ISSAC PLACKE - 4 OCTOBER 2011
Guatemalan citizens cast their votes in the presidential, congressional, and municipal elections this past Sept. 11. This was the fourth presidential election since the signing of the 1996 peace accords which officially ended a bloody, 36-year civil war.
The results indicate a right-wing candidate, Otto Pérez Molina, as the victor. However, with 36 percent of the vote, he fell short of obtaining the 50 percent plus one vote majority needed to avoid a run-off between himself and the second-place candidate, Manuel Baldizón.
The run-off between the two candidates will be held on Nov. 6.
Looking closely at the campaign raises questions about Guatemala’s future under either of the two candidates, who have had an increasingly violent, expensive, and allegedly corrupt campaign season.
For Guatemalan citizens, the most important issue of the 2011 election has been finding a solution to the instability, crime, and corruption that have plagued Guatemala’s government since the civil war.
According to a 2009 study by Human Rights Watch, Guatemala has 6,000 murders annually and a 99 percent rate of impunity for violent crime- the highest rate in Latin America.
Such a high level of crime is associated with drug traffickers operating in what is called the “world’s busiest intersection for illegal drugs” by Javier Ciurlizza of the International Crisis Group. Along with Honduras, Guatemala was added to Foreign Policy’s Watch List for failed states in 2010, which cited the state’s “utter inability to combat organized crime.”
Remarks from the current president illustrate the depth of the drug trafficking problem: “We had not properly evaluated just how deep the infiltration was. We have confiscated $11.5 billion from the traffickers. Imagine how much money they have at their disposal. $11.5 billion is one and a half times our national budget,” said President Colom in an interview with a reporter from Al Jazeera.
President Colom was forced to declare a thirty-day “state of siege” in Guatemala’s northern Péten region last May after 27 people were found beheaded. A message written using a severed human leg from one of the victims linked the killings to drug gangs.
As the election campaign gains intensity, so has the violence. Drug cartels have an invested interest in preventing a strong, autonomous central government as well as maintaining control of regions key for transporting drugs. By means of bribes, intimidation, and murder, the gangs have attempted to maintain their regional influence by ensuring their chosen candidates are elected to office.
This violence was evident in the 2007 elections, which were marked by 60 attacks against officials and the assassinations of 40 candidates running for municipal offices. Between May and June of this year, 20 candidates had already been killed, according to a report by the International Crisis Group. This extreme violence and instability has enabled both lead presidential candidates to gain strong voter support through their policies of “mano dura”—exercising a “strong hand” in dealing with crime. Mano dura has been a phrase used repeatedly throughout this election, most notably by Pérez Molina who described his policy as “zero tolerance for breaking the law.”
Otto Pérez Molina, now 61 years old, is a retired general and congressman. He ran for president in 2007, narrowly losing to Guatemala’s current president, Álvaro Colom.
In both campaigns, Pérez Molina has used his role in assembling the 1996 peace accords and his long career as an officer in the military and chief of intelligence to assure voters of his ability to bring peace and stability to Guatemala.
His campaign slogan promises “character, decision, and a mano dura.” His policies include a government that works closely with a strong military to implement widespread change and clean the government of corruption. “I believe the army is the only institution that has its own internal processes to implement this purification,” he said in an interview with Plaza Pública.
Although his strong-handed policies and distinguished military service have won him the support of many middle and upper class Guatemalans, they have raised alarm among indigenous groups. In a letter to the United Nations, the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission asked that the UN carry out an investigation into Pérez Molina’s “involvement in the systematic torture of prisoners of war.”
Pérez Molina served as a major in 1982 in the Ixil region of Guatemala, one of the regions most affected by violence. According to the GHRC, “half of all the massacres occurred during this period and in this region. Between 70 and 90 percent of the villages were razed. Acts of torture, murder and mutilation were daily events.”
Alluding to his role as director of military intelligence in 1992, the International Crisis Group described Pérez Molina as “prominent in a counter-insurgency apparatus responsible for repression and human rights abuses.” He has also been linked to the disappearance and torture of Efraín Bámaca Velasquez, a guerrilla commander and prisoner of war.
No investigation by the United Nations has resulted from these allegations.
Similar to Pérez Molina, Manuel Baldizón, a right-wing populist and congressman from northern Guatemala, has also promised a mano dura against crime and corruption. He proposes an increased use of the death penalty, promising public- even televised- executions in Guatemala City’s central square.
Baldizón has received criticism for his political ambiguity. His campaign rhetoric has included goals of social reform and assisting the elderly and poor families, but his policies to bring about these changes still remain unclear. Even in the last month of the campaign, his foremost promise has been to take the Guatemalan soccer team to the World Cup.
Guatemalan politicians have drawn further criticism for the cost of their campaigns. In a country with more than half the population living below the poverty line, politicians in the 2007 presidential elections spent their way to what was called “one of the Western Hemisphere’s most expensive campaigns ever” by Acción Ciudadana, the Guatemalan chapter of Transparency International.
