btn_subscribe-top
btn_give-a-gift
btn_login
btn_signup
btn_rss

Blog

Central America’s Rule of Law: Guatemala Captures Portillo But Honduras Rewards Micheletti

January 28, 2010

by Daniel Altschuler

For decades, impunity has reined in Central America. Dictatorial rule, coups, murder, and genocide have, for the most part, gone unpunished. This month, however, events in Guatemala have suggested a potential turning of the tide. In the last three weeks, Guatemalan authorities have solved the potentially destabilizing Rosenberg case and arrested ex-President Alfonso Portillo for money laundering $70 million when he was in power. Meanwhile, in Honduras, the rule of law appears as in jeopardy as ever, as the Congress has rewarded de facto President Roberto Micheletti and pledged amnesty for all those involved in ousting President Manuel Zelaya. When it comes to the rule of law, Honduras lags as far behind as ever.

Since the Peace Accords brought Guatemala’s 36-year civil war to an end in 1996, Guatemalan activists and international observers have demanded justice for the state-sponsored genocide in the 1980s. For the most part, however—as in most of Latin America—justice has not come. Moreover, since the late 1990s, crime has spiraled out of control, perceptions of corruption are high, and the legal system has proved incapable of apprehending and prosecuting both common criminals and thieving politicians. Pervasive impunity partially explains the horrific practice of lynchings that plagues Guatemala. But the failing of the rule of law in the region also contributes to Guatemalans’ disenchantment with democracy (desencanto democrático).

Not only have Guatemalan voters lost faith in democratic government’s ability to bring economic development and alleviate massive poverty, but vast swaths of the citizenry have come to believe that the laws simply do not apply to the powerful. As the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) has shown, perceptions of corruption and insecurity negatively affect democratic values in Guatemala. Compared with other Latin American countries, it is unsurprising that Guatemala ranks low in popular preference for democracy as a form of government.

Since the Peace Accords, two international institutions in particular have worked to support the rule of law in Guatemala: for the first 10 years, the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), and now the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). This month, CICIG has emerged front-and-center in the battle against impunity. First, eight months after Rodrigo Rosenberg posthumously released a video accusing President Colóm and his wife of orchestrating his murder, CICIG’s extensive investigation revealed that Rosenberg had arranged to have himself killed, with the help of prominent Guatemalan businessmen. CICIG showed that Rosenberg’s murder-suicide had been a conspiracy aimed to destabilize Colóm’s rule.

Second, the apprehension of ex-President Portillo could send a strong signal that Guatemalan authorities will target even political elites. Portillo, who became president as the standard-bearer of Efraín Ríos Montt’s—who took power via a coup in the 1982 and led much of the state-sponsored genocide—FRG, oversaw an era of rampant corruption in Guatemalan politics. This week, after avoiding simultaneous raids at four different houses, authorities captured Portillo as he allegedly sought to flee to Belize (Portillo had twice in the past avoided attempts for his capture). He now faces the prospect of extradition to the U.S., where he faces federal charges of money laundering. Of course, Portillo’s conviction is far from being a fait accompli. His capture, however, augurs well for the rule of the law in Guatemala and will hopefully give confidence to CICIG to go after other high profile criminals.

Meanwhile, neighboring Honduras has settled down in recent months, but the rule of law remains as in jeopardy as ever. While Honduran history does not include state-sponsored genocide and sustained armed conflict, the country has been plagued by coups, corruption and crime. And, as in neighboring countries, powerful politicians have rarely been brought to justice.

This week, it has become clear that no one will face prosecution for ousting Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Earlier this month, the Honduran Supreme Court began proceedings against military officials responsible for removing President Zelaya from the country (not for removing Zelaya from power, deemed legal by the Court and the Congress). Predictably, the president of the pro-Micheletti Supreme Court, Jorge Rivera Avilez, dismissed these charges on Tuesday. And, while prosecutors said they would appeal the decision, Porfirio Lobo’s declaration last week that he would offer amnesty to all involved in the coup (in addition to safe passage out of the country for Manuel Zelaya) confirmed these suspicions. The Congress will approve this measure today, to coincide with Lobo’s inauguration.

