The Politics of Panamá (I)

A discussion with Congressman José Pérez Barboni on The Rasheed Griffith Show

Rasheed Griffith

and

Shem Best

Nov 15, 2024

Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts

Show notes

At 25 years of age, José Pérez Barboni is the youngest member of Panama’s National Assembly. Join us for a discussion on the state of play in politics and governance on the isthmus and the peculiar system of elections that continues to shape the development of one of Latin America’s most pivotal economies.

Panama, the proverbial (and literal) bridge of the Americas, is not defined simply by the infamous trans-oceanic marvel that is the Panama Canal. The country of just over 4 million sits at the forefront of an immigration crisis brought on by the veritable collapse of its neighbor Venezuela. Barboni, who is intimately familiar with the state of affairs, gives insights on what is being done to alleviate the strain on Panama’s resources, as well as bring regional and international attention to the precarious balance between humanitarian efforts and diplomatic action on the largest exodus in the modern history of the continent.

José gives the rundown on local opposition to a mining deal and the underlying cause of the early 2023 riots that paralyzed Panama. An aversion to repetition to a continued lack of government transparency fueled month-long protests that resulted in the rejection of an environmentally dubious mining contract.

How can we bring younger minds and opinions into governing roles? José shares his thought process and journey to the National Assembly. What can the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean learn from Panama’s prominent independent candidate culture and how has this shaped José’s party, Otro Camino?

José on X

José’s Website

Full Transcript

This transcript was automatically generated by AI and lightly edited by our team. We don’t catch every error, so if you spot one, send us a message/email via shem@cpsi.org.

Rasheed: Hi José. Thank you so much for joining me on the podcast today. I'm very much looking forward to our conversation.

José: No, thank you, Rasheed. I'm very glad to be part of this opportunity. I think it's always good to share our views and thoughts on what I believe is, young people in politics and how we can also shape so many things around our atmospheres and environments here in Panama that need a lot of that young energy that I think we can provide from these opportunities.

Rasheed: Yeah for sure. One of the most common things I often say to my friends and different audiences is, that you need more young people going into government to have a real change within government. It's not enough to stand outside and argue for different policy changes. And Panama is surprisingly very good at this at least recently, where there is a very high proportion of the Congress that is young. Under thirty-five, under thirty even, and that is pretty remarkable. So can you tell us why you decided at 25 years old to join the National Assembly in Panama?

José: Well I used to be more interested in aviation.

That was the career I was pursuing before getting into politics. But since I was very young, I got involved also in debate competitions like Model United Nations. And many other activities that prepare people to be better public speakers, to give better criteria for you to analyze complex situations in your country's economy, your country's politics, aspects, and so many other issues; education and health. And I feel that since I was exposed to the opportunity of being part of a debate club, I was involved in the board of my debate club as well. I had the chance to be the president for one year before graduating. I feel that little experience shaped my political bone. Even though I didn't realize I was looking for it was right there. It was in my organism, in my system. And I started working also in embassies. I first worked in the British embassy here in Panama City. After that, the Qatari embassy and being close to the government and working closely with the government made me realize that we had a lot of things to change and to also pursue as opportunities for Panama.

And I noticed that even though I was in a good organization, like a British embassy or the Qatari embassy if I was not the decision maker, I wouldn't be able to achieve. In these diplomatic missions, I noticed the importance of government and the relations that we need to keep to achieve some stuff, especially for economic and commercial purposes.

Back in the British embassy, I used to work for the economic section. And for the Qatari embassy, I used to work for the commercial one. So both experiences made me realize that I wanted to change a lot of stuff in my country, in Panama, but I was not a decision maker. I was just a connection and a bridge for a foreign government to Panama.

But at the end of the day, Panama is the one that takes a decision that sometimes doesn't really, achieve what you're looking for. So I always had that little let's say crutch in my system, right? I was trying to figure out what I could do to change things, but I then started pursuing my aviation career.

And since I started pursuing my aviation career I thought that I was going to be a pilot as I was always looking for an experience. But then I had this involvement in a political party that I enrolled when I was 18 years old that it's called Otro Camino. And during that presidential campaign back in 2019, I supported the presidential candidate whose name is Ricardo Lombana.

He was the runner-up for the presidential election in 2024. And I supported him in 2019 when he got the third place. I supported him when he got the second place now in 2024. And I will keep supporting him if he wants to run again because I think he's a great leader who has not had the chance to be the president of the country.

But, I think that my involvement in the debate, in the diplomatic missions, and then in the party made me take the decision to step forward and seek a seat in Congress, which is crazy because just to conclude, I decided to run in November 2023, maybe two days before they close the elections list because they wanted you to submit documents and other, relevant things that you had to before enrolling for the campaign.

I did it two days before, but thanks to the effort and to the great team that I had surrounding me, I think that I was able to get the result that made me get to Congress on the 1st of July 2024.

