Guatemalan Elections

On June 25th, the Guatemalan electorate surprised pundits with their choices after the first round of voting in presidential and congressional elections.

Up until election day, the polls placed former first lady and two-time presidential loser Sandra Torres in first place, followed by Edmond Mulet, a former President of Congress and senior UN Official and Zury Rios, daughter of former dictator and convicted genocide perpetrator Efrain Rios Montt.

These three candidates, in a field of 18, were seen as establishment candidates who would continue the status quo in Guatemalan politics: ineffectual governments beholden to special interests and to a greater or lesser degree fostering varying levels of corruption.

In the first round of voting Torres came in first with 15% of the vote. But Mulet and Rios were nowhere close to the top, with Mulet coming in at 5th place and Rios in 6th.

The big surprise seeming to come out of nowhere and clinching 2nd place was Bernardo Arevalo, son of well-respected former President Juan Jose Arevalo and a former diplomat and university professor. His party, Semilla, picked up 24 seats in the 160-seat congress and he now has a place in the runoff election on August 20th.

Arevalo had campaigned on anti-corruption and improving healthcare and education. In the wake of Sunday’s election results, he also announced that he would work for the return of the nearly three dozen judges, prosecutors, investigators, journalists and activists who have been forced into exile since 2020.

Torres is perceived to be a left of center populist in Guatemalan terms. She is also considered corrupt by many and her winning the presidency might not be to the pleasure of traditional power brokers.

Perhaps more disturbing than Torres coming in first with 15% of the vote is the fact that 24% of ballots were left blank or spoiled – a larger number than those cast for any one individual candidate.

“Guatemalan citizens shouted with the null vote,” said Ana Maria Mendez, the Central America director for the Washington Office on Latin America, a research and advocacy group.

“It is a rejection of the current electoral political system because it [the system] does not respond to the desires and aspirations of a people tired of corruption.”

The New York Times alleges that Guatemala’s electoral agency disqualified every serious candidate in the race who could challenge the status quo embodied by President Alejandro Giammattei. The current president is a conservative who critics accuse of pushing the country toward autocracy and who is barred from running for another term.

The remaining front-runners were people with links to some segment of the political or economic elite. Alongside their names on the ballot were several blank boxes, representing the four candidates excluded from the process by the electoral authority.

Of course, Arevalo’s remarkable result has left traditional Guatemalan power brokers CACIF (the powerful right-wing Chamber of Agriculture, Finance, and Commerce) and the conservative and historically politically active military short of options. 

On July 1st, nine political parties submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Court alleging fraud during the elections and asking that the election be nullified. The Court granted a stay of five days so that the findings can be analyzed to ascertain the veracity of these allegations and then decide on the validity of the election.

Arevalo’s second place showing has frightened the powers that be since it could endanger their traditional hold on power and set the country on a more left-of-center course.

Should allegations of fraud be substantiated either because fraud actually took place or because the Court sides with the right-wing parties, the election could be postponed until a later date and President Giammattei would remain in power. This would undoubtedly please the actual President’s entourage given his autocratic tendencies and their desire to remain in office.

Once again, it seems that traditional Guatemalan elites will try to limit the ability of voters to make their choices freely and fairly and change the course of their country’s future. 

[email protected]

Keep reading: Can Democracy Survive?

Edition: Estefanía Cardeña