Legislative tactics or class collaboration?
Automatically translated by AI.
By David Morera Herrera
The parliament in a bourgeois state (as of course Costa Rica is), constitutes a central pillar of the political regime. The slogan of defense of “institutionality” raised by the Frente Amplio (and in general by so-called “progressivism”) is a slogan that conceals the class nature of the state. In the same way it is covered up by the hackneyed concept of “social state of law”, however, in its confused content it also points out that there exist in the current bourgeois democracy, social conquests fruit of the struggle of the working class and the people, which it would be obtuse not to defend against the neoliberal onslaught that has been attacking them for decades, as long as they are called by their name and origin. It is hidden that this same State and its legal system (law) includes anti-popular and anti-worker forces and institutions. To cite a few examples, it includes the repressive forces, the secret election of magistrates by two thirds of the votes in parliament or the cumbersome electoral legislation that leaves at a disadvantage the parties that do not have the privilege of accessing the financial resources that flow in torrents from the bourgeois parties, in exchange for favors and bribes for the sponsoring businessmen.
However, unlike the ultra-leftists who refuse to participate in any electoral process (or anarchists, whose slogan at all times and places is: Down with the bourgeois state!); for the Marxist tradition we should not discard intervening in elections and in those parliaments, since they are a propaganda tribune with the objective of contributing to raise the consciousness, organization and mobilization of the working people. But it is always an auxiliary, accessory, secondary tactic, since what is strategic is the mobilization and organization of the working people on the terrain of the class struggle.
Likewise, such participation in parliament does not rule out tactical, precise and circumstantial agreements on certain bills and specific initiatives, with one or another fraction of the bourgeois parties. But from there, to a pact to co-govern the parliamentary institution, we maintain that there is a great difference.
On May 1, prior to the beginning of the first legislative session of the new Congress, a peculiar legislative pact was announced, signed by the factions of the Partido Liberación Nacional (PLN), Frente Amplio (FA), Partido Unidad Socialcristiana (PUSC) and Coalición Agenda Ciudadana (CAQ). This pact included 26 deputations and a joint agenda for the 2026-2030 legislative period.
What does the parliamentary pact of such politically dissimilar forces consist of?
Am Prensa (01-05-26) reports: “The document, called “Joint Legislative Solutions in favor of Costa Rica”, seeks to articulate a common proposal in the midst of a fragmented political scenario, after the recent national elections. According to the agreement, the groups recognize their ideological differences, but are committed to build minimum coincidences that allow guaranteeing the democratic institutionality, the respect to the Constitution and the attention to the main problems of the country.
Some highlights of the legislative pact
From the FA it is presented as a defensive pact to face the increasingly strong right wing phenomenon of the continuist government of Laura Fernandez-Rodrigo Chaves. In its letter it states that the fractions propose to strengthen individual guarantees, defend the independence of powers and speed up the appointment of magistrates, especially in the Constitutional Chamber. The latter could be a shot in the foot, in view of the fact that the official fraction of the PPSO exceeds the simpe majority (31 seats), which is not discardable to achieve with 6 more deputations the qualified majority of 38 votes, especially considering that the election of magistrates is secret.
The pact also, the text mentions, promotes freedom of the press, access to information, peaceful demonstration and citizen participation. So far, no more than general and abstract phrases.
In security and justice, the pact goes further down to earth. It proposes a frontal fight against organized crime through tools such as the extinction of domain, the lifting of bank secrecy in specific cases and the increase of resources for police forces. In addition, they propose reforms to the penitentiary system, more agile judicial processes and the transformation of the Intelligence and Security Directorate (DIS) into a civilian body with democratic controls.
Three observations regarding security and justice: 1) the lifting of banking secrecy should be for all companies and capitalists, it is not clear why and in which specific cases this would be done. 2) more resources for the police forces, this is a refrain raised by all parliamentary parties, including the pro-government Pueblo Soberano (PPSO). Given the valid concern about the increase in organized crime operations and murders, the pact ignores the fact that crime is a product of growing social inequality. Fighting for more funding for the repressive forces, fits and is a perfect alibi for measures aimed at more punitive actions and legality (emphasis on the criminal and not on the social), more militarization and projects such as the Bukele-like mega-prison proposed by the government. 3) It is worth asking then: what does the “reform to the penitentiary system consist of?”