Rasheed: What pushed you to join that list just 2 days before closure?

José: Well in Panama we had a situation, I don't know if you remember, it was with the mining company called First Quantum. We had a big protest, we had a crazy civil unrest situation going on. It lasted almost a month if I recall. And it was from October to November 2023. And I was in Argentina when that was happening.

I was very aware and I was paying close attention. But that was very weird, you know because even though I was pursuing my professional path which was aviation, I wanted to come back to Panama to be part of that historic moment that was the Panamanian people fighting for economic and climate rights. After all, we didn't want the mine for many reasons.

First of all, they were not giving us a fair contract. Secondly, they were not respecting climate and the environment and so many things that the Panamanians are very forceful about. So when that happened, I remember I had a call with Ricardo, who is the president of my political party, and he said, "Hey, you know what? I think people want young leaders. They want new, fresh minds to take over those positions in government, in the Congress." And I said, you know what? That's right. I'll, I'll take the step. I remember that he called me on a Saturday and then on Monday I was on a flight back to Panama and my parents were super mad at me because they didn't want me to, you know, just enroll in politics first of all.

And second, they thought it was very irresponsible for me to leave the career when I was about to finish. But actually, the truth is that even though I landed in Panama on Monday, on Wednesday, I was enrolling my candidacy to the Tribunal Electoral. That is our main authority for us to compete, to be candidates.

And on Friday or Saturday, I was on a plane back to Argentina. And then I finished my career and I launched my campaign from Argentina. I recorded the videos from there. I started building a team from there. And it was a bit weird again because you are not in Panama and you are running for Congress.

But I was very aware and I was never that close to Panama since the moment I decided to enroll. And it made me feel very close to, even though I was in Argentina, to be in touch with so many people, like building a team, recording my videos, launching my campaign. It was just a different way to make politics.

And I think that we need to give credit to technology and to the new tools that we have in this era because I feel that you were not able to do that maybe 15 or 20 years ago now with social media, even though time is crucial. Now you can do it because we have Instagram, Twitter, X, TikTok, and so many ways to reach people without actually knocking on their door and telling them "Well, hey, I'm running for Congress."

Rasheed: So around that same time in Argentina there was a big election happening the one with Milei and that was a very big contentious election cycle and you were trying to campaign in Panama while being mixed up in the election cycle in Argentina so I'm curious how was that experience.

José: Well, I think this is going to open the door for me to show you one of the most amazing and weird moments I had in Argentina when it comes to elections because I was flying from Cordoba where I was studying in Rosario.

And I remember that I decided to go out in Rosario because I landed there and I was like, "Hey, you know what? I'm just going to get to know the city." I was able to stay there for a night. And suddenly when I was leaving the airport, this was maybe, let me see the date. I don't know. It was November.

It was the 14th of November I think. And look who I met. I crossed paths with him at the airport and I was just hopping off the plane and he was leaving Rosario because that day was his, campaign closing. And I, I saw all this convoy of cars getting to the airport and I was like, "Oh my God, this is Messi." It has to be Messi because in a few days, they had a match with Uruguay and of course, Rosario is his hometown. And then suddenly you get Javier Milei coming down from the vehicle and the atmosphere was crazy. And let me tell you something in Cordoba, where I was studying they were supporting a candidate that was not Massa nor Milei.

They were supporting Schiaretti. He used to be the governor of the province of Cordoba. And a lot of people went to the polls and voted for him. But of course right after he lost and we got the second opportunity for the two top candidates to compete again, they were all shifting to Milei. And why was that?

Because I feel that people were tired of Kirchnerism. They were tired of the trigger of Christina Kirchner. And even though Milei presents something that- I'm going to make a variable comparison, but maybe he represents what Trump represents. In the US he's radical. He has very strong views and he is a very strong opposition to the left and all these ideas. He represented a change.

People sometimes, don't vote for the figure, but they vote for a change. And that's exactly what sometimes happens here in Panama, but mainly happens in polarized countries like Argentina or the U.S. And yeah Argentina shifted all its support to the change rather than keep the same status quo. Even though the first opportunity gave the first place to Massa and then Milei second, I've always thought that the second opportunities, or the second laps, as we call them here in Panama, benefit the second candidate because that's the one who can get all the support from the parties that are behind him.

So I'm a strong supporter of the second lap, by the way, here in Panama. I would love to get that as a constitutional change eventually. If we get the opportunity to be part of that reform, Argentina was a very interesting case because I was in a place where neither Massa nor Milei were the favorites, but it was, an outsider. The person who got the fourth or fifth place is Schiaretti.

And I was always paying attention because I felt that was going to be a very historical election and indeed it was as we were able to see.

Rasheed: So it’s funny what you said about second-round voting. If Panama had second-round voting, Lombana would likely have won the election this year.