The Tribunal Supremo Electoral, Guatemala’s electoral authority, places a cap of $6.4 million on spending per party. However, parties pay little attention to these laws and the TSE has little ability to enforce them. Last year, parties were estimated to have spent four times this legal limit, according to a report by Acción Ciudadana.
The parties of Baldizón and Perez Molina have been criticized for the cost of their 2011 campaigns, which have already far outspent the candidates in 2007. Both candidates were estimated to have spent $50 to $70 million each in 2011, according to Damien Cave of the New York Times.
The high cost of these campaigns does not necessarily add high quality candidates to the ballot. “Because of the high costs of campaigning, parties tend to sell places on their candidate lists…to the highest bidder. Shared ideology or genuine links to voters matter less than how much money candidates can contribute,” according to a report by the International Crisis Group.
“No one believes that the candidates spending that level of money received their contributions from cake sales or raffles,” said Mark Schneider, vice-president of the International Crisis Group. “There is virtually no doubt that drug money reached into political campaigns at almost every level.”
The November Election
One factor that could still play a role in the outcome of the November 6 election is Sandra Torres, ex-wife of President Álvaro Colom. She divorced Colom in order “to marry the people of Guatemala,” launching her candidacy as a member of the UNE-GANA party, the National Unity of Hope.
However, the Guatemalan courts ruled her candidacy to be in violation of a Guatemalan law banning relatives of the president from succeeding him. Torres was removed from the ballot on August 8, leading to a series of marches in the capital city protesting her rejection.
Although Torres’ name will not appear on the November 6 ballot, she could still have an impact on the outcome of the election. Her party has yet to endorse one of the two candidates and she still has the widespread support of many indigenous groups, which could number over a million votes, said Anita Isaacs of the Inter-American Dialogue.
Whichever candidate wins Nov. 6 will face a presidential term even more arduous than the campaign season. Neither Pérez Molina nor Baldizón is likely to begin their presidency enjoying widespread popularity and will face unifying a divided and distrustful Guatemalan populace in order to overhaul the government and combat powerful drug trafficking. “Both Otto Pérez Molina and Manuel Baldizón have promised to get tough on criminals, but neither candidate has explained how they plan to do it,” said Javier Ciurlizza. “How to change this dynamic will be the most difficult and dangerous challenge facing the winner of the second round.”
Guatemalan citizens cast their votes in the presidential, congressional, and municipal elections this past Sept. 11. This was the fourth presidential election since the signing of the 1996 peace accords which officially ended a bloody, 36-year civil war.
The results indicate a right-wing candidate, Otto Pérez Molina, as the victor. However, with 36 percent of the vote, he fell short of obtaining the 50 percent plus one vote majority needed to avoid a run-off between himself and the second-place candidate, Manuel Baldizón.
The run-off between the two candidates will be held on Nov. 6.
Looking closely at the campaign raises questions about Guatemala’s future under either of the two candidates, who have had an increasingly violent, expensive, and allegedly corrupt campaign season.
For Guatemalan citizens, the most important issue of the 2011 election has been finding a solution to the instability, crime, and corruption that have plagued Guatemala’s government since the civil war.
According to a 2009 study by Human Rights Watch, Guatemala has 6,000 murders annually and a 99 percent rate of impunity for violent crime- the highest rate in Latin America.
Such a high level of crime is associated with drug traffickers operating in what is called the “world’s busiest intersection for illegal drugs” by Javier Ciurlizza of the International Crisis Group. Along with Honduras, Guatemala was added to Foreign Policy’s Watch List for failed states in 2010, which cited the state’s “utter inability to combat organized crime.”
Remarks from the current president illustrate the depth of the drug trafficking problem: “We had not properly evaluated just how deep the infiltration was. We have confiscated $11.5 billion from the traffickers. Imagine how much money they have at their disposal. $11.5 billion is one and a half times our national budget,” said President Colom in an interview with a reporter from Al Jazeera.
President Colom was forced to declare a thirty-day “state of siege” in Guatemala’s northern Péten region last May after 27 people were found beheaded. A message written using a severed human leg from one of the victims linked the killings to drug gangs.
As the election campaign gains intensity, so has the violence. Drug cartels have an invested interest in preventing a strong, autonomous central government as well as maintaining control of regions key for transporting drugs. By means of bribes, intimidation, and murder, the gangs have attempted to maintain their regional influence by ensuring their chosen candidates are elected to office.
This violence was evident in the 2007 elections, which were marked by 60 attacks against officials and the assassinations of 40 candidates running for municipal offices. Between May and June of this year, 20 candidates had already been killed, according to a report by the International Crisis Group. This extreme violence and instability has enabled both lead presidential candidates to gain strong voter support through their policies of “mano dura”—exercising a “strong hand” in dealing with crime. Mano dura has been a phrase used repeatedly throughout this election, most notably by Pérez Molina who described his policy as “zero tolerance for breaking the law.”
