2023-10-20 08:05:28
Eleven days into the dialogue process mediated by a mission from the Organization of American States (OAS) between the government of Guatemala and the indigenous groups that called for protests over the aggression of the Public Ministry to the electoral process, a contrast is observed between a certain flexibility of the measures and the “radicalization” of state entities against the protesters, according to the international entity in a statement.
The meeting with the President of the Republic was a declaration of positions, but in reality neither party wanted to give up theirs. The president hid behind the legal impossibility of dismissing the attorney general, whose removal the protesters are demanding, while they announced the continuation of road closures as a pressure measure. But the climax came when the attorney general called for the dismissal of Interior Minister Napoleón Barrientos for not having used violence to dislodge the protests. The official resigned and his successor was ordered by the Constitutional Court to free the area in front of the Public Ministry building, where the citizens’ sit-in remains.
The OAS mission calls for maintaining rapprochements, but without falling into intransigence. In accordance with its democratic postulates, the organization reiterates that “legitimate is to protest, legitimate is to question, legitimate is also to exercise authority, but no attitude that supports or fantasizes about violence is legitimate.” Indeed, the blockades caused serious economic impacts, both in internal trade and in the export of products. Removing them is an appropriate action to continue the dialogue.
However, the evolution of the situation also includes the Public Ministry, the Judicial Branch, the CC and other citizen sectors that have demanded the departure of prosecutor Porras, who finally did not accept the meeting with the indigenous authorities, who proposed holding it in the National Palace of Culture. In any case, it is a necessary meeting that should occur as soon as possible, to exhibit at least a certain willingness to make actions and processes transparent.
A serious dialogue must have clear purposes. It is not only about stopping the conflict, but also about finding viable solutions, with respect for the legal and institutional framework, but also with attention to citizen voices. The Mission has been emphatic in pointing out that the electoral results reflect the sovereign will of the citizens and that they have already been made official. But it is precisely the fear of attempts to prevent the transfer of power that moved indigenous communities to mobilize.
The dialogue should not be exhausted with this current chapter, but should continue during the next government, in order to take advantage of the intersections of opinions in order to outline new priorities for development. The formulation of a renewed legal system, new opportunities for competitiveness and major national agreements to combat corruption and clientelism should be integrated into the working table. Unfortunately, there are important actors in the national reality who are completely absent, despite the fact that just four months before they offered everything: the political parties and their leaders. Finally, it is worth mentioning an axiom that is used in every negotiation process: the best agreement is the one in which everyone gives up something for a common good.
#Dialogue #implies #respect #democracy