José: It is very likely and I remember I went to a Congress of the Republican Institute International and they gave us a lecture about the second round as you said. And the person who came was a doctor from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

And she said the second round of votes doesn't benefit the first person or the second one. It benefits the third person because that's the one who gets the chance to decide who is going to win because it's the largest force after the two that are competing. And that made me think well that's kind of true. So let's say that Martin Torrijos, who was our candidate who got the third place, decided to support Mulino, who is our president now. Maybe that theory would have been true and it would have also crushed the theory that always the second place gets the victory on the next one.

But it's always about negotiations. I think politics, is always about alliances. And like getting your close allies next to your objectives. But definitely, I feel that Lombana had a great chance to be the next president if we had a second round. And I'm not supporting it because of him, but since 2019, when we had Nito Cortizo proclaimed as president in Panama, he won by a margin of 1.2 or 1.3 compared to Rómulo Roux who was the other runner-up. And I felt that if we had a second opportunity, maybe Rómulo would have been the president as we were assuming with Lombana. But at the same time, I think that it's not guaranteed.

It's always about the alliances and the negotiations that you make. And when I say alliances and negotiations, it doesn't need to be corrupt because, in Panama, we have this theory that when you say alliances or negotiations it has to be under the table and in a very corrupt way. But I feel that if we reshape the idea of what an alliance and a strategy are, maybe the Panamanian people would understand that this is necessary to keep good politicians in political positions. But yeah, I have a strong feeling about the second round because since 2019 we've been seeing presidents winning with 33%, and 34% and I feel that doesn't represent what the people here in Panama want.

You have two-thirds of the population telling you that they don't want that person, but you still have him in power. So it's better to give more credibility. If we at least guaranteed a 50 percent in the first round and then if that person doesn't reach the 50%, then it goes to the second round, and in the second round then you have a more legitimate precedent because he went through two electoral processes that guaranteed him the victory.

Rasheed: Yes, Panama’s presidential elections are very curious, to put it mildly. You’ve got 5-7 people running for the presidency at the same time and it’s not a very large country or population. It’s only around 4 million people so the president usually wins by razor-thin margins. The president could be decided with just 37%, 29% of the vote even, which is a very strange thing.

José: Just think about this. We are 3 million people authorized to vote. Our population is around 4. 4 million people. But let's pretend that many of those are young people who have not reached the electoral age. But it's always around 3 million people who get to vote and you can win by having just 1 million on your side.

So the truth is, and this is something that I didn't mention before, is that a lot of that percentage from those three million people that are allowed to vote they don't, uh, have a very large age. They are young people, they are first voters, they are second voters. They really can shape what happens in the country if we stick together as youth.

But of course, we have divisions. One of the main reasons, and maybe you know this, is that we have too many political parties for a small country. Right now, we have nine political parties. Well, we have eight, because one got disqualified since it didn't get enough votes. But eight political parties for 3 million voters, I think that's too much. It divides the vote. Maybe we need to raise the bar to become a party. Maybe we need to be a little bit more specific on the requisites to join a party, but at the same time, we don't want to create a situation where we are limiting democracy, right? Democracy is about having all the points of view that we can allow. It has all the accessibility for people to enroll in a political movement. But at the same time, I think that we need to be very aware of what we are doing. And if we want to keep creating bodies just for financial purposes or if we want to keep dividing the vote in the country.

Look at the U.S. The U.S. has a two-party political system in many ways. Of course, you still have a few parties floating around, but the ones that impact the elections, it's either the Republican party or the Democratic one. So I'm not saying that's the best-case scenario for us to replicate, but it's a scenario for us to think about.

Rasheed: There’s another feature of Panama’s electoral landscape that I find interesting - the high number of independent candidates in the assembly or congress. Why is this the case?

José: That's a great question. And as you said, for example, I went to Guatemala. And in Guatemala, you don't get too many independent candidates because I think the system doesn't allow you to be independent. In the U. S. We've seen cases, right? We've seen many independent candidates that, yeah, they make some noise, but do they have a chance?

They do not. For example, going back to Ricardo Lombana in 2019, he ran as an independent and got third place. And then you also got a few congresswomen who made their way to Congress by being independent. And I remember Ana Matilde Gómez. She used to be from my electoral zone and you also had Yanibel Abrego who used to be from the countryside, but sadly she got bought by a party and then she didn't want to be independent anymore.

But the truth is that people here in Panama, correlate being independent with being honest, which is not necessarily true, but it's the image that independent candidates have built during these years during this campaign. They were able to demonstrate that if you're running independent, you don't have any political party, you don't have any Godfather, you don't have any agenda that will promote the same corruption that we have been promoting in the different political spaces around Panama's government throughout the years. But the truth is, as I said, that being independent is not a guarantee that you're going to be good, that you're going to be efficient, that you're going to be honest.