Otto Pérez Molina, now 61 years old, is a retired general and congressman. He ran for president in 2007, narrowly losing to Guatemala’s current president, Álvaro Colom.
In both campaigns, Pérez Molina has used his role in assembling the 1996 peace accords and his long career as an officer in the military and chief of intelligence to assure voters of his ability to bring peace and stability to Guatemala.
His campaign slogan promises “character, decision, and a mano dura.” His policies include a government that works closely with a strong military to implement widespread change and clean the government of corruption. “I believe the army is the only institution that has its own internal processes to implement this purification,” he said in an interview with Plaza Pública.
Although his strong-handed policies and distinguished military service have won him the support of many middle and upper class Guatemalans, they have raised alarm among indigenous groups. In a letter to the United Nations, the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission asked that the UN carry out an investigation into Pérez Molina’s “involvement in the systematic torture of prisoners of war.”
Pérez Molina served as a major in 1982 in the Ixil region of Guatemala, one of the regions most affected by violence. According to the GHRC, “half of all the massacres occurred during this period and in this region. Between 70 and 90 percent of the villages were razed. Acts of torture, murder and mutilation were daily events.”
Alluding to his role as director of military intelligence in 1992, the International Crisis Group described Pérez Molina as “prominent in a counter-insurgency apparatus responsible for repression and human rights abuses.” He has also been linked to the disappearance and torture of Efraín Bámaca Velasquez, a guerrilla commander and prisoner of war.
No investigation by the United Nations has resulted from these allegations.
Similar to Pérez Molina, Manuel Baldizón, a right-wing populist and congressman from northern Guatemala, has also promised a mano dura against crime and corruption. He proposes an increased use of the death penalty, promising public- even televised- executions in Guatemala City’s central square.
Baldizón has received criticism for his political ambiguity. His campaign rhetoric has included goals of social reform and assisting the elderly and poor families, but his policies to bring about these changes still remain unclear. Even in the last month of the campaign, his foremost promise has been to take the Guatemalan soccer team to the World Cup.
Guatemalan politicians have drawn further criticism for the cost of their campaigns. In a country with more than half the population living below the poverty line, politicians in the 2007 presidential elections spent their way to what was called “one of the Western Hemisphere’s most expensive campaigns ever” by Acción Ciudadana, the Guatemalan chapter of Transparency International.
The Tribunal Supremo Electoral, Guatemala’s electoral authority, places a cap of $6.4 million on spending per party. However, parties pay little attention to these laws and the TSE has little ability to enforce them. Last year, parties were estimated to have spent four times this legal limit, according to a report by Acción Ciudadana.
The parties of Baldizón and Perez Molina have been criticized for the cost of their 2011 campaigns, which have already far outspent the candidates in 2007. Both candidates were estimated to have spent $50 to $70 million each in 2011, according to Damien Cave of the New York Times.
The high cost of these campaigns does not necessarily add high quality candidates to the ballot. “Because of the high costs of campaigning, parties tend to sell places on their candidate lists…to the highest bidder. Shared ideology or genuine links to voters matter less than how much money candidates can contribute,” according to a report by the International Crisis Group.
“No one believes that the candidates spending that level of money received their contributions from cake sales or raffles,” said Mark Schneider, vice-president of the International Crisis Group. “There is virtually no doubt that drug money reached into political campaigns at almost every level.”
The November Election
One factor that could still play a role in the outcome of the November 6 election is Sandra Torres, ex-wife of President Álvaro Colom. She divorced Colom in order “to marry the people of Guatemala,” launching her candidacy as a member of the UNE-GANA party, the National Unity of Hope.
However, the Guatemalan courts ruled her candidacy to be in violation of a Guatemalan law banning relatives of the president from succeeding him. Torres was removed from the ballot on August 8, leading to a series of marches in the capital city protesting her rejection.
Although Torres’ name will not appear on the November 6 ballot, she could still have an impact on the outcome of the election. Her party has yet to endorse one of the two candidates and she still has the widespread support of many indigenous groups, which could number over a million votes, said Anita Isaacs of the Inter-American Dialogue.
Whichever candidate wins Nov. 6 will face a presidential term even more arduous than the campaign season. Neither Pérez Molina nor Baldizón is likely to begin their presidency enjoying widespread popularity and will face unifying a divided and distrustful Guatemalan populace in order to overhaul the government and combat powerful drug trafficking. “Both Otto Pérez Molina and Manuel Baldizón have promised to get tough on criminals, but neither candidate has explained how they plan to do it,” said Javier Ciurlizza. “How to change this dynamic will be the most difficult and dangerous challenge facing the winner of the second round.”
RSS Feed
