Jumping the gun on campaign season is common in many Latin American countries, where laws are rarely enforced and impunity is just a perk of elected office. In the case of Pérez Molina, it appears as though the overwhelming support for his campaign, as well as general frustration with the Colóm Administration make pre-season campaigning permissible. So why does the "Que Hable Guatemala" campaign so enrage la guatemalgringa?
The campaign is advertised as an opportunity for dialogue - a "mesa de dialogo". However, Pérez Molina is the only one speaking. In 17 of 22 Guatemalan departments visited, the project has failed to take pictures of anyone at the podium other than the ex-general himself. I commented on the "Que hable Guatemala" Facebook group, asking how it was a dialogue if only the general was speaking, and the page administrator thanked me for my valuable opinion and referred me to the project website, www.quehableguatemala.com. Please scour the page for evidence to the contrary.
If Pérez Molina were truly interested in Seguridad y Justicia (Security and Justice), he would have supported the work of the CICIG and Castresana in the extradition of Alfonso Portillo, the cleansing of the police force and several other accomplishments, rather than declaring the body unconstitutional. Pérez Molina benefits from the very environment of impunity that the CICIG is designed to combat, as demonstrated through the "Que Hable Guatemala" campaign itself. His messages for change in Guatemala are the concerted repetition of titles, without any mention of methods, or budget. Unfortunately, this might be all he needs to win.
A jump start on the campaign season does truly provide an unfair advantage. Speeches, community dialog, public opinion polls, and bright orange ties all encourage Guatemalans to recognize Pérez Molina as a prominent public figure and naturally associate him with political leadership. In July of 2010, the PP hired a marketing firm to administer a public opinion survey, that would be released simultaneously with those of a CID Gallup survey run by the government. The PP survey shows that the majority of decided voters (39%) plan to vote for Pérez Molina. El Periodico, a nationally distributed daily, gave the PP survey as much space and mention as it did to the government´s Gallup poll, introducing equal suspicion of bias for both surveys. Guatemalans will read the front page and not recognize the different between a marketing firm and CID Gallup - and subconsciously make a personal judgement about who they trust more. The PP survey also asked a strange question, "If you were offered economic support from the UNE government in exchange for your vote, would you agree with that?" (83 percent of those surveyed responded NO). Asking that question in that way puts the government at odds with the ethical conduct of individual Guatemalans. It causes the survey participant to subconsciously link the illegal exchange of money for votes with the current administration, rather than with the very real history of corrupt campaign practices in the country.
Currently, there is some opposition to the Que Hable Guatemala campaign from those that receive support through the government´s conditional cash transfer program, Mi Familia Progresa. In April, Guatemalans in the department of Jalapa protested and tried to block the PP meetings. Pérez Molina claims that this is part of a general attack on "varios sectores"/"various sectors" by the UNE administration, that they are seeking to censor the press and wage an assault on the business community.
Unless critical thinkers question the actions of the PP, there is a chance that Guatemala will extend its struggle to free itself from a tragic history of violence and military impunity in the upcoming presidential election.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario