Rebellious Panama: Workers and indigenous peoples against neoliberalism

First published at Revista Movimento.

For over 50 days, Panama has been experiencing one of the largest strikes in its recent history. The spark was a series of neoliberal measures adopted by newly elected President José Raúl Mulino, the political heir of former president Ricardo Martinelli — convicted of corruption and currently in asylum in Colombia.

In an exclusive interview, sociologist, socialist Panamanian Teachers’ Association (ASOPROF) activist José Cambra details the origins and developments of the mobilization, which began with teachers and quickly spread to various sectors of the working class. For him, what’s at stake goes far beyond Panama: “Panama has become the epicenter of a struggle being waged by Latin American peoples against savage capitalism.”

Let’s begin with this question: why have Panamanians been on strike for 54 days?

In recent months, Panama has become the epicenter of a struggle being waged by Latin American peoples against savage capitalism, against neoliberalism. This has taken the form of strikes — an open-ended general strike that began on April 23. It was initiated by primary and secondary school teachers across the country and was joined, on April 28, by indefinite strikes from banana sector workers in a province called Bocas del Toro — located on the Panamanian Atlantic coast, near the Costa Rican border — as well as construction workers, led by the National Single Union of Workers in the Construction Industry and Similar Trades (Suntracs).

There were multiple reasons for this strike. It’s important to note that it is taking place a year after the inauguration of a president named Mulino, who holds an ideological orientation similar to Bolsonaro in Brazil, Milei in Argentina, Duque in Colombia, and Trump in the United States. This is a man who won the election riding the political coattails of a former president who had been tried and convicted for acts of corruption involving the construction firm Odebrecht, rendering him ineligible to run for office. I’m referring to Ricardo Martinelli, who served as president about 12 years ago. Unable to run himself, Martinelli handpicked Mulino as his candidate.

I must point out that this candidacy violated Panama’s Constitution and Electoral Code because, according to both, every presidential candidate must be nominated through a party convention — or a coalition of parties — and this was not the case. Mulino was hand-selected and presented himself as a presidential candidate to the Electoral Tribunal without any prior convention, clearly due to the urgency caused by Martinelli’s disqualification.

Nonetheless, his campaign message was simple: “Martinelli is Mulino, and Mulino is Martinelli,” promising to bring economic prosperity to Panamanians. This resonated because during Martinelli’s presidency — two presidential terms ago, or three political pardons ago — there was a period of significant economic prosperity. There was plenty of employment, large-scale infrastructure projects, and, as was later revealed, also government corruption, for which Martinelli was convicted. He later sought asylum, first protected by Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo at the Nicaraguan embassy for about a year, and now granted asylum in Colombia under President Gustavo Petro. In early 2024, Mulino effectively leveraged Martinelli’s political capital to win the election.

We need to understand that throughout this year, there has been no job creation in Panama. On the contrary, what we’ve seen is a reform law for Social Security that hands over $9 billion in reserves from the Social Security Fund to be managed by two close associates of this authoritarian president. One is the manager of the National Bank of Panama, and the other is the manager of the Savings Bank of Panama—both public banks. Ninety percent of those $9 billion would be given directly to private enterprise. These managers would even be allowed to outsource to private companies so they could profit from the fund. The law also mandates the purchase of U.S. government debt bonds, meaning it places the reserves of the Social Security Fund at risk.

In Panama, this fund covers healthcare for 90% of residents — both Panamanians and foreign residents — who pay into the fund, as well as their dependents. It also covers pensions. In other words, it’s a mixed system: both healthcare and retirement. This law also reduces pensions from 60% to 30% of a worker’s salary and raises the retirement age.

According to economists at the University of Panama, under this new model, instead of retiring at 62 for men and 57 for women, people would have to work until 80 to receive 60% of their salary. Otherwise, they’d only receive 30% or less. This set off alarm bells. The “People United for Life Alliance” and other grassroots organizations denounced the situation and took part in dialogue initiatives convened by the president, which led to no real negotiation — because the president refused to negotiate. He submitted the law, and while there was a two-month consultation period in the legislature broadcast on television, in which nearly 500 people participated, the vast majority insisted on fully restoring the solidarity-based system and cracking down on employers who evade contributions. They also demanded higher taxes on capital, since in Panama capital is practically tax-exempt.

But the situation worsened when the United States, following Trump’s policy direction, proposed retaking control of the canal, which had been handed over to Panama 25 years ago through international treaties. Instead of denouncing this at the UN Security Council, where Panama holds a non-permanent seat, the Mulino government signed a memorandum of understanding with Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, allowing the installation of three military bases in former U.S. military sites.