I feel that the ones that are in Congress right now are really good. They are my friends and I feel that, yeah, they will demonstrate that they're honest and they are efficient, but we've seen in other positions, in other opportunities. Actually in the last government in the last five years that we had 2019, 2024, you had an independent congressman called Adán Bejerano. Ironically, this used to be his office. Now I am using his office. The thing is that he came to the parliament as an independent, but throughout the five years, he started shifting his policies and his support to the official party ideas and objectives while you were supposed to be opposition.

So again, being independent, even though it's well looked at now here in Panama it's not a guarantee that it's going to be good. But the people outside relate being independent with being good. I feel that's why so many people go through the stress of getting signatures because you need to get a lot of signatures to achieve your candidacy.

For example, my political party, this is the first time we run as a political party. Last time it was Ricardo being independent and he was supporting some independent candidates. This time he realized that if you want to go into the system and change the system, you have to join the system in the same way they have in the past to get access to power and the positions, to make the changes in the country.

So that's why we decided to become a party in Otro Camino. Even though a lot of people see us as independents, technically we are by criteria, by our ideas, by the way, we clash and challenge the status quo from the government. We are a political party that is trying to demonstrate that we can make a difference in the political system.

Rasheed: So let’s talk about Otro Camino a bit, otherwise known as MOCA. The core tenets of MOCA are anti-corruption and transparency. Panama is a strange country. It’s got the same or slightly higher GDP than Chile but on the corruption index, Panama is 101st while Chile is 27th. Chile has very high wealth and high transparency. Panama also has high wealth but high corruption as well. This is not common and is a large part of the reason why Otro Camino’s message “We value integrity”, resonates with the electorate. What other factors do you think contribute to the party’s increased traction?

José: You know, Rasheed, it's crazy that when you look for Otro Camino in Google and you look for the ideology, it says, anti-corruption party. Like, isn't that supposed to be obvious? Like, isn't it supposed to be obvious that parties are not corrupt? But in Panama, you have to shape this product as, "Hey, look, we're going to, we're going to challenge those statistics."

As you mentioned, for example, Panama has one of the most let's say least transparent, Congresses around the world. Because I can talk about the parliament where I am. And as you said the central government is well known for not being as transparent as it should be. We had a few scandals in the past, like the Panama Papers, that Panama is a "paraíso fiscal", as we say in Spanish, that we allow too many transactions and operations that are not necessarily legal in other states.

But the reality is that Panama is very confusing in that sense of ideology because ideologies are supposed to be either you're right, you're left, you're center. What is your idea of a government, of human rights, and many other topics that always pollute the behavior of the people here in the country?

But we have to shape it as an anti-corruption body, because we have a very strong ethics committee, and that ethics committee starts to filter, who are those candidates who will represent the party. And when you get to the position, as it happens to me, to Grace and Ernesto, because we are three Congressmen out of 71 that the Congress has here in Panama.

We received all the courses all the training, all these sessions with different people who were able to give us the tools to, first of all not commit influence traffic, to not commit any corruption; behaviors either by knowing that you were doing them or not knowing that you were doing them.

It doesn't make you not guilty if you are not well prepared. So I feel that MOCA offers the candidates and the people outside the opportunity to be shaped as someone who will not only not be corrupt, but someone who will also fight corruption. That's why our ideology is written as that in Google.

But if you ask me, I think that MOCA is a center, right movement. It embodies what a center-right movement internationally will embody. But I'm not gonna lie about the fact that we also have a lot of people who will claim to be center left, for example. So that's why if you look for the party in Google as well, or in many other platforms, it's going to say that it receives people from all the spectrums and all the ideologies, which I think is very healthy in a political movement because it allows you to analyze situations from different perspectives and not being based on something that you share with most of the people.

You have a clash, you have a debate, and that's why MOCA is very well known for being a different political party. They call the other parties traditional parties, but MOCA, calls it a new play. And that's why we're, I would say, in that gray zone, that we're not independents. But we are not the traditional parties.

We're right in between trying to merge people from traditional parties who want to make a change to a new movement. But we also try to get independents who don't have the chance to clash with the system which is so difficult for independents. And we would love to embody them for them to run for a position, especially when they're prepared and they can give so much to their communities.

So I would say that that's a pretty good wrap-up about MOCA, what we do, and why our ideology tries to lower those statistics that you mentioned at the beginning. We don't love to be in those statistics. We don't love to be on the list from the European Union. We don't love to be on the list from the OECD and the Netherlands.

We will keep reshaping politics in Panama and our international image as well.

Rasheed: On the point of corruption, there was the infamous mining fiasco. Let’s dive into that. The resulting protests brought supply chains across the country to a stall. Everything from food items to even gas became scarce in some provinces. The protesters even blockaded major routes to the downtown and even the airport. International onlookers couldn’t truly grasp what was happening and chalked it up to a climate protest. But it was more than that. Why did a mining contract cause Panama to go up in flames for a month?

José: So there were two types of protesters. There were two types of claims in this situation that we had here in Panama. The first one, as you said, was a climate component. It was the protect the environment, we are not going to allow another Panama Canal zone in our country. People were very patriotic about claiming that they didn't want to allow a different or similar situation as the one that we have with the Panama Canal.

