After the Elections, the Debate Guatemala Keeps Putting Off

Leer en español

In a matter of a few months, Guatemala has renewed a significant portion of the officials who make up the justice system and institutional oversight bodies. The magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal have already been elected, the Constitutional Court (CC) has been partially renewed, and the new Attorney General has already taken office, although the Court itself has just settled the dispute over the University of San Carlos, leaving it in the hands of the embattled rector Walter Mazariegos. In the coming days, the election of the Comptroller General will also begin, a position that has been identified by international observers as key to the fight against corruption.

As has been the case for years, each of these processes was accompanied by controversies, political negotiations, legal appeals, campaigns for and against the candidates, as well as debates over the independence and competence of those seeking the positions. It’s part of our institutional reality. But once again we run the risk of getting stuck discussing only the results, as if it were a horse race, without pausing to analyze the causes of so much conflict.

[rel1]

Beyond who was elected, there is a question that Guatemala keeps ducking: Do the mechanisms to elect our highest authorities actually work? The evidence shows that this is not the case. The way Guatemala selects its top officials has revealed serious shortcomings and requires reforms that will restore independence and public trust.

Over the past few decades, nomination committees were conceived as an alternative to prevent appointments from remaining exclusively in the hands of political power. The intention was legitimate. The aim was to open up spaces for academic and professional participation that would allow merit to take precedence over interests. But accumulated experience compels us to recognize that the model has shown clear limitations.

[newsletter]

This isn’t a criticism directed at a specific commission or a particular election. It’s a reflection on a system that, election after election, ends up generating similar conflicts. The actors change, the candidates change, and the circumstances change, but doubts about transparency, independence, objectivity, and legitimacy remain.

This year’s contests should serve to open a serious discussion about the future. Not about who won or who lost a particular election, but about what reforms the country needs to strengthen the processes for appointing officials and reduce opportunities for institutional capture.

Unfortunately, everything points to the debate being sidelined once again. The main political actors have already begun to maneuver with their sights set on next year’s general elections. The dynamics of the pre-campaign are beginning to absorb public attention, and, as has so often happened, structural issues risk being sidelined by the electoral moment. It would be a wasted opportunity.

Reforms to the justice system cannot hinge solely on crises. Nor can they be driven forward only when an election generates discontent. They must arise from an honest assessment of what has worked and what clearly needs to be corrected.

The country needs to discuss how to strengthen judicial independence, how to professionalize the prosecutorial and judicial careers, how to make candidate evaluation mechanisms more transparent, how to reduce discretion in appointments, and how to create greater controls against the influence of political, economic, or criminal networks on public institutions.

[rel2]

This is not an ideological agenda nor a discussion reserved for specialists. It is one of the most important issues for the country’s democratic life. Without independent, professional, and legitimate institutions, any effort at development, investment, fighting corruption, or protecting rights ends up being undermined.

Perhaps the main mistake we have made as a society is believing that problems are solved by changing people. People matter, of course. But institutions matter much more. When the rules are flawed, sooner or later the results will be too.

That’s why, now that this cycle of second-round elections is coming to a close and before the election campaign completely absorbs the nation’s attention, it’s worth raising a fundamental discussion: what kind of justice system do we want to build for future generations?

If we let this opportunity slip by again, in a few years we’ll find ourselves back in exactly the same place, discussing the same problems and lamenting the same shortcomings.

Authorities come and go. Political cycles pass. But the reforms Guatemala needs remain on hold.

Juan Francisco Sandoval is the former head of Guatemala’s Special Prosecutor’s Office Against Impunity (FECI).