Hegseth reports to Trump that there are already 1,000 U.S. soldiers in Panama. Moreover, a troop rotation was announced last week — meaning U.S. military presence in violation of the Torrijos-Carter Treaty. Article 5 of the Permanent Neutrality Treaty stipulates that only Panama can have military forces or bases after the year 2000.

This is seen by the people as an act of surrender by the Mulino government — which it clearly is. Add to that the government’s intent to reopen the First Quantum mine — a mine that once generated 48% of the company’s global profits and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023 after massive protests.

Panama is a country of 4.2 million people, yet there was a massive march of 250,000 people. One day, a million people mobilized across the country. That level of resistance forced the Supreme Court not only to declare the mining agreement unconstitutional but also to rule against open-pit mining on environmental grounds. A law banning open-pit mining was passed.

Yet the president declared he would reopen the mine and told First Quantum they could take the copper stockpiled there. A shipment of coal just arrived at the mine’s port, signaling plans to resume energy production — clearly a step toward reopening.

These measures directly contradict the spirit of 2023 and are at the core of the demands driving the current mobilizations, which began with teachers on April 23 and were joined by banana workers and construction unions on April 28.

Today, 54 days after the teachers’ strike began, the banana workers had reached an agreement with the National Assembly to establish a law that would restore rights they had lost due to the reform of the Social Security Fund law—known as Law 462. However, entire communities in the area were involved, and the province had essentially been taken over: power in the province was in the hands of the union and local communities. There were 24 road blockades on the way to and within the province. The government made it a condition that these roads be reopened — but they were not — because the demand is for the complete repeal of the law, which applies nationwide. The people rightly see this as a trap: you can’t have two contradictory laws.

One law is a special law; the other is hierarchically superior — it’s the organic law of the Social Security Fund. In response, the president ordered a military intervention in the province last Thursday. On Friday, “Operation Omega” began — Omega meaning “the end” — which moved into the province, clashed with barricades, and confronted the groups stationed there, composed mostly of Indigenous peoples (Ngäbe, Buglé, Naso) and banana workers who had resumed their struggle. Contradictorily, the authorities arrested the most prominent leader, Francisco Espín of the banana workers’ union, along with three others. They were accused of inciting criminal activity.

As a result, the struggle is intensifying. At this moment, there are confrontations across the province of Bocas del Toro — clashes with police, anti-riot forces, and the National Border Service, which is acting unlawfully because it is supposed to operate only on the country’s borders, not throughout the country as an internal militarized force. Meanwhile, Indigenous Ngäbe people have blocked the Inter-American Highway — the most important highway in Panama — and are clashing with police.

This also happened last week in a village called Arimay, home to the Emberá people, located near the border between the provinces of Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, close to Costa Rica. Now the struggle is spreading into the Darien jungle, where the Emberá live. There, on the highway, two of their cacicas (female leaders) were arrested and paraded in handcuffs — hands and feet shackled — as if they were criminals. Last Friday, they were brought before the accusatory penal system and released because there were no grounds for the charges.

What I mean is that there is an Indigenous uprising. Other Indigenous groups — like the Kuna (or Dule) — have declared their support and removed all government authorities from their territory, shutting down all schools in solidarity with the teachers’ strike. The Kuna General Congress and the Emberá General Congress are taking similar actions. Traditional Indigenous authorities are not only fighting this law but also opposing extractivism.

They know that if this struggle is lost, the mine will reopen immediately. They are also fighting to annul the memorandum of understanding with the United States that allows for military bases. Let me add something about that.

According to Panama’s constitution, any matter concerning the Canal or its adjacent areas must be submitted to the National Assembly, and if approved, must go to a national referendum. In other words, this process is binding and mandatory. However, the memorandum of understanding involves three military bases located in former U.S. canal zone territory, and constitutionally, it must be approved by the Assembly and then by referendum. The government is refusing to do this.

This administration has transformed a representative bourgeois democracy into a regime that overrides the constitution and the law — typical of the far right and of civilian dictatorships. So, we are facing a struggle in which the defense of the rule of law and democratic freedoms takes center stage. That is why the Secretary General of Suntracs sought asylum in the Bolivian embassy, following a decision by the union.

Why? Because they were going to arrest him and send him to the country’s most dangerous prison, hoping that an inmate — acting under orders from the government — would stab and kill him. Indigenous leaders from Arimay in the Darién region are also imprisoned in the Mega Joya high-security prison and are in danger, as is Jaime Caballero, another Suntracs leader, also held there. In short, the government is criminalizing protest — even student protests.