Because people here in Panama, hold great grudges sometimes about what happened with the enclave. They always say " Oh yeah, we don't want to allow another Canadian zone or American zone". The problem is that they were also restricting access to that zone in the mining area that was called Donoso and also in Cocle.

So the people were fighting for the climate component, that it was being very damaging for the environment. Also, they didn't want the repetition or the similarity to what we were having with the Panama Canal, so only a few years ago, in 1999, when we got our independence like fully for the Panama Canal.

And the second type of protesters that you had were the people who were claiming that they were not giving us enough money because I think that the contract by year was giving us around three hundred million dollars or a little bit more. But when you were comparing those numbers with countries like Australia, Chile, Argentina, Zimbabwe, countries in Africa, in Oceania, in South America, we were not getting a good profit out of that contract.

So you have two types of people, the ones who were fighting for the economic benefit that were saying that the mining company was not giving us enough. And then you also have the ones who were claiming that the damage to the environment was too high. When you combine those two factors, you get a lot of people in the streets saying, we're not going to allow another canal zone that doesn't pay enough and destroys the environment.

And that was a perfect, let's say recipe for the people to decide to go out. And it started with a few. It started with maybe 100, 200. Then you had a few situations with a photographer. I don't know if you remember, we had a photographer called Audrey Baxter. He got a very bad injury in his eye and I believe that from that specific moment, a lot of people also decided to go out to the street to claim justice for all the people who were protesting and were being assaulted or there was a lot of police violence, a lot of repression and the police didn't behave the best way.

That's what's also a trigger for people to decide to go out and challenge the police because even though you need to maintain order that's essential in every society, you need to have a public force that is able to protect its citizens and its goods. You also need to do it in a way that respects the integrity of that person. And I feel that so many components where you're just climbing on top of each other. The main reasons that I gave you: the altercation with the photographer who got injured, then the police being extremely abusive.

So it was just so many things. That made the country go as wild as you guys were seeing outside in the international networks and in so many elements. But the main and the most important thing that I haven't told you is that not necessarily was because of the mine. The government that we had, the PRD government, is the party that has been governing for the last five years.

They committed so many corruption cases throughout the five years. During the pandemic, they wanted to buy some ventilators for people to breathe better with 10 times the cost that it used to be on the market. The IFARHU, is an institution that provides scholarships and credits for students and loans for them to study.

They were giving scholarships to people who were close to the government and they were wealthy. So, so many scandals. So that mountain of corruption that the last government decided to execute the mining company and the protest was the perfect cherry on top for everything to collapse. Even though it had legitimate reasons, as I explained to you, the reality behind the chaos that you saw, that was people were tired of a government abusing them for five years.

I applied for a scholarship when I was 18 years old or 17. And what happened? Uh, they said, no, there is no scholarship available for aviation or for you to become a pilot.

But why is that? It was because they were giving those scholarships to people who were wealthy enough or close enough to the government to get that scholarship there. There, there was no such thing as merit. So many different causes made people go out and fight to not allow corruption in the country.

But the mining company was the perfect cherry on top for people to just decide, I'm gonna go out to the street and I'm gonna fight like hell.

Rasheed: Another important issue I know you are involved in, is the Darien gap crisis. According to Panama’s data, 500000 people cross every year, trying to get the the USA. Panama has been acting as a transit point, ferrying people to Costa Rica which is a considerable strain on the country. What are the priorities of the National Assembly with regard to the Darien Gap? Venezuela is not getting better so this problem will intensify.

José: Yeah, Rasheed, that's a great question. And as you said I had the chance to visit the Lajas Blancas reception center for migrants. That's right next to Colombia in the province of Darien, well known for the Darien gap, as you mentioned. And I am a commissioner of the government commission that treats migration, public security, anti-narcotics strategies, and so many other related topics that have to do with government and policies.

So we were invited by the Ministry of Security to visit the Darien Gap. It was a one-day journey. We had to take a plane from Panama City to Meteti, which is in Darien, and then from Meteti, we were transported by bus to the Lajas Blanca Center. So while we were there, we got an explanation from the Minister of Security.

His name is Minister Frank Abrego, and he's the one leading the operation right now with the SENA Front, that is the Servicio Nacional de Fronteras, like the Border Patrol in the U. S., if we have to compare it. So the thing here is that in Darien right now, you get so many nationalities crossing the Darien Gap. Of course, it starts with Venezuelans and Ecuadorians who are the main nationalities that we have right now crossing the Darien Gap.

But you also get, and even though it sounds crazy, you get people from Afghanistan, you get people from Nepal, from India, from China, from Africa, and so many places that you think, "Oh my god, why is it a better idea to come from those far places to Panama and try to cross the Darien Gap", which is a very long and chaotic experience for every single migrant that tries to do it.

