As the pace of globalization increases so does the interactions between countries. These increased interactions draw attention to the fact that complexities exist within every country’s political system. Understanding the key differences between political systems can give us some insight about a country’s strength and weakness, especially in countries with the same type of government system where one is more fragile than the other. Such is the case between neighboring Latin American countries Guatemala and Honduras.
Guatemala and Honduras are located in Central America. The neighbor countries connect at Guatemala’s southeast border and are listed as presidential democratic republics. Guatemala has an area of 108,430 kilometers with a population of 14.8 million and currently ranks 57th place on the Fragile States Index (FSI). Honduras, on the other hand, has an area of 111,890 kilometers with a population of 9.1 million and ranks 68th place on the FSI. By using the methodology of most similar design I will compare both countries through qualitative data to better identify key patterns or variables in their political system (Guatemala Review, Honduras Review).
While Guatemala ranks slightly higher than Honduras on the scale of fragility, both countries score relatively about the same on most indicators of the FSI. However, there is a pronounced difference in two indicators of the FSI between both countries, Group Grievances; where Guatemala’s score of 8.5 is significantly higher than Hondura’s score of 5.9, and External Intervention; where Guatemala’s score of 5.2 is significantly lower than Hondura’s score of 7.5. To understand why two neighboring countries that seem similar on the surface rank differently on the FSI, we must identify the reasons for the difference in scores. What are the possible variables causing Guatemala to rank more fragile than Honduras? (Fund For Peace, Guatemala Review, Honduras Review).
Before we can single out any variables between Guatemala and Honduras, we must first look at some of the similar ways in which these two countries compare. Based on the relative similarities in their FSI scores, both countries indicate to have rather comparable internal struggles in their cohesion, economic, political, and social sectors.
The first set of indicators measure cohesion to determine how united a country’s government is with its people or vis a versa. The first indicator in cohesion is Security Apparatus which analyzes the internal and external “security threats to a state,” as well as the “perceived trust of citizens in domestic security.” Filled with long history of civil unrest due to dictatorships, insurgencies, military coups, and guerrilla wars, Guatemala scores 7.6. Honduras scored a similar 7.3 as it too has had a history of internal conflicts with the most recent being in 2009 when a military coup deposed democratic president Manuel Zelaya. The second indicator, Factionalized Elites, analyzes “fragmentation of states along ethnic, class, racial or religious lines” specifically where political power struggles may exist. Guatemala scores 7.1 as it often excludes its indigenous population from meaningful political participation. Honduras scores 6.8 due to the fact that the National Party, who are considered to to be political elitist, tend to have noticeably longer periods of rule over the Liberal Party (Fund for Peace, Guatemala Review, Honduras Review).
The second set of indicators measure the economic sectors to determine the overall economic condition and prospects for wealth along with the contributing factors. The first indicator, Economic Decline and Poverty, analyses factors related to government debt and economic climate. Guatemala scores 5.5 as it has maintained GDP growth and is expected to reflect a 3.4 percent growth in 2017. Honduras scores 6.4 as it faces economic challenges, still in 2016 the country’s GDP grew by 3.7 percent and is expected show growth for 2017 as well. The Economic Inequality indicator rates Guatemala 8.1 due to the continual rise in poverty levels to about 59 percent since 2014 mostly affecting its 52 percent indigenous population. Honduras scores 7.7 because “despite the favorable economic outlook, the country faces the highest level of economic inequality in Latin America” where about “1 out of 5 Hondurans live in extreme poverty, or on less than US$1.90 per day” (World Bank). In the third indicator, Human Flight and Brain Drain, Guatemala scores 7.3 given the high-levels of crime and violence that contribute to low-level of citizen security which in turn creates a negative impact on their economy. Hondura scores 6.4 due to the poor quality of education in rural areas and limited export resources creating high dependency on agriculture livelihoods (Fund for Peace, World Bank).
The third set of indicators measure political processes and government affairs to determine their effectiveness over the country and citizenry. The first indicator is State legitimacy, which evaluates the population’s established trust, or distrust, in governance. Here, Guatemala scores 6.5 and Honduras scores 6.8, mostly due to the facts that both governments fall short on accountability and transparency and are reported to entertain high levels of corruption among political elites, thus giving rise to internal conflict. The second indicator, Public service, analyses basic public provisions and services. Guatemala scores 7.5 due to the need for better infrastructure and education system along with an increase in the private security sector. Honduras scores 6.8 as they mostly need to improve water supply and sanitation and infrastructure in rural areas. In the third indicator, Human Rights and Rule of Law, Guatemala scores 7.2 and Honduras scores 6.9 as there is evidence of a highly repressive government that violates human rights with impunity in both countries (Fund for Peace, Guatemala Review, Honduras Review).
The fourth set of indicators measure a country’s current social pressures which may aggravate instability. The first indicator, Demographic Pressure, considers the sustainability of a population in a given area or as a whole. In this area Guatemala scores 7.0 due to high levels of poverty and disproportionate healthcare among its indigenous population, while Honduras scores 6.3 due to improvement in efforts for development and healthcare. The second indicator, Refugees and IDPs, measures refugees and the effects of displaced peoples. Guatemala scores 5.6 due to previous indigenous displacement brought on by a thirty-six year old civil war that ended in 1996 and the ongoing drug and gang violence. Honduras scores 4.3, as it continues to battle violent threats, extortion, and more recently, forced gang recruitments (Fund for Peace, Central Intelligence Agency).