In this country, there are mobilizations every day, Monday through Saturday. Teachers, along with construction workers and other union sectors, mobilize daily and walk through the communities. The strike is much stronger in the interior of the country than in Panama City, which has a population of 2 million and a vast geographic spread, making it more difficult to mobilize. The demonstrations in the capital are large, but they are even larger in the interior — where entire communities join the teachers and their marches.

That’s the situation we’re facing. There have been cases in which teachers have had their salaries illegally confiscated. According to the organic law, this should only happen after a formal process: each school director must open an individual case with evidence, notify the teacher, who has five days to respond. Then the director must decide, and the teacher has the right to appeal. None of this was done. The salaries of 20,000 teachers were simply suspended. Many others are also on strike.

In Latin America — especially South America — we are witnessing a wave of far-right authoritarian governments, with the exception of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Chile, whose governments remain in the democratic camp. These far-right regimes have been implementing a whole agenda of neoliberal reforms and attacks on people’s rights. But in Panama, a different situation has emerged. Even though the governments since 2019 have aligned with the World Bank, the IMF, and the U.S., they have not been able to fully implement their agendas. The impression is that Panama has a strong popular resistance — without political representation in government — that prevents capitalism from carrying out its full program. In other words, Panama appears to be the weakest link in the capitalist chain, and at the same time the place where popular struggle has shown its greatest strength, imposing defeats on capitalism and the government since 2019 — such as the First Quantum mining company, which was defeated in the streets. I’d like you to comment on this impression.

I believe Panama has a particular characteristic: the reformist leaderships of the mass movement here are not as strong as they are in other countries. What I mean is that there are leaders who support the struggle — for example, the construction workers’ union, or the Association of Teachers of the Republic, or the teachers’ unions leading the educators’ struggle. And that connects with another important point: I believe Panama has been experiencing what we call a legitimacy crisis.

In 2019, there were elections, and just a few months later, the government tried to push through constitutional reforms. One of those reforms would have slashed the public university budget. The University of Panama held a meeting of its governing body — the CGU — and decided to mobilize the entire university the very next day. A march of 10,000 university students occupied the National Assembly, tore down the fences, and forced the Assembly to backtrack on that part of the reform. Ten days later, 4,000 young people — among them LGBTQIA+ activists, unionists, and university students — were violently repressed by the police. This repression sparked more than a month of demonstrations, led mostly by young women between 17 and 35 years old, against the parliament and the reform itself.

They saw the parliament as a den of privilege, and their struggle forced the government to reverse the entire constitutional reform in 2019. They defeated it! Then the pandemic hit in 2020. We were locked down in 2020 and 2021, but in 2022, rising gasoline prices caused widespread discontent. Following a teachers’ strike and construction workers’ road blockades, the broader population joined in—shutting down roads across the country in protest of fuel prices, food costs, overpriced medications, shortages in public hospitals, and lack of education funding.

At that time, the only concrete achievement was an increase in the education budget and a freeze — and later a reduction — of fuel prices. But many issues remained unresolved. After a month-long teachers’ strike, an agreement was reached, and no salaries were cut. But in 2023, things exploded again — because none of the underlying problems had been solved. The mining issue sparked a massive movement. In the beginning, protests against the mining company had 50 to 100 people. Eventually, they grew to a quarter million.

So, there’s a broader issue: people have simply stopped accepting the system. There’s a clear disconnect from traditional politicians. And, crucially, we have leaders who promote struggle — and that allows people to take action.

In reality, from the Alianza Pueblo Unido, the idea throughout this whole struggle has been that we are a catalyst for the people to express themselves. It’s not just us — as mass organizations fighting the government — but us helping the broader population to mobilize. And that’s exactly what happened in 2023. Now, because repression is so intense, that helps explain why we haven’t yet seen a full-scale popular uprising — why, for example, the neighborhoods in Panama City haven’t mobilized as they did previously. But just yesterday, there were clashes in the eastern part of the capital. The Ngäbe people in the Pacora area went out to block bridges and confront the police.

What I’m saying is that the government’s policy is repression. If a neighborhood demands water or denounces housing issues, the government responds with repression. And that causes fear, but it also builds up discontent — fueling the possibility of a social explosion that hasn’t happened yet on a national scale.

Still, despite this being a far-right government — despite being neoliberal and deeply corrupt—people are reacting the same way. There’s a key difference from Bolsonaro in Brazil, for example: Bolsonaro managed to channel part of the public’s discontent and built a base of social support. At this moment, the far-right government in Panama has no social base.

