A Brief look at Central America: Guatemala's upcoming elections

This is a guest post by Hectorlo. He is an attorney based in Guatemala. This is the first of a series of posts he will contribute to this blog. He can be reached at hectorlo2004(at)gmail.com.

On September 9, Guatemala, the largest economy in Central America, will go to the polls to elect a new president, unicameral legislature and various municipal authorities. The two leading contenders for the presidency are Alvaro Colom of the center-left National Union of Hope (UNE)and Otto Perez of the Patriotic Party (PP). Both have promised to increase security, reduce poverty, and address the illicit drug trade, among other issues. The rest of the field is composed of 12 candidates, including Nobel Peace Laureate Rigoberta Menchu, who is far behind in the polls. However, given the proximity between the two leading contenders, the percentage of votes going to each of these is expected to be a factor. According to Guatemala’s electoral law, if a candidate does not attain 50% of the vote, a second round of elections must be held where the two highest vote getters will compete to determine the winner.

In recent decades, Guatemala has become a major transit point for the illicit drug trade. As a secure depot and a prime corridor to the U.S., Guatemala is well on its way to becoming a little Colombia. Paramilitary groups act on behalf of and to protect the drug cartels and trade, and they do so with impunity. Thus it was hardly surprising when many candidates were accused of receiving campaign funds from the drug mafias, including top presidential contender, Alvaro Colom. Colom, whose party members have also been targeted and killed by the drug mafia, has defended himself by stating that it is his zero tolerance approach that has made him a target for the violence and smear campaigns. The charge, however, is difficult for him to overcome, as the person making it has been Ms. Menchu who still carries a lot weight internationally.

The drug mafia has been introduced to all levels of society; its influence can be seen in the government, business sector, worker rights movement, etc. Previous administrations have expended little effort to prevent the proliferation of the drug trade in the country, whether as a transit point for drugs, or laundered money. In small towns in Guatemala, there is at least one “cacique” or narco; he commands the territory and acts with impunity. They embody the quintessential image of the narcos of old; always heavily armed and accompanied with bodyguards referred to as “matones” or “pistoleros”, they are immune to criminal prosecution and have ready access to all the levers of state power. Narcos often fire their AK 47 assault rifles before the impassive eyes of local police officers; they intimidate local authorities and kill anyone who opposes them without hesitation. This violent environment has made Guatemalans fearful, and far more likely to support a candidate whose main campaign slogan has been “Tough Hand; Security and Employment”. That candidate is retired General Otto Perez, the presidential candidate of the Patriotic Party who, as recently as March only had 10% of voter support, but has now reached 31.8% in the latest polls; this just days before the elections. In doing so, Gen. Perez is now in a statistical tie with Alvaro Colom who until recently was leading the polls with 21.23% of the vote in March and now stands at 31.7%.

In short, Guatemalans are tired of violence. On average, thirty people are murdered daily through the violence resultant from the drug trade, usually at the hands of members of the nation’s gangs, called “maras,” which have become the foot soldiers in Guatemala's drug war. No one is safe in the country, and this was made chillingly clear a few months ago when four Salvadoran political leaders (members of the Central American Parliament which is based in Guatemala) were murdered in a crime linked to Guatemalan security forces in the employ of the drug mafias; a scandal, that exposed the depth of corruption in the country and the links between the country’s security forces and the illicit drug trade. This became particularly evident after some of the security personnel involved in the killings, were themselves murdered while in police custody. Moreover, it has been alleged that the reason behind the murders was a dispute over drug profits between rival groups including the murdered politicians. This has been the most violent campaign in Guatemala's recent history. About 50 politicians, activists and their relatives have been killed during the past four months, including two belonging to Menchu's political party two days ago.

Even if Gen. Otto Perez’s intentions are good, the Guatemalan problem will be tough to address. It is likely that more than one presidential term will be needed to achieve results. Guatemala is a beautiful country with impressive lakes, volcanoes and Mayan Ruins, but this nation has struggled to keep a fragile democracy functioning. Yet, the violence and instability resultant from the drug trade open the door to the end of that very experiment. In the past Generals have used such emergencies to consolidate their power and it remains to be seen what direction retired Gen. Perez will take. Will he abide by the constitution and serve just one term, or will he amend it to make a second term possible?

Guatemalans say that “hope is the last thing that should be lost” and they certainly have not lost it, with massive participation of up to 60% expected this coming Sunday; this without taking into account the 1.5 million Guatemalans who live in the United States and are unable to vote. It is highly probable that the retired general will be elected, if not this Sunday, then in the runoff election scheduled for November. This because ironically, Guatemalans think back, sometimes longingly to the military dictatorships, when the economy was much better and violence (despite a bloody 30 year civil war) was far less present in their everyday lives, than it is today.

Additional comments

I just wanted to point to Tom Barnett's recent post addressing an article in Foreign Policy on legalizing illegal drugs, which is closely related to Hectorlo's post above. Barnett argues with regard to America's failed drug policies that the article's

basic comparison to Prohibition is a good one: zero tolerance is just a bankrupt approach, given human nature.

Worst, America has managed to export our tough-approach rule set around the world. As the author puts it, "Rarely has one nation so successfully promoted its own failed policies to the rest of the world."

In short, it's a failed policy that retards our relationship with states to our south and it should go. We should medicalize the problem instead of criminalizing it. We've done great things with alcohol abuse and smoking in the last 20 years, so why not be more ambitious with drugs?

Guatemala, like Colombia are perfect examples of that. The US government's focus on attacking the supply side in this "war," has pushed a military solution to deal with what is essentially a demand side, and medical, problem. After all, if there was no demand for illegal narcotics in the US or Europe, the trade in this commodity would not exist. What's more, in so doing, we fail to deal with the more important part of the problem that could be dealt with in the same manner as we dealt with alcohol and tobacco; as Barnett notes, we medicalized (prevention and recovery), legalized, regulated and taxed it.