As the results have come in from Sunday’s presidential election in Guatemala, it is clear that apathy is the overall winner. According to the Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE), absenteeism reached 40% among the more than 9.3 million Guatemalans voters and 17% of the votes cast were spoiled. Since no candidate received a majority of votes counted, a run-off election between the top two candidates will be held on August 20th.
The top two vote-getters
Former first-lady Sandra Torres received 15.7% of the votes. Torres was first lady during the government of Álvaro Colom from 2008-2012. This is her third time heading for the run-off. (Mexicans may remember that it took three tries – and three ideological adjustments – for Andrés Manuel López Obrador to win the Mexican presidency in 2018.) Last week, I wrote about Torres’ activities as first-lady and her commitment to social programs to combat poverty and her movement toward more business- and security-oriented policies (including emulating the security strategy of the Nayib Bukele government in El Salvador to “militarize” prisons and build more maximum security prisons).
The big surprise was the second-highest vote getter: Bernando Arévalo with 11.8% of the votes. Arévalo is the son of first democratically-elected president in Guatemalan history: Juan José Arévalo Bermejo (elected in 1945 after the Guatemalan revolution of 1944). Arévalo is a sociologist and former diplomat. During his career he held positions such as consul in Israel, vice minister of Foreign Affairs in his country and ambassador to Spain and is currently a deputy in Congress. He runs as a member of the Movimiento Semilla, which first emerged as an analysis group after the 2015 protests that led to the resignation of the then president, Otto Pérez Molina. Arévalo also supports the UN efforts to combat political and business corruption in Guatemala.
Comments about Arévalo’s performance were reported in The Guardian by a representative of the Council on Foreign Relations (presented here without my personal comments):
“I do think, for now, that it is good news and that everyone who hopes for the restoration of democracy in Guatemala should be breathing a sigh of relief – even if it is not a complete one,” said Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“The clearest message to me is that, try as they might, the established political interests in Guatemala could not suppress this demand for change or for an outsider who would really shake up the political system.”
Three prominent candidates were sidelined from Sunday’s election after controversial decisions from electoral authorities. Freeman feared Arévalo could suffer a similar fate between now and the second round. “I think there’s a serious chance that the powers that be in Guatemala will try to eliminate him from the running, legally. I just don’t think we can count that out,” he said.
“But let’s say that he does get to the runoff with Torres, I think his chances could be pretty good actually because you are just seeing that such a large share of Guatemalan society rejects the status quo [and] wants someone different – and now he is going to have a platform he has never had before to spread his message,” Freeman added.
The run-off
The two candidates face off on August 20th. Four years ago, absenteeism in the second round reached about 58%.
Arévalo is already speaking to this apathy: “We believe voters were fed up and tired of a political system which has been co-opted by the same-old groups and were looking for a decent alternative,” Arévalo told a press conference, thanking voters for their “courage”.
Arévalo also has an advantage due to the antivotos: those that have been ‘Never-Torres’ votes in the last two run-offs. Unfortunately, both Torres and Arévalo gained most of their support in the rural areas. Arévalo will need to motivate the anti-corruption vote in the Capital City/Mixco/Villa Nueva urban areas.
Torres will use the tried-and-true practices of scaring the business classes (that Arévalo is a reformer/regulator that will cut their profits and ability to exploit workers and align with international capital interests) and scaring the workers (that Arévalo is soft on crime and will wreck the economy). That Arévalo is seen as Center-Left gives Torres a chance to run a campaign like José Antonio Kast did in Chile in 2021 against Gabriel Boric: money from the corporate interests, a MAGA-style campaign and, of course, scaring the electorate with the most baseless of lies.
Given the scare tactics of USA conservatives, do not be surprised when know-nothing knuckleheads like Marco Rubio weigh in (again) with a dubious public relations campaign and drive donations and to the Torres campaign. If possible, you should contact your Democratic senator(s) to urge them to assure that the election is free, fair and transparent. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has been outspoken in the past to combat efforts to undermine anti-corruption efforts in Guatemala.
As I noted last week: Guatemalan citizens in the USA can vote as well: the Los Angeles Times noted that there are 12 cities with polling places (up from 4 in 2019). If you know someone who has Guatemalan citizenship and is interested in voting in the run-off, this person should contact their local consulate or embassy for details on how to vote.
Personal Observations
In my four visits to Guatemala during the Giammattei administration — three of them for over a month (and most of them outside of the Capital City) — I have heard direct testimony from educators, farm workers, health care workers, environmental activists, those in the tourism sector and even local political leaders. To a person, the practice of self-censorship is strong. I have witnessed this before: Chile during the Pinochet years, Peru under Fujimori, Nicaragua as they emerged from the Somoza dictatorship, Honduras, and so on. People are not afraid of being jailed (or disappeared) but they fear their jobs (their livelihood) and access to government services and health care.
Several seasonal farm workers talked to me on a bus ride to their job earlier this year. Their opinion of the government (and government infrastructure) was negative but they refused to express it openly. One of the men described the situation like driving on the narrow highways of the highlands during the rainy season: you watch out for the obstacles and obstructions, you adjust your route as needed and you don’t take any chances. The sad part of that observation is that most people, even those who work in universities and business offices feel the same way: it is always the rainy season. The situation is more acute for rural women, indigenous groups, LGBTIA+ individuals (rural and urban) and other groups who seek a safe existence as well as opportunities beyond being a resource for the dominant infrastructure.
Whether either candidate can do something about the issues affecting most Guatemalans, the cost of… everything: food, health care, transportation, education, basic necessities, etc., remains to be seen.
Thank you for reading.
Alejandro Morales