Economic and Social Council (Dominican Republic)

The President of the CES is designated by the President of the Dominican Republic for a four-year term that can be renewed consecutively only once. The President is the primary link with the Executive Branch and is responsible for coordinating the work of the CES, convene meetings of the Plenum and the Executive Commission, sign all acts and make public all agreements that are of public interest, and is the official spokesperson for the CES.[3]

The Plenum of the Council is composed of all its members, under the direction of the President and assisted by the Secretary General.[3]

The Secretary General is responsible for monitoring and providing technical support to the work of the CES and ensuring the administrative management of the CES. During Plenum meetings, the Secretary has a voice, but without vote.[3]

The Executive Commission is the management and operations entity of the CES, jointly with the President and Secretary General. It is composed of three members from each sector—business, labor, and social, and are elected by simple majority for a period of two years by the Plenum.[3]

In 2017, Dominican president Danilo Medina designated by decree the formation of a special commission, led by the CES, to investigate the bidding process for the construction of the Punta Catalina Coal Thermoelectric Plant. The plant's bidding process and eventual construction was part of a large-scale corruption and bribery scheme coordinated by Brazilian construction company Odebrecht and executed throughout Latin America.[4][5]

In addition to members of the CES, the investigative commission included members of various business organizations, some with deep links to the government, electric sector experts, media organizations, and religious and labor leaders. The commission was tasked with providing a report to communicate the results of the investigation and provide to the relevant authorities any information that could lead to judicial consequences for those involved in the bribery scheme.[4][5]

Despite overwhelming evidence of bribery, irregularities, and corruption in the bidding process for the coal plant,[6][7][8] the CES's findings, supported by results provided by an independent auditing firm, concluded that overvaluation in the construction of the plant could not be verified and that the bidding process followed Dominican law. The findings that were made public in July 2017, six months after the commission was established, also concluded that the commission was “not competent” to determine whether bribery took place in the bidding process.[9] These findings led to the establishment of national protest movement Green March which demanded transparency and an independent judicial investigation into the Punta Catalina bidding process. Specifically, Green March leaders accused the commission led by CES of contravening the rule of law and assisting with the cover-up of criminal activity on behalf of the presidency of Danilo Medina and against the Dominican people.[10]

Green March protests took place in the Summer of 2017 in several municipalities across the Dominican Republic and in cities around the world, led by the Dominican diaspora.[11]

Opposition parties were also critical of the commission's findings, considering these to be partial towards the government and protective of the interests of Odebrecht. They also indicated that some of the commission's recommendations could not be implemented as they contradicted Dominican law.[12]

Two years later, in July 2019, a member of the CES-led commission revealed that bribery did take place during the approval of Odebrecht’s contract in the Dominican National Congress. According to Persio Maldonado, president of the Dominican Society of Newspapers, these bribery accusations were known to the CES-led commission but were not included in the investigation as they did not fit into the narrow scope, established by presidential decree, which was limited to investigating irregularities in the bidding and construction process.[13]

On February 27, the CES offered to mediate a dialogue to be held in March to resolve the political and electoral crisis that erupted after the suspended municipal elections of February. With this initiative, the CES expressed a wish to help preserve the country's "political, social, and institutional stability" by leading a conversation between the major political parties in the country.[14]

The CES made their intentions to moderate the dialogue public after former Dominican president Hipolito Mejia proposed Monsignor Núñez Collado as a suitable mediator for the crisis.[15]

Shortly after the announcement, the CES was heavily criticized by diverse social sectors and political parties for its intended involvement in the dialogue. According to critics, including members of opposition parties and demonstrators who took to the streets to protest the suspended elections, the CES's very nature as a government entity that operates under the Executive branch of the Dominican government, as well as it stated mission to promote dialogue on “economic, social, and labor matters”,[3] renders it ineligible to lead or mediate a dialogue meant to address electoral and political issues.[16][17][18]

Cacerolazo protests led by demonstrators from various social and political groups erupted on March 4, the first day of the dialogue, at the site of the meeting and CES headquarters in the administrative building of the Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra in Santo Domingo.[19]

The meeting was suspended due to the disruption caused by the protests and an internal disagreement between members of the dialogue over the inclusion of a representative of the Dominican Revolutionary Party, whose political alliance with the governing Dominican Liberation Party would have caused an over-representation in a meeting that was meant to provide equal representation for all political movements.[20][21]

The dialogue continued on March 6, after an invitation was extended to representatives of the demonstrators to participate in the meeting as an observer and the internal impasse over the PRD's attendance was resolved.[22][23] A spokesperson who attended the meeting on behalf of the protesting groups left the meeting after giving a brief statement in which they rejected the invitation as an observer as insufficiently meaningful. The group also communicated the creation of a national dialogue to take place the same evening in which all citizen groups, political parties, and entities would be allowed to participate.[24][25]