In the New York Times article, A Wrong Turn for Guatemalan Democracy, Guatemala’s political situation is regarded as a declining state where Congress has most control over corruption, leaving little room for their new president, Jimmy Morales, to consolidate the country’s politics. A democracy is a form of government that reflects the wants and needs of the people through political action. The people of Guatemala are viewed by the author of the article, Anita Isaacs, as the only option to reform the country’s corruption since Mr. Morales has only 11 out of the 158 members of Congress in his political party and the United Nations ceases to assist in aiding the corruption. [Isaacs, A Wrong Turn]. Guatemalan Democracy may be unstable due to the …show more content…
Anita Isaacs focuses on the consequences the new democracy faces after the rule of former President Molina, “The Congress stripped him [Molina] of immunity, thus diverting attention from its own corruption cloud; in last week’s elections, half its deputies were re-elected, and the same three incumbent parties obtained the bulk share of seats.” This lack in alternation of political parties may maintain a similar form of government but the new President Morales expresses reformational interest towards the corruption of the country. Guatemala does not have a strong enough justice system to properly restrain governmental power, but the state justly accused higher governmental officials of customs fraud resulting in the imprisonment of former President, Otto Pérez Molina, and Vice President, Roxana Baldetti. The removal of the top two rulers of the country from office uncovered Guatemala’s legitimate, democratic stability through one of the most important factors of a strong democracy, the rule of …show more content…
Anita Isaacs points out, “Mr. Morales has promised to go after corruption, but he can’t clean up Guatemalan politics without the cooperation of Congress.” Morales’ readiness to change the country’s corruption exemplifies his quality as a leader, even though he may not be totally effective due to overarching congressional power. His drive shows a pursuit of the common good and responsibility for the wants and needs of his country’s people, which an accountable democratic leader and the government should seek. The Guatemalan government lacks the level of concern pertaining to listening to the citizens and acting upon it that Morales emphasized in his campaign, “I have received a mandate, and the mandate of the people of Guatemala is to fight against the corruption that has consumed us” [Malkin, Jimmy Morales is Elected]. This may not directly and immediately shift Guatemalan democracy, but Morales’ passion towards being accountable puts Guatemala in a safer and stabler
In the beginning, Rafael Trujillo was a fruitful and beneficial leader to the country of the Dominican Republic. Trujillo reduced foreign debt and made the country more profitable, mainly because he was an excellent business man. However with this new prosperity, came the loss of the citizen's political liberties (1 “Rafael Trujillo”). Rafael Trujillo may have made the country more profitable, but he still was getting away with taking away innocent citizen’s political liberties.
Rigoberta Menchu, a Quiche Indian woman native to Guatemala, is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for politically reaching out to her country and her people. In her personal testimony tittled “I, Rigoberta Menchu” we can see how she blossomed into the Nobel Prize winner she is today. Following a great deal in her father’s footsteps, Rigoberta’s mobilization work, both within and outside of Guatemala, led to negotiations between the guerillas and the government and reduced the army power within Guatemala. Her work has helped bring light to the strength of individuals and citizen organization in advocacy and policy dialogue on the world scale. In a brief summary of the book I will explore why Rigoberta Menchu is important to Guatemalan development, what she did, and how she helped her people overcome the obstacles thrown their way.
This essay will study the Central Intelligence Agency’s intervention in Guatemala, and how they assisted Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas in the coup d’état against Jacobo Arbenz. It will describe the reasons of the intervention, the United States’ interest in Guatemala, and how it affected Guatemalans. Such events help explain much about the role that the United States has in their own migration. The paper argues that the United States’ political interest in Guatemala played a fundamental role in the migration of Guatemalans to its borders. As a result of this intervention, Guatemala suffered one of its worse political periods in their history. Guatemala experienced a period of political instability that led the country into social chaos, where many Guatemalans opted to migrate to the United States.
Guatemala held democratic elections in 1944 and 1951, they resulted in leftist government groups holding power and rule of the country. Intervention from the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) backed a more conservative military minded regime. A military coup took place in 1954 to over throw the elected government and install the rule of Carlos Castillo Armas. Carlos Armas was a military general before the coup and with the CIA orchestrated operation he was made President from July 8th 1954 until his assassination in 1957. Upon his assassination, similar militant minded presidents rose to power and continued to run the country. Due to the nature of military dictatorship, in 1960, social discontent began to give way to left wing militants made up of the Mayan indigenous people and rural peasantry. This is the match that lit Guatemala’s Civil War, street battles between the two groups tore the country and pressured the autocratic ruler General Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes to fight harder against the civilian insurrection. Similar to the government Abductions th...
Guatemala’s culture is a unique product of Native American ways and a strong Spanish colonial heritage. About half of Guatemala’s population is mestizo (known in Guatemala as ladino), people of mixed European and indigenous ancestry. Ladino culture is dominant in urban areas, and is heavily influenced by European and North American trends. Unlike many Latin American countries, Guatemala still has a large indigenous population, the Maya, which has retained a distinct identity. Deeply rooted in the rural highlands of Guatemala, many indigenous people speak a Mayan language, follow traditional religious and village customs, and continue a rich tradition in textiles and other crafts. The two cultures have made Guatemala a complex society that is deeply divided between rich and poor. This division has produced much of the tension and violence that have marked Guatemala’s history (Guatemalan Culture and History).