We had the chance to talk to the migrants for example, I met this girl from Venezuela and she was telling me that a few hours ago before hopping into the boat, that was taking her four hours up in the river to the Lajas Blanca Center, she was robbed. Her money and all her, uh, clothes and so many things that she was bringing from Venezuela.

And she was bringing around 5, 000 dollars because that's the minimum that a migrant pays from, let's say a South American country. up to the US when they get to the border. And now imagine if you come from further, if you come from China, from Nepal, from India, that's going to be a $10,000 experience or expedition.

And for the Panamanian government, the cost is a hundred million dollars. We are paying that sum to provide for shelter, to provide for food, to provide for transport, to provide for security in the border area. Right now, the route that is very famous from Colombia to Panama is that they start in Acandí, which is on the Atlantic side. Then they go to Necoclí, which is also on the Atlantic side. And from that, they start the cross through the jungle. That is one of the most dangerous ones because I met this girl from Venezuela who got around $5,000 stolen. You also get people that get raped. You also get people that get killed. You get people that get diseases and they also die from trying to cross the rivers. They also drown.

So it's very difficult for you to be there and to listen to all those stories because you know that they are true because they come from the migrants. It's not the Minister of Security telling you a statistic, it's the migrants themselves telling you I went through this. "I lost my father, I lost my mother, I lost my kid."

And you need to be very strong because if you collapse then you are not giving them hope, you know, and then you are not behaving as the authority that you need to be. So what is the parliament doing now? That is one of the main questions that you ask. So for example, we're trying to be very energetic with what's going on in Venezuela because Venezuela is the main nucleus that allows a crisis to keep getting worse. Because if Venezuela doesn't get any better, the Darien Gap is not going to get any better either, because people are trying to flee from a regime.

So a few days ago, alongside my fellow colleague Jorge Bloise, another congressman, and Roberto Zúñiga, we composed a resolution to tell the international court to please proceed with the arrest of Nicolás Maduro. And even though this is only a letter and an action that stays on paper. We're also exploring mechanisms with our chancellor, with the Ministry of Foreign Relations, Javier Martínez Hacha, to please try to get more information about the TIAR.

It's called the TIAR in Spanish. It means Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca. It allows the countries in the region of Latin America to do something in Venezuela, not only in diplomatic ways, but I feel that there is no way to get this guy out of power in Venezuela if someone doesn't enter and tries to take him out, even though we are very aware that we need to respect the sovereignty of the country when the person that is running the country is not the sovereign elected president, then I think you're giving the international community the right to explore extrajudicial ways to get you out of power. And allow the actual President according to the many documents that he was able to share in social media and throughout the international media. So we're trying diplomatic ways.

We're trying ways with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We're also talking to the embassy of the U.S. I'm the president of the friendship group with the U.S. and I know that they have a very robust strategy about sending migrants with criminal records back to their countries.

For example, they have been authorizing more than 10 flights per month to send Colombians, Venezuelans, and Ecuadorians with criminal records back to their countries so they can go to justice. And at the same time, they're also helping us because they are giving us these machines from Homeland Security where you can scan the face of the person, you can scan the ID, and that gives you a little bit more information about what the person is going through.

And if they have criminal records, then they can process them and send them back in these repatriation flights that the U. S. is also helping. I am the president of that friendship group. I am very close to the ambassador, Mari Carmen Aponte here in Panama. I know that she's giving 230 million to Colombia to fight this situation, but I'm going to be very straightforward with you.

Colombia is not doing anything here. Colombia is very inactive in its fight against migration and Gustavo Petro is very disconnected from the situation. And I already told the ambassador that if she can give those 230 million to Panama for us to keep promoting the repatriation flights and strengthening the security throughout the borders, it would be better used than in Colombia.

So I'm trying to also make her see the light in Panama and not necessarily in Colombia because if Colombia doesn't do anything, it's like throwing $230 million into a gap that isn't gonna be used for the purposes. But that's the general situation in the arena. And we're trying individually and as a parliament to do things to make things better for the migrants, especially for us.

Panamanians to protect our borders as well.

Rasheed: How concrete of an issue is this still in Panama? I haven’t seen many reports on this in Panama over the past few months even though the severity hasn’t decreased.

José: Yeah, that is a great question. I think in the past it was more relevant, but why was that?

They did not have the system that we have now, because back then people were saying that, for example, insecurity was a reason. After all, we did not have control of the migrants, and migrants were just crossing whatever they wanted. And they would be stealing, they would be around committing crimes, and stuff like that.

But now the Ministry of Security, what they are doing is that they are getting buses and every migrant needs to pay $60 to get on that bus. And that bus takes them from Lajas Blancas in Darien to Costa Rica, straightforward. They don't make any stopovers, they don't make any layovers. So that's why I feel that the perception of migrants being around is less because now they have better conduct from Darien to Costa Rica. So it's a matter of efficiency. If you are efficiently fighting the problem, then the problem is getting lower in the priorities of the Panamanians. What is the main priority now of the Panamanian? For example, employment, we have a crisis now that people don't find any employment opportunities.