In the area of social development, the agenda includes measures to improve the quality of education, move towards an investment of 8% of GDP in education and reduce territorial and gender gaps. It sounds very good, but “moving towards 8% of GDP for public education” is not the same as demanding compliance with this constitutional precept. One “oversight” that stands out is that there is no mention of the dispute over the Special Fund for Higher Education (FEES) on which the continuist government intends to impose a 0 % adjustment in relation to last year’s FEES. The government has already broken off negotiations with the National Council of Rectors (CONARE), which timidly only requests a very insufficient increase of 1% for the year 2026. It is a fait accompli that the dispute will be settled in parliament, at the latest in September of this year. In this sense, the omission of this hot and current issue is very significant.
In health, the agreement proposes to defend and strengthen the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS), reduce waiting lists, address the shortage of specialists and define the State’s debt with the institution . Again we see the generalities, it is not about defining the debt of the State with the institution. The debt is already more than clear. The Costa Rican State’s debt to the CCSS currently amounts to approximately ₡4.3 billion, affecting both the Health Insurance and the Disability, Old Age and Death (IVM) regime. So: why does the Pact not directly address, not the definition of the debt, but a plan for the State to honor that debt?
In terms of social investment, the fractions propose to review the fiscal rule, which is not the same as eliminating the fiscal rule, which strangles the budgets of public services, freezes salaries and prevents the hiring of new positions.
A notable omission is that tax havens, such as the free trade zone regime, are not touched upon and there is not a word about a tax reform to alleviate the tax burden on the popular sectors, such as the Value Added Tax (VAT), and to propose progressive taxes on large capital.
Obviously, what is said and what is not said, the “oversights” in this Pact respond precisely to the fact that it is an agreement with political forces with different social interests.
Speeches by PLN, PUSC and CAC bourgeois party leaders
Delfino (01-01-26) reports: Álvaro Ramírez Bogantes, head of fraction of the PLN, commented: “we have decided to build, from diversity, a responsible agenda that guarantees the strengthening of democracy and concrete solutions to the problems of the citizenship. (…)” Claudia Dobles Camargo, head of fraction and only legislator of the Citizen Agenda Coalition, expressed: “this agreement is born from a clear reading of the political moment: citizens do not want permanent confrontation, but solutions. Today we are taking a firm step towards a Legislative Assembly that dialogues and builds”.
The bloc extended an invitation to the fraction of the ruling party Pueblo Soberano to be part of the dialogue and share the agenda of projects, in order to strengthen the legislative consensus in favor of Costa Ricans.
“Costa Rica needs a Legislative Assembly that acts with responsibility, respect and long-term vision for the country. This agreement is a clear sign that it is possible to build coincidences to put Costa Rica above any differences”, said Abril Gordienko, head of fraction and only deputy of the PUSC”.
Explanations by Villalta, head of the Frente Amplio faction
Villalta talked to El Financiero about the limits between a responsible opposition and one that slows down the country’s progress, the willingness of his group to compromise in order to build agreements and the spaces of coincidence or confrontation that they foresee with the government.
Regarding the PLN, he indicated: “It seems to me that the new figures of Liberación Nacional are making a self-criticism of this. I have a good feeling about the National Liberation bench in the sense that they seem to want to respond to an ideology, to what Mr. Alvaro Ramos promised in his campaign”.
Regarding the new government Villalta expressed: “I have seen two characters in Mrs. Laura: a Mrs. Laura that I knew when she was Minister of Planning and then Minister of the Presidency, who corresponded to a sensible person with whom one could dialogue and one could disagree, but it was very pleasant to talk to her; then she changed during the electoral campaign and suddenly she looked too much like Rodrigo Chaves. We are not going to present motions just to screw them, just to obstruct them, just to change a comma of a bill. We are going to put forward proposed amendments. The advantage is that when the reason for the objection is justified, it is possible to dialogue, and say ‘well, let’s fix this and solve this problem’.”