The Mayan Genocide was a result of a civil war concerning communism and democracy between corrupt leaders and the people of Guatemala. The Guatemalan army carried out the genocide under the self-proclaimed name “killing machines”. According to the article Genocide in Guatemala “the army destroyed 626 villages, killed or “disappeared” more than 200,000 people and displaced an additional 1.5 million, while more than 150,000 were driven to seek refuge in Mexico”. The army murdered and tortured without regard to age or gender, men, women, and children all alike. In an attempt to end the conflict Peace Accords were signed, in spite of the fact that there was little change. Directly following the Mayan genocides, Guatemala faced physical and emotional
The historian Ronn Pineo wrote “Beginning in the 1980s nearly all of Latin America began to take part in a great experiment, the adoption of capitalist free market economic policies.” This great experiment began with the promotion of democracy and free market that promised a better future for Latin America. Neoliberalism, the economic ideology that promotes free-market capitalism, laid the foundation for many of the US military interventions and economic policies that caused a dramatic transformation of Latin America. This promise of a “democratic” government came from a policy initiative labeled as polyarchy. Polyarchy is “ a system in which a small group governs and mass participation in decision making is limited to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed by competing elites” (Lecture: Polyarchy and Resistance).
I always live as a Guatemalan for the last 15 years, it was hard when I had to move from my country to another that was very different than mine and find out that in this new country is a different languages and different cultures. Maybe for the first time that I was walking to the school, I feel like I was in Guatemala people with the same skin color as me, but when I heard them talked I heard a new word, different accents and I realized that everything was chance.
All throughout the 20th century we can observe the marked presence of totalitarian regimes and governments in Latin America. Countries like Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic all suffered under the merciless rule of dictators and military leaders. Yet the latter country, the Dominican Republic, experienced a unique variation of these popular dictatorships, one that in the eyes of the world of those times was great, but in the eyes of the Dominicans, was nothing short of deadly.
Socializing in Guatemala begins by greeting someone for the first time with a hearty handshake and saying “mucho gusto”. Guatemalans often socialize outside of the home but having friends and relatives to their homes is important.
In a country full of conflict, uneven distribution of wealth, and a corrupt system of government, there comes a time when the people have had enough. The people of El Salvador had been dealing with living conditions far less than adequate. Some would say the working conditions of these people is closer to slavery than it is to a job. The labor force of El Salvador rotates around the giant coffee industry that is controlled by the lucky few dozen families with all of the money. These families control a major part of the economy of El Salvador. The people moved to expand the distribution of wealth out of the elite causing a civil war. The route to freedom for the people of El Salvador was a route of constant failure and violence. I believe that the path to democracy needs to start with modernization of the country before making the shift to a democratic society because it is necessary to have a country that is relatively stable, a society that is progressive with education, infrastructure, and an economy that will promote the benefits of an economy. You cannot pursue democracy when your country is in the midst of a war against itself. It is also necessary to change the mindset of the elite to see the benefits of a democracy so power can then be distributed more
However, this does not necessarily mean colonizing Latin America, but rather having it allied and influenced by the United States' mentality and agenda. The book describes the tactics used by the United States to align these countries' policies and politics with its own. The book effectively portrays the role of the United States in the political affairs of Latin American countries. Higgins examines the Eisenhower administration's invasion of Guatemala, which resulted in a revolt to remove the leftist President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. The Arbenz administration posed a threat to the dominance of American companies in Guatemala, particularly the United Fruit Company.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
According to Stoner and McFaul when the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was defeated and voted out of office in 2000 this turnout allowed for a completion of a successful transition to democracy in Mexico (264). Although a transition did occur and Mexico does have solid democratic foundations, bewildering corruption, poor rule of law, and narco related violence have halted Mexican democratic consolidation.
Now days democracy has been establish in every Latin America country except Cuba, which is still a socialist state. It seemed that every other alternative form of government such as Marxism or Leninism has failed and been replaced by democracy. Furthermore it looks like people in Latin American really enjoy democracy and its’ benefits, as they also consider it to be the best form of government. After the failure of authoritarian leaders and the military intervene their lives, Latin American citizens wanted to change their system into a more fair and honest system, democracy. Democracy is usually defined as a system of honesty, equality, freedom of rights, though for Latin America countries it means gains, welfare and patronage. Latin American did not work the democratic system properly as it should be and different obstacles keep the system away from being consolidated. Democracy in Latin America still face serious problems in matters as grinding poverty, huge social gaps, corruption, drug dealing, inefficient governments and most importantly governments who promote and use military. The real question is why democracy actually failed even though democracy is what people want. Paraguay is a case of failure in transition democracy because of the corruption and other things that will be argued in this essay. Paraguay and Ecuador are considered to be the only countries that democratization did not achieve consolidation, in differ from Chilli and Central American.