To make matters worse, the Honduran Congress declared two weeks ago that it would grant Roberto Micheletti a congressional salary-for-life in honor of what they deemed his defense of Honduran democracy and sovereignty since June 28, 2009. This reward for Micheletti—which followed the Congress’s landslide vote rejecting Zelaya’s proposed reinstatement in December—has added insult to injury for defenders of the rule of law in Honduras. Granting this salary to Micheletti also indicates how out-of-touch the Honduran Congress remains with both most Honduran voters (the majority of which opposed Micheletti, even if they did not necessarily support Zelaya) and the rest of the world, which has resoundingly rejected Micheletti’s rule.

This has been a month of highs and lows for the rule of law in Central America. Guatemala, long one of the hemisphere’s darkest dens of impunity, has taken important steps in the right direction. Meanwhile, Honduran leaders have shown that, when it comes to justice, they are happy to flout internationally-accepted norms and continue to lag behind the rest of Latin America.

*Daniel Altschuler is a contributing blogger to americasquarterly.org conducting research in Guatemala and Honduras. He is a Rhodes Scholar and doctoral candidate in Politics at the University of Oxford, and his research focuses on civic and political participation.

 

Tags:: Alfonso Portillo, Álvaro Colom, Amnesty, Central America, CICIG, Guatemala, Honduras, Impunity, Manuel Zelaya, MINUGUA, Porfirio Lobo, Roberto Micheletti, Rodrigo Rosenberg, Rule of Law

To read more from Americas Quarterly, sign up for a free trial issue of the print magazine. No risk, no commitment.

To speak with an expert on this topic, please contact the communications office at: communications@as-coa.org or (212) 277-8384.

I really wish for change..

Most Guatemalans lost faith in democratic government's ability to bring economic development and alleviate massive poverty. People still hope for security from the government, because for Guatemalans perceptions of corruption still reflect in the government. This promotes a negative outlook to democratic values in Guatemala. Compared with other Latin American countries, it is not surprising that Guatemala ranks low in popular preference for democracy as a form of government. For a long time impunity has reined in Central American countries like coups, murder, and have gone unpunished. Now ex-President Afonso Portollioo is arrested for money laundering $70 million when he was in power, I really wish this would be the start of hope for this country.

I'm not sure what

I'm not sure what kind of rewards system that is.

Background Check

I really like your blog content, I’ve read the topic with great interest.

In Australia the word

In Australia the word "lawyer" is used to refer to both barristers and solicitors (whether in private practice or practising as corporate in-house counsel).

How can a federal immigration

How can a federal immigration law enforced by a state be racist in and of itself?

still confused about $70 million

I keep trying to post this question, but it does not seem to show up. I thank you for your explanation, but wondering if you can answer a larger question about this column. Forgive my ignorance about the rules of blogging, but you stated that all your writing is based on months of field research. Yet, you said the $70 million comes from the Guatemalan papers and, it appears, beyond that you're not too sure. I'd just like to know what I'm reading. Is this commentary on the news in Guatemala or is this original research, reporting and analysis? If it's the latter, I'd really like you to look at the $70 million figure. I think it paints the Portillo case inaccurately. I also think that for you to respond by saying "if you have information, bring it to the newspapers" shows that you're not very concerned with the voracity of the information you use.
Please address this.
Thank you.

$70 million?

Just out of curiosity, where do you get the figure $70 million? I think that is incorrect.

Re: $70 Million

Hi Tom75,

The Guatemalan media has consistently cited the $70 dollar figure as the amount in question.  See, for instance, today's Prensa Libre: http://www.prensalibre.com/noticias/Mexico-avala-extradicion_0_220178042.html.  If you have evidence that this is wrong, I'd be interested to see it and I encourage you to contact newspapers such as the Prensa Libre (Guatemala's de facto newspaper of record) and El Periodico.