What is the other aspect? Health? People feel that our security system doesn't work better. And it's going to be a crazy discussion this year. Actually, in one week, we're going to be back in our sessions in parliament discussing what we're going to do with the security system and the pensions and everything.

So as I said, the efficiency of the Ministry, being able to conduct the migrants from one point from point A to point B without letting the migrants float around the country is giving the perception that the Panamanian is not paying too much attention to that issue. And it's not related to the issue with the main problems that I told you, public safety, unemployment, because they know that it's a matter internally we need to fix. But I feel that we can be way more efficient if we have more resources.

And that's why I was telling you before that if we make the U.S. notice that Panama has a better strategy we can keep fighting migrant, illegal migrants. The perception of the problem is going to keep just getting lower, which I think is good.

I think that is good that the perception of the problem is getting lower, even though internationally needs to be one of the main priorities, especially for the U.S. because they don't come to Panama. They want to get to the U.S. So that's why, even though it's not a national concern, it needs to be an international concern.

I don't know if that makes sense. It needs to be an international concern.

Rasheed: So let’s talk about the more prominent questions and issues in Panama today; unemployment, cost of living, and other economic issues. These relate to the recent contentious budget. Why was the vote on this budget so intense and controversial this year?

José: That is a great question. So people started to be very observant about it because my theory was, "Hey guys, let's plan this." For example, if I suggested closing the Women's Ministry because I think is not efficient at all and it doesn't help women or they don't have a lot of policies for them. And that ministry, for example, is $20 million per year. And then you also had a few directions and secretaries that are $9 million, $10 million so I was suggesting, "Hey, let's close here. Let's close there. Let's do this and that and that." But of course, the minister was like, "No, no, no, we cannot do that in five minutes." What we wanted, was to shift some money from payrolls, from salaries, to investment. And the number was great. I think that $26,000 million for a country like Panama which has been historically increasing its budget was a really good move from Minister Chapman, who is our Minister for Economic and Finance.

But after that, I feel that so many internal pressures, especially from ministries or from universities, started twisting his arm to make him increase the budget. And that's what happened because suddenly you had this really nice example of austerity of not wasting money, $26,000 million, but then you have $30,000 million.

It was a big increase. I think it was a 12% increase from one week to another. And then you start realizing that maybe it's because even though he wanted to do a good thing, he got so many hidden powers talking into his ear and also twisting his arm that he was not able to fight back and that's why we also had the document that suffered an increase of 12%.

But the worst case, again the cherry on top was that during the first debate that is the best filter that you have because it's the budget commission talking to the ministers, talking to the directors, talking to the administrators, and asking why are we going to have this amount of money?

Why are we going to have this amount of projects? Where are we going to have this and that? That was suspended and they decided to just keep that part that was the most specific one, the most detailed one, and then decided to take the document without reading it to the second debate. And that's why we had the fight on Monday morning where you had a few congressmen screaming at each other in the budget commission.

That's why we had the crazy session that lasted 18 hours during the second debate. And that's why it was so controversial when you were reading the news.

It was not the process that we deserved. It was not the process that the parliament and the country deserved. They didn't respect the processes that we needed to respect.

That's why I feel that people felt so angry about this budget and about the way that the Ministry of Economics and Finance decided to lead the discussion.

Rasheed: Why was the first round of the more technical debate suspended?

José: So the problem was that they suspended the most technical debate that we call in Spanish and here in the Parliament, Vistas Presupuestarias. They were only able to conduct 10 out of 96 institutions. So that means that instead of, for example, asking the Minister of Education and the Minister of Security and the Minister of Health, well, they were able to interview the minister of health, but so many other important institutions that had so many increases in their budget were not able to come to the technical debate in the first debate because 10 out of 15 commissioners decided to suspend the debate. And look, here's the most interesting thing. Who do you think were the five commissioners who were against advancing without doing this? From which current?

Rasheed: What was their argument for not wanting to go through the first full-round debate? Why suspend it?

José: It was about time, but here's the thing. It's true. If we were to conduct the 96 interviews we were not going to be able to finish by yesterday midnight. That technically is when we are allowed to discuss as a maximum because it's the period for regular sessions for ordinary sessions as we call them. But you have other mechanisms you can call extraordinary sessions as the president is doing now for our pension system for our social security.

But I think that he didn't want to join both topics or he didn't want to include them in the same session because both topics were going to be very controversial. So he gave the order to the budget commission and to those 10 congressmen who said yes to skip the interviews, but that's also a lack of transparency.

And that's exactly the way that you give the excuse to Barclays or to Fitch ratings or too many other financial agencies outside to say Panama is not transparent, Panama is corrupt, Panama approves budgets without actually checking what they're approving. And again, it's taking care of our international image that we don't do.