Moreover, Martinelli — who still had popular support — is now being blamed for bringing Mulino to power. In other words, the man who once had public sympathy is now facing growing criticism. I believe this points to a leadership issue. There are leaders willing to fight, and that helps explain the people’s ability to respond. The teachers’ movement has a vanguard that’s been struggling for 20 or 25 years. If you look at the age of most teachers, especially in secondary education, many are over 50. This is a vanguard that has participated in every major struggle.

I’ve been in Panama and seen, especially now, that there is a great deal of popular support in neighborhoods, towns, and families for the teachers’ strike. Communities are deeply involved in the mobilization. Beyond the teachers, construction workers, banana workers, and Indigenous peoples — this is not about isolated actors. Their communities are fully involved in the strike. Maybe in middle-class neighborhoods you don’t see as much support. As you mentioned, many teachers have lost their pay. So there are community support campaigns — bringing food, collecting money to support them in their struggle, right?

Absolutely. Around the third week of the teachers’ strike, a wave of assemblies and meetings of parents — mostly mothers — began. I say mothers because most of the parents of primary and secondary school students are women.

So, mothers and fathers began meeting and declaring their support for teachers who were out of work. And if there were teachers who weren’t on strike, the parents said they wouldn’t send their children to class. So, this was a strike that began with about 60% of teachers participating. By the third week, it reached 80%, boosted by parents’ support. But there’s another actor that emerged during the first week of the strike: high school students in uniform, who turned out in large numbers to join demonstrations across the provinces.

Sometimes in small groups, but in many schools. In other words, a new actor was awakened — one that had been repressed during the Noriega era. Panama used to have a strong tradition of student mobilization.

The role that teachers play today was once played by high school students. They had a student federation with associations in each school. Every classroom had its own representative. There was a structured organization and mass mobilizations. Noriega dismantled all of that in 1985. He expelled the leaders and destroyed the organization.

But in recent years, in every struggle for school demands or national issues, high school students have returned to action — mobilizing for their schools or for broader national causes, like this one. So now we have mothers, fathers, and students as critical actors in the community’s support for the strike. And that’s the base we want to build on. That’s why we keep saying: we need to go into the communities, win the parents’ support, and ensure the continuity of the strike.

They are considering the possibility of resuming the strike until July 2, when the National Assembly returns to session — because the Assembly cannot meet unless the president calls for extraordinary sessions. Regarding Law 462, since the president has already said he won’t negotiate anything, the Assembly itself will have to take action. That’s why there’s now a nationwide movement organizing pickets outside the homes of the deputies who voted in favor of the law.

And several deputies are already afraid for their electoral futures, which is why some are saying they are open to changes or reforms to the law. The movement hasn’t yet been strong enough to force a full repeal, but they’re starting to talk about it. In fact, we already know there are five to seven articles that could be repealed or altered in such a way that the law would effectively collapse. But a major push is still needed to sustain the strike effectively.

How long can the movement last? Do you think there’s room to pressure the deputies into reforming the law? Because it seems to me that the National Assembly is mostly keeping quiet about the law. Isn’t it a tactic — waiting until July to apply pressure on the Assembly?

That is also the government’s tactic: to wear down the movement. In other words, the government is playing with the threat of salary deductions — which have already been implemented for about 20,000 teachers. In addition, there are entire provinces where neither school principals nor supervisors have been paid.

In Veraguas and Bocas del Toro, no one has been paid. So in reality, some of our colleagues haven’t been paid in three pay periods, others in two, others in one. What the government is doing now is mass firings — replacing striking teachers with unemployed educators.

This has been challenged through legal injunctions because these firings didn’t follow due process, so they are illegal. Constitutional protection writs (amparos de garantías) have been filed with the Supreme Court, and that’s where the pressure is being applied. If the Court admits the injunctions — not even ruling in favor, just accepting them — this triggers a collateral effect: a legal order to return the salaries.

This puts the executive in conflict with the judiciary, via the Supreme Court. That becomes part of the motivation to stay on strike: the expectation that the court will force the return of the withheld pay. These are blows to the government, which is using repression, the courts, and financial punishment to try to break the strike. Historically, Panama has only seen teachers’ pay withheld during a strike on two occasions. They never dared to do it before. Now they are doing it because this far-right government’s main objective is to destroy Suntracs and dismantle the teachers’ organization. The belief is that by destroying those two movements, they eliminate the leadership standing in the way of their agenda.

That’s the government’s decision. So what we have is total confrontation, with no middle ground. No negotiation, because the government refuses to negotiate anything.

And it lacks the social strength to maintain its agenda. If it loses the pension law, it loses everything else. In other words, it cannot enforce the agreement with the United States, nor can it reopen the mining operation. So I think that’s the issue, right? It seems like a deadlock. The government isn’t strong enough to crush the movement, and the movement, for now, doesn’t have the strength to…

It’s not strong enough to defeat the government outright. What’s needed is a broader push from the communities to bring the government down. And I’ll say one more thing. If the government is defeated, it will be a complete defeat, because Mulino sold himself to the financial oligarchy as their savior. And the financial oligarchy embraced him.

