suite of the Hotel Sheraton, on the way to which the mayoral hopeful,
his father and two SPI guards were greeted in front of the hotel
elevators by one Dilio Arcia — Panama’s Minister of Government and
Justice and the man Torrijos has assigned to “investigate” the Murcia
affair. These “brief meetings” between Murcia and Bobby Velásquez are
now fixed at a total of three.
The Scandal Spreads
Velásquez is not the only mayoral candidate being dragged down by the
Murcia revelations. Most recently, the rightist leaning Bosco Vallarino
(whose political style has been often compared to that of former
President George W. Bush because of his conservative ideology and lack
of intellectual curiousity), was forced to admit his personal business
transactions with Murcia’s notorious Brazilian partner and associate,
Alex Ventura. Murcia has confessed that Ventura financed a trip to
Cancun in order to promote real estate development projects there.
Although Vallarino apparently did not get any money from Murcia, this
affiliation with Ventura nevertheless complicates his standing in the
polls.
These latest disclosures further manifest Panama’s descent into a state
plagued by rampant corruption and abuse of power. Additionally, the
compromising situations that Vallarino and Velásquez now find
themselves in have increasingly altered the dynamics of the Panama City
mayoral campaign. The highly admired Bernal, a professor and well
regarded gadfly, who many Panamanians consider to be the conscience of
his country, now has an opportunity to advance his campaign platform of
reform and a war against the taint of corruption suggested by some of
his rivals. The financial figures alone attest to the distorted nature
of the expenditures going into Panama City’s mayoral elections. In a
report issued by the country’s national daily, La Prensa, it was
estimated that Velásquez spent roughly $650,000 on television and radio
advertisement, trailed by Vallarino, at a figure of $77,000, and then
Bernal, who has only spent $14,000 in advertising on his grassroots
campaign.
Lack of Transparency equals Lack of Accountability
Any donations on the part of Murcia would have been easily traceable if
campaign contribution figures were as publicly accessible as they are
in the United States. Under the terms of U.S. campaign finance laws,
all donations over $250 must be made public. Furthermore, in a
presidential election, there is a cap of $2,300 on the amount of money
that can be donated to any one of the candidates. In Panama, there
exists no such limitation on contributions or requirements for public
dissemination of such relevant information. By virtue of this fact,
campaign donations can be clandestine in nature and allow ample room
for corrupt practices in dispensing of such funds. Moreover, because of
Murcia’s criminal record and the fact that he is a foreigner (under
Panamanian law foreigners are strictly prohibited from donating at all
to political campaigns), investigators have lifted the barrier impunity
otherwise safeguarding Herrera and Velásquez in order to scrutinize
their records more closely. Martinelli also has been subjected to the
same standard because of Herrera’s accusations that his chain of
supermarkets in Panama was a front for Murcia’s pyramid scheme
throughout the country. Nevertheless, her inflammatory rhetoric could
possibly be a reflection of her escalating desperation in light of her
slipping position in the polls.
These allegations have significantly affected each of the last
mentioned relative performances of the different candidates in the
polls. Herrera is now trailing 20 points behind Martinelli. Although
Velásquez was still in the lead in a mid-March poll based on a sampling
of a little more than 300 voters, he lost nine points over the previous
two weeks and there have been further damaging revelations since then.
The outlook for the PRD appears to be increasingly grim for a party
attempting to habitually maintain an aura of invincibility and an
unstoppable momentum behind its slate of candidates.
Political Standings
According to polls conducted in March by Dichter & Neira, a leading
market studies investigative firm that is currently coming under
intense criticism for inaccurate polling representations, Martinelli
enjoys a 15 percent lead over Herrera. However, a survey conducted
March 7-11, released by La Prensa, casts doubt upon this spread. Of the
1,214 respondents, 22 percent revealed that they knew little of
Martinelli’s political platform, while 25 percent indicated the same
with respect to Herrera. Although the study was conducted prior to the
Murcia scandal and the presidential debate between the two candidates
held on March 18, the findings are still significant. The results
demonstrate that to some undecided Panamanians, who could potentially
account for the determining margin of victory, are still not aware of
the political platforms of the candidates, even though election day is
fast approaching.
Widely circulating reports have noted that during the presidential
debate, Herrera questioned Martinelli’s ability to reconcile his
interests as head of a major supermarket conglomerate, while
simultaneously being the president of Panama. Martinelli fired back by
condemning the PRD’s most recent 5 years in office, citing that it has
brought more harm than good to Panama. Clearly he was referring to the
PRD’s dismal record, namely the mounting crime rate, the economic
downturn and the shameful quality of public services, all of which
could seal the PRD’s fate and may ultimately fatally damage its chances
of sustaining its grip on power. Moreover, Herrera’s choice for her
vice presidential candidate, Juan Carlos Navarro, after narrowly
defeating him in a hard-fought primary, has only created greater
internal divisions within the PRD. Navarro, the aristocratic but
popular two-term mayor of Panama City, has maintained a notable silence
about the party’s David Murcia troubles.
Each of the presidential candidates are zealously professing that they
each embody the change that Panama requires. Martinelli, however, has
proved to be a worthy adversary in this venue. He is building momentum
due to his ability to capitalize on Panama’s desperate need for reform,
and as such, by portraying himself as something of a political
maverick. He promised to pry Panama from its bleak past, addressing key
societal concerns; Balbina Herrera will undoubtedly face tough
competition come May 3. If Panamanians do in fact elect Martinelli, it
would signify a political rupture, as there has been either a PRD or PP
president in office since 1968. Such a seismic transformation would
send a powerful message and indicate that a new generation of
Panamanians are truly yearning for a leadership change.
A New Direction for Panama?
Panamanian political analyst Marcos Wilson suggests that a Martinelli
victory would mean closer ties between Panama and the U.S. With the
Pentagon’s lease on the present U.S. Manta Air Base in Ecuador set to
expire in November 2009, Panama could very well present itself as an
attractive alternative to the U.S. military. Furthermore, closer ties
between Panama and the United States could help to expedite the passage
of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that is still awaiting ratification by
the two countries. Nonetheless, the U.S. Congress would be well advised
to proceed with caution. The curious case of Murcia, coupled with the
flagrant secrecy that shrouds Panama’s banking laws, makes the country
an attractive off-shore tax haven and a prime location for money
laundering under the guise of questionable transactions by suspect
businesses. These provide reason enough for skepticism in Washington’s
crafting a bona fide FTA partnership with Panama. At a time when the
U.S. is in the midst of overhauling its entire financial system to
prevent the type of gross violations of confidence that have been
witnessed during the previous year, it might be wise to avoid
entangling itself with yet another Colombia-like toxic partner, the
Panamanian political system.
Source:Ocnus.net 2009
Top of Page
|
|
|
|