So far, we can discern that at the surface, Guatemala and Honduras are stricken by the same key elements; violence, poverty, poor quality education, and the need for better infrastructure. Although these similarities tell us much about their governance and political complexities, they do not help us understand why Guatemala is more fragile Honduras. To better determine the variables, the next step is to focus on Group Grievance and External Intervention for both countries. It is my hypothesis that the different fragile conditions between Guatemala and Honduras is the result of ineffective governance.
GROUP GRIEVANCE:
First, I will discuss Group Grievance in each country by focusing on conflict and division between government and/or citizen. According to Fund for Peace, high scores on the index indicate injustices towards a political or social group, including the intentional withholding of public services or resources.
GUATEMALA
Guatemala (score of 8.5) is currently under National Convergence Front (FCN) a right-winged party which was initiated by retired military men who took part in Guatemala’s Civil War, and led by president Jimmy Morales, a comedian with no political background, since his election in 2015. However, much of Guatemala’s crisis is marked prior to Morales’ presidency, when the country was led by General Otto Perez Molina of the National Civil Police (PNC) party. Under Perez Molina’s government there were many reports of widespread corruption among police, elected officials, and judicial members throughout the country. Cases of human rights violations and violence such as extortion, kidnapping, human and drug trafficking, murder and sexual assault. Other complaints under Perez Molina included arbitrary arrests and killings, as well as prolonged pre-trial detention and judicial system failure to conduct full investigations. In many cases, the use of intimidation and threats and internal displacement of persons were used to disrupt justice and. In addition, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity intensified during that period, as did the marginalization of Maya communities and negligence over land conflicts (Guatemala 2016 Human Rights Report).
Moreover, despite Guatemala government agreement with the UN to create the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) to strengthen the rule of law and dismantle clandestine and imputative criminal and violent actions, internal corruption made
prosecution almost always impossible (Guatemala 2016 Human Rights Report).
HONDURAS
Honduras (score of 5.9) elects president Manuel Zelaya of the National Liberal Party for the term beginning in 2006. By 2009, Zelaya is deposed via military coup. Although the “coup is widely condemned,” Zelaya is exiled by Congress and shortly after diplomatic ties are restored with Honduras. Juan Orlando Hernandez, member of the right-winged National Party, was later elected for a four-year term beginning in 2014. In addition to escalating gang violence, protests and violence regarding the election ensued. In March 2014, the murder of indigenous and environmental rights activist Berta Caceres highlighted the state’s ineffective measures to protect civilians (Honduras 2016 Human Rights Report).
Disputes violence over land-rights pertaining to indigenous people, agricultural workers, landowners, and project developers escalated in rural areas due to the lack of informed consultations with communities affected prior to authorized development, especially among indigenous communities. Other issues that arose concerning human rights was widespread impunity of corruption, as well as institutional failures in the judicial systems including the failure to provide due process, lengthy pre-trial detention, and deplorable prison conditions. Often human rights defenders, judicial authorities, lawyers, journalists, are faced with threats of violence (Honduras 2016 Human Rights Report).
Additionally, violence against women and child (including child prostitution and human trafficking) go ignored. While obvious discriminatory practices are directed towards indigenous and Afro-descendent communities; “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons” (Honduras 2016 Human Rights Report).
EXTERNAL INTERVENTION:
Second, I will discuss External Intervention in each country by focusing on “the influence and impact of external actors in the functioning – particularly security and economic – of a state,” while paying particular attention to internal affairs and foreign aid (Fund for Peace).
GUATEMALA
Guatemala (score of 5.2) and the United States established diplomacy in 1849 following its independence from Spain. Beginning in 1960, a U.S.-backed coup overtakes Guatemala’s Social-Democratic government in pursuit to nationalize plantations for the United Fruit Company. The ensuing 36-year civil war came to an end in 1996 when a peace accord was signed by both parties. Since then, “U.S. policy objectives in Guatemala include: supporting the institutionalization of democracy” and “encouraging respect for human rights and the rule of law,” through the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) initiated in 2008 (Guatemala 2016 Human Rights Report).
Since the U.S. is one of Guatemala's largest trading partners, other programs on the U.S.-Guatemala agenda include: U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) which extends to all sectors of the Guatemala’s population to offer sustainable development and economic growth. Their partnership through CAFTA-DR aims to facilitate trade and investment “by eliminating tariffs, opening markets, reducing barriers to services, and promoting transparency;” and “cooperating to combat money laundering, corruption, narcotics trafficking, alien-smuggling, trafficking in persons (TIP), and other transnational crime, including through programs funded under the Central America Regional Security Initiative; and supporting Central American integration through support for resolution of border/territorial disputes” (Guatemala 2016 Human Rights Report).
Additional U.S. assistance to Guatemala is through a diplomatic guidance adopted in 2014 called “the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America (Strategy) to engage in efforts focused on promoting an economically integrated region” in Central America “that is fully democratic; provides economic opportunities to its people; enjoys more accountable, transparent, and effective public institutions, and ensures a safe environment for its citizens.” The Strategy proposes measures that would tackle irregular migration by promoting improved citizen security and better governance, whilst boosting economic opportunities for their citizens, improving public safety and strengthen government institutions. (Guatemala 2016 Human Rights Report).