By Mario Loarca
Since 1985 the Guatemalan society has lived a slow and laborious process of transition toward the supposed earthly paradise of democracy. Through having passed various circles of Hell: The autocratic dictatorships of the beginning of the century, the anti-Communist persecutions of the 50’s (headed by the CIA of the State Department of the US), the guerillas and counter-insurgent military of the 70’s and 80’s; the country knew distinct movements of flexibility and political opening under the civil governments of Vinicio Cerezo, Jorge Serrano, Ramio de Leon Carpio and its actual head of state: Alvaro Arzú Irigoyen.
The foundation of the authoritarian State have been noticeably weakened by factors such as the diplomatic international pressure, the growing antimilitarist feeling in the urban areas and the new political hegemonies and governmental developing businesses.
Nowadays, without being simplistic, we can say that the electoral frauds are no longer a common practice within the system and there is a very low rate of Human Rights violations committed by the coercive apparatus of the State. Between the constitutional formality, we are at the point of being recognized as a society marked by with a respect for Rights and, with this, it is possible that the UN, the Organization of American States, EU and the USA would stop considering us to be a country like: Iran, Serbia, Angola and Haiti. It is unquestionable that through diplomatic manipulation, the external image of the country has improved and we are better positioned to negotiate with our neighbors in NAFTA.
Even with the fore mentioned, the mentality and the common attitudes of Guatemalans toward politics Has changed very little in the 15 years of transition.
The majority of the register population (more than 4 million citizens), denies or is inhibited from exercising their suffrage and profoundly distrusts all of the parties of the political system. The leadership of the politicians, has been severely eroded through a long chain of public scandals that involved well known people within the web of corruption, narcotics trafficking and with people associated within parties of one class or another. For example: How can you convince the informed electorate of the supposed transparency in a privatization of the state phone company? Or, how can you credibly explain the alliance that the ex procurator of human rights truthfully had with the authoritarian general Ríos Montt? With all the confusion and obscurity we can’t be surprised when they speak about our empty words of ethics that can’t be called more than civic cynicism.