Predictably, the main theme of this morning’s editorial comments is analysis of the impact and implications of the general strike that began yesterday. Diario Libre’s main editorial column, headed “Paradoxes”, muses on the contradiction between democracy and protests. In a democracy, it says, even “the most misguided or lost causes” have the right to be aired through protest. It says that a protest is valid only when it is within the parameters of the law. “There is no doubt that, for whatever reason, the government has reaped abundant rejection. It follows suit, then, that people want to show their discontent.” The piece wraps up by saying that if this protest ends “without victims or excess” everyone will emerge a winner: “The government will know how unpopular it is. The country will have learnt how to demonstrate it in a democratic manner.” Hoy’s veteran commentator Emilio Lapayesse is, by definition of his “En solo cien palabras” column, short and to the point. “This strike reminds us of the country’s ‘deaf dialogue’. They didn’t listen to our warnings about the Pan American Games. Months after that demented farce, the country is bankrupt and lacks funds for the most urgent priorities: We send soldiers to Iraq for God knows what, while in the public hospitals there is not enough money to buy disinfectant.” Carlos Marquez in the Listin Diario takes another angle, lamenting the high number of injuries already tallied on the first day of the strike, as well as the economic losses as a result of the near complete shutdown. In looking at the toll on commerce, to which the loss of two days’ worth of income is a heavy blow, Marquez absolves the strike’s organizers and supporters of guilt, saying there are some forces who engage in “irrational opposition” for their own sakes, with no regard for the potential effects on the country. These are people, writes Marquez, who like to see others suffer. “These are the ones who know that salaries cannot be doubled and that there is no going back on the IMF agreement, and they are responsible for the losses.” El Caribe’s Miguel Guerrero writes that the evident success of the strike and the many voices that have been raised in its support through paid advertisements in the press appear to demonstrate the widespread discontent with the government’s economic policies from all quarters of society. Guerrero points out, however, that this could be misleading. While the strike organizers are lashing out against the IMF agreement, the private sector has consistently supported it. “Many of the demands are difficult or impossible to fulfill,” he writes, citing the organizers’ pleas for to double salaries and reduce the exchange rate and the price of fuel. Nevertheless, “the country is so passionate in its desire to show its rejection of President Mejia that it has cast aside these considerations. The organizers’ triumph, as well as the strike’s, has been its ability to unite such a broad range of sectors under a series of slogans that not all are in agreement with.”