But this is now a crisis of governability that is also affecting their profits. Consumption is falling. The fact that 20,000 educators aren’t getting paid means that loans, mortgages, and other bank payments are going unpaid.

That creates a wider economic crisis. Other parts of the country are also starting to seize up, which is further impacting the economy. If this continues, we can bet that at some point the people will gain enough strength to participate more broadly — and that would be a spectacular defeat for the government. The same kind of defeat they are trying to inflict on us.

But is there already a sector of the bourgeoisie putting pressure on the government? The sector involved in the real economy, tourism, and markets — is the bourgeois economic sector already pushing the government to back down?

About ten days ago, he met with them, talked with them, and asked them to wait, to give him a few days to end the movement.

That’s why the president’s speech always says there’s no real problem here. That the problem with Law 462 is over; there are only a few minor issues. But of course, people say, “My God, there are two Panamas here: the president’s Panama and the one you see on the street.”

What we have not yet reached is a nationwide revolt happening all at once. That’s what we haven’t gotten to yet. And I’m speaking even from the viewpoint of the people’s right to protest.

There have been protests at the same time that paralyzed the country, but not everywhere as in 2023. And that’s what the president says. “I won’t let the country shut down again.”

That’s today’s stance. But in reality, it’s about shutting down the country, to a certain extent, right? There’s some transport movement, etc., but there is a point at which the country is effectively closed. And there’s another thing: the International Solidarity Movement. I want to say that we are deeply grateful to all comrades in Brazil and other countries who have carried out the international campaign that started before June 9.

There were protests, for example, at the ILO, at the Latin American CSA Congress, at the worldwide ITUC Congress. There was even coordination with Marcelo Di Stéfano to gather the actions that took place on June 9 in different places, both in Latin America and Europe, and elsewhere. In other words, there was an effective movement involving teachers’ unions, leftist political organizations, comrades of the Fourth International, etc., generally organized with trade union centrals, etc.

At the center of this is solidarity with Suntracs, which is the organization most affected. Their bank accounts, union dues, have been seized by two consecutive governments since November 18, 2023. Their most important leader is in the Bolivian embassy.

There is another important leader in prison and another one with a $10,000 reward for his capture. There is a manhunt underway. The union headquarters have been raided. In other words, all issues regarding freedom of association and ILO agreements have been violated.

In all the government’s attempts to crush the movement, was there one that came closest? The attempt to negotiate with the banana workers’ union to reform the pension law, which they failed to achieve, right? There were about two attempts. One was a government minister who met with them in Bocas del Toro and returned without an agreement. And now there has been a new attempt that resulted in the arrest of the union leader. In other words, the government’s attempts to divide the movement have failed. So what will happen now in light of the deadlock this is creating?

The National Assembly approved the reforms agreed with the union in Law 45. Despite this, the blockades in Changuinola, the most unionized area, remained. So the president decided to send the police and militarized forces there, the fight started, and the unionists closed Changuinola again. It’s like a crazy firefighter who, instead of throwing water, throws gasoline. So they are about to crush the movement.

But because the movement is very strong, it’s very hard to crush it. And any slip-up could set the prairie on fire. And we are resisting precisely so the population can participate and we can defeat the government.

Defeating the government means the defeat, as you said, not only of the social security pension reform law but also of mining and all these government attempts. Moreover, the government itself is putting itself at risk, because this is a president who has no vice president. And there was a complaint filed against him in the National Assembly in compliance with the Constitution, alleging that he violated the international personality of the state by approving U.S. military bases, which is prohibited because Panama cannot have armies, much less foreign armies.

He violated the constitutional provision that such agreements must be submitted to the Assembly and a referendum, thus violating the state’s international personality, which is the only reason for the removal of a president. If the balance of forces changes and a major crisis arises, then the possibility would be that, once the internal balance of forces in society has shifted, reflected in the Assembly, the president could be removed from office and new elections held within five months, as established by the Constitution. In other words, this opens a different scenario.

That is not under discussion yet. It’s not a possibility at this moment, but a government defeat is possible. Because this would be an instrument that would not be effective for the bureaucracy, since this is an absolutely defeated government.

Antonio Neto is a teacher, striker, and Geography professor at the Senador Ernesto Dornelles State Technical School in Porto Alegre.

José Cambra is a socialist activist and member of the Panamanian Teachers' Association (ASOPROF).