Thanks for reading,

Daniel Altschuler

 

 

follow up

Thank you for the explanation, but I still have some confusion about this blog. Forgive me, I'm not familiar with the rules of blogging, etc... But in a reply to another comment, you said all your writing comes from months of field work, so I assume that it's original reporting. But you said the $70 million number comes from the Prensa Libre and El Peiodico and it doesn't seem that you know where they come up with that number. I'd just like some clarification about the nature of these columns. Are they original reporting, as you stated, or are you translating the words of Guatemalan journalists and adding some opinion?
I tried to post this question, but I can't find it. I hope it's not being deleted because this is a sincere question to which I'd very much appreciate an answer.
Thank you.

I'm confused

Thanks for the response, but I'm just a bit confused about the nature of your blog. You just commented that your writing is based on meticulous research, yet you cite El Periodico and Prensa Libre -- both of which are wrong as often as they are right, by the way -- as your source for the $70 million. Should you not base your writing on primary sources when available -- such as in this case? Forgive my confusion on the rules of blogging, but I just want to be know that I can trust the information.
Thank you.

Can you handle the truth?

How far removed are you from reality in Honduras by writing so much nonsense. First of all, is easy to write essays from a distance in the comfort of the University of Oxford. Manuel Zelaya was no saint and he did not have good intentions towards his country since he was willing to give away his homeland and put it in the hands of populist dictator Hugo Chavez. For several months (do your research) Mr. Zelaya held private meetings with members of Honduran institutions and the US Ambassador Hugo Llorens and was warned to stop his intention of conducting illegal surveys to change the Honduran Constitution to stay in power indefinitely. This so called "Coup" did not happen overnight. On the contrary, Mr. Zelaya's erratic behavior and endangerment of the already weak democracy in Honduras forced all institutions to have to use infamous force at the end to stop this mad leader. Unfortunately, dialogue was not something Mr. Zelaya like other leaders in Latin America are willing to use for debate and reasoning. Although Mr. Zelaya goes on temporary exile all charges of corruption against him have been dropped and let me tell you that this man left his own country BANKRUPT. And finally, let's be honest with one another; it is not new that the United States is the one who decides at the end who is a fugitive of the law and who is not. Does it sound familiar: Noriega, Pinochet, and the list goes on and on...

Ad hominem attacks

Hi 'Hs',

I appreciate that you took the time to respond to the article.  I find it unfortunate, though, that you resort to ad hominem attacks.  The idea that I've been writing this and other articles from the comfort of Oxford is simply false.  Everything I write is based on many months of fieldwork in Central America.  I'm quite happy to have a discussion about the merits of a particular argument, but your response smacks of the closed-minded, ideological reactions that have plagued the debate on Honduras since (and before) June 28, 2009.

Thanks for reading,

Daniel Altschuler

 


 
 
Subscribe

Loading...

Bogotá, Colombia
   Anastasia Moloney
   Jenny Manrique

 

Buenos Aires, Argentina
   Juan Cruz Díaz

 

Guatemala City, Guatemala
   Kara Andrade

 

La Paz, Boliviaa
   Cecilia Lanza

 

Lima, Peru
   Naomi Mapstone
   Sabrina Karim

 

London, England
   Daniel Altschuler

 

Monterrey, Mexico
   Arjan Shahani

 

New York, NY
   Christopher Sabatini
   Jason Marczak
   Mateo Samper

 

Ottawa, Canada
   Huguette Young

 

San Francisco, California
   Ruxandra Guidi

 

San José, Costa Rica
   Alex Leff

 

Santa Cruz, Bolivia
   Liliana Colonzi

 

Washington, DC
   Eric Farnsworth
   Liz Harper

 



Loading...


More partners...

Subscribe!