The results of the 2004 elections in Puerto Rico marked the beginning of the end concerning the ability of island leaders to set aside their differences and pursue joint efforts in the name of the island’s best interest. In fact, many predicted that the rationality of creating a compatible relationship between an executive government headed by the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and legislative government controlled by the New Progressive Party (NPP)would be equivalent to mixing gasoline with fire (simply not a good idea). Following the elections, legislators pledged to uphold the shared government based on the premise that “the people of Puerto Rico had spoken”. However, that has yet to be seen as the island’s legislative and executive branches continue to demonstrate an increasing lack of reliability through their failure to openly discuss, consider, and/or accept the proposals presented by their counterparts.

The most recent example relates to the resolution of the island‘s undetermined political status. In this case, members of the island’s main political parties reached a historical milestone as they attempted to develop a tri-partisan status bill clearly requesting that Congress should provide Puerto Rico with “non-colonial and non-territorial” status options. The bill called for a July 10 referendum, where Puerto Rican voters would choose for or against a petition calling on the U.S. Congress and President to pledge that the results of another decision on the status of the island would be honored. Although the bill passed both chambers and Governor Acevedo-Vilá gave the impression that he would sign it, he did not. Acevedo-Vilá refused to sign the bill based on a developing contention over the exclusion of the Constitutional Assembly, a process favored by the PDP as a mechanism to determine status. In the spirit of compromise, a substitute bill was then created, which included an amendment stating that the House and Senate were committed to legislation that would allow the Puerto Rican electorate to choose a mechanism to determine status-either by means of a constituent assembly or a request for a direct congressionally binding referendum, in case the U.S. government did not commit to a process of free determination before Dec. 31, 2006. The new bill (Spanish text) passed unanimously, but was met with a surprising response by Governor Acevedo-Vila, who decided to veto it altogether based on the premise that “it is deceptive to the people” because it did not give solid guarantees for the method he prefers to resolve the territory’s status.

Download Adobe Acrobat…Free!

(more…)