It's taking care of the image of the minister who comes from those agencies. The Minister, I think had a good experience with Fitch, with Barclays, with so many agencies around the world. And that's why I'm so impressed that he allowed that. But sometimes I think it's not only his fault, but definitely, they had the excuse of time.

The president didn't want to give extraordinary sessions on this topic. And at the same time, I feel that it's a matter of pride, I guess. At the same time, they also had another option which was approving the budget on the 2nd of January next year by the Executive Cabinet of the president.

But that was like the last resort that maybe they didn't want to do. Because we have no precedent about it, I think we have no previous experience that allows the president to say, "Oh, I'm going to do this." So once again, I feel that it's a matter of not being organized, and then trying to push everything regardless of whether it's violating the right process or not.

And listen to me, people started comparing this to the mining debate, to when the mining debate happened, it was something similar. In three days we had three debates and they were all just the same. They were not able to examine things technically, but they were just able to approve and approve and approve.

And we wanted a better debate, but that didn't happen.

Rasheed: What kind of reform priorities do you think the assembly should pursue to accelerate growth in Panama? Priorities that align with Otro Camino’s own and should be implemented as soon as possible.

José: Well, Rasheed, you know, one of the main things that I think will help Panama to get back on track when it comes to economic growth, is taking advantage of our services and logistical hub because Panama is right in the middle of everything. And I know that now, for example, the US Embassy and the Ministry of Commerce are trying to promote the semiconductors industry and why I say semiconductors industry as a way to promote more employment here in Panama, it's one of the main issues. When you think about a semiconductor, it can be anywhere. It can be in a race car that you control remotely for kids, but it can also be in military equipment and military technology. So if we make Panama the hub for distribution as it is a desire, I think we're going to be able to respond to that economic issue that we have not been able to give people employment. Because Panama has a lot of opportunities that we're not exploiting yet.

For example, we have too many airports that are not used properly. We have airports in the Atlantic. We have airports in the center of the country that if we start, for example, giving concessions for these airports, we can attract airlines that will also attract more employment opportunities. So Panama's future is based on logistics for tourism.

As a gambling center, because Panama doesn't have a lot of restrictions on gambling. And I've heard so many colleagues talking about, "Oh yeah, let's eliminate the tax for foreigners who come to Panama to gamble. Because if we do that, we're going to be able to create a different way of tourism."

We've been also listening to many CAF and Banco Mundial (World Bank) initiatives that aim to promote agriculture, they want to promote tourism. So if we really put our efforts in the logistical sector and in tourism, I feel that we're not gonna only help people to get a job, but we're also gonna help people to stay in their hometowns.

Because the problem now is that, yeah, in Panama we have 4.4 million people, but 1.5 of those 4 million people are here in the city, because they don't find opportunities in their countryside or in their hometowns unless they are the owners of, let's say, a parcel or like a farm or something that they inherited from their families.

So it's a matter of promoting logistical and tourism hubs outside of Panama City. I'm going to be very close to that initiative about the semiconductors, about tourism, about gambling and so many things that might need to come through the parliament before being a reality. So it's a matter of making sure people out there see Panama as an opportunity to invest as well, the international community.

But we need to get Panama out of those lists, the European Union list, the OECD list. So many lists that really limit Panama from getting investors. Because people are like in the city, in the street "Oh, but why does it affect Panama to be on a list?"

Like, how do I see the negative of that? I'm telling you, many companies won't come to Panama if they see Panama on a list. So we need to get Panama out of that list and then they will come. So I am trying to help, to fight against those things. And at the same time, to be part of the solution for the efforts.

And hopefully in a few years, in five years, if you get the chance to talk to me again, maybe I can give you some results because we just finished our first four months of work. But I'm pretty sure that we have a good roadmap that if we execute it well, we're going to be able to get Panama better solutions for the different issues that we have.

Rasheed: Would you describe yourself as a libertarian?

José: Well, yeah, I would say that I'm center-right. I believe in a free market. I believe that everyone has a right to a job. That everyone has a right to be an entrepreneur. And that it's a crazy world outside and we need to compete against each other. But I think that the government, instead of being the main employer of the people in our country, needs to be the way to facilitate job opportunities and investment opportunities for every single Panamanian who wants to be better and to grow.

But yeah I consider myself a libertarian in a way, in economic ways. And I feel that no system is perfect. I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect, but I feel that it's one of the better systems to respect merit and give people the chance to make great frog leaps to different levels.

Rasheed: Thank you José, this has been a delightful conversation.

José: It was Rasheed. Thank you very much and I'm so sorry for your technical issues. Hopefully, we can fix them here in Congress very soon. And thank you to all the people that are listening. Hopefully, we can also achieve great stuff together. And I am reachable by Instagram, by my website, perperezbarboni.com. Feel free to reach out if you want more information about anything. Thank you very much again.