From a limited agreement to a proposal to co-govern the parliament
The last point of the pact states: “In addition to the development of a common legislative agenda and an institutional and democratic defense framework, the fractions agree to propose a Legislative Directory option that reflects the spirit of this agreement, guaranteeing representativeness, political balance and commitment to the common agenda.
In this sense, and as a basis to guarantee governability and co-responsibility among the main opposition forces, the following distribution of the board of directors was agreed upon:
– Presidency: Diana Murillo Murillo, Liberación Nacional
– Vice-President: Abril Gordienko López, Unidad Social Cristiana
– First Secretary: María Eugenia Román Mora, Frente Amplio
– Second Secretary: Claudia Dobles Camargo, Agenda Ciudadana Coalition
– First Vice-secretary: Víctor Manuel Hidalgo Solís, Liberación Nacional
– Second Vice-Secretary: Joselyne Sánchez Núñez, Frente Amplio
From a purely arithmetical point of view, the political forces of the pact had no feasibility to succeed in imposing their ballot. Nevertheless, it is a message of “unity and class collaboration” that is very important.
There are additions that subtract
Not only does the pact have diffuse references and omitted aspects, it is a sign that the FA, which is supposed to be the “responsible left” in Congress, is for collaboration to co-govern that institution with neoliberal parties that have been responsible for the social economic deterioration of the people, since the first structural adjustment programs, imposed by the IMF and more recently the PAC (predecessor of the CAC) with a virulent offensive that left the table served to the ultra reactionary right wing government of Chaves (anti-strike law, fiscal rule, fiscal combo, public employment framework law).
A consistent left, not to say revolutionary, does not make programmatic pacts with bourgeois parties, beyond the declaration of intentions of that motley alliance. The purpose of controlling the Directory, something clearly ruled out mathematically beforehand, expresses it clearly. In the times of Pueblo Unido, an alliance of left-wing parties, with class independence, always voted for an independent ballot. The idea is to emphasize pedagogically the importance of class independence before the masses. Pueblo Unido always opposed covert militarization, disguised as police funding. As well as to onerous loans with imperialist scroungers like the IMF and the World Bank. What a great difference with today’s FA, which continues and deepens a line of class conciliation, with the alibi of “responsible” opposition to the Rodrigo Chaves – Laura Fernandez government. Precisely because of this, from the PRT, in spite of our criticisms of Pueblo Unido, (except in 1986 when we presented our own candidacies (headed by the late union leader of Aqueducts and Sewers: Edwin Badilla Agüero), in 1978 and 1982 we voted for the Pueblo Unido coalition.
It seems that the political calculation made by the FA leadership is that, given the political growth it had in these elections, they could be the government in the next elections of 2030, with a centrist project of class collaboration, in the style of the FA of Uruguay or the Lula government in Brazil. We do not believe that this is possible in Costa Rica for the moment, nor in the short term, unless a process of deep economic and social crisis opens up; but it does explain the shift to the right of the political leadership of the FA, which seeks to appear reliable and a good option for some “progressive” sectors of the bourgeoisie (or who are now dressed as “progressives”) that are now facing Chavism; As stated by former presidential candidate Ariel Robles, during the last electoral campaign, in an article published by the Extra in August 2025, where he stated that businessmen could be at ease in an eventual government of his: “The presidential candidate affirms that he will give even more guarantees than those offered by this administration, emphasizing that he will not impose taxes in free zones and, rather, he will bet on exoneration projects that in the future may generate greater sources of employment.”[1]
Time will tell what will be the duration, consistency or fragility of this legislative pact, but in our opinion, for the purposes of the FA this is a sum that subtracts from it. And quite a lot. Instead of becoming a meeting point for leftist sectors and parties and bringing together a socialist or anti-capitalist front, the FA is squandering, from our perspective, the political strength it has managed to amass in order to appear safe for the elites that control power in Costa Rica. As we have insisted, the FA is often broad to the right, but not to the left.
[1] Suarez, D. (2025). “El sector privado puede estar tranquilo en un Gobierno mío” Diario extra digital, August 18, 2025. Available at: https://www.diarioextra.com/noticia/el-sector-privado-puede-estar-tranquilo-en-un-gobierno-mio/
