Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:08:59.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Conform or to Confront? CSOs and Agrarian Conflict in Post-Conflict Guatemala*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2010

MATHIJS VAN LEEUWEN
MATHIJS VAN LEEUWEN
Affiliation:
Mathijs van Leeuwen is Assistant Professor at the Centre for International Conflict Analysis and Management (CICAM) at Radboud University in The Netherlands. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is about the role of civil society after violent conflict. It argues that the transformations that civil society organisations (CSOs) make are more ambiguous than supporting donors and NGOs presume. The article analyses how, ten years after the 1996 peace agreements, Guatemalan CSOs deal with agrarian conflict. It discusses in detail the case of a church-related organisation assisting peasants with agrarian conflicts and the challenges it faced in defining its strategies. The article argues that supporting donors and NGOs should stop seeing the difficulties of organisational change in post-conflict situations exclusively in terms of the internal incapacities of civil society. Instead, they should re-politicise their analyses and focus on the importance of broader social and political processes in post-conflict settings for the strategic options open to CSOs.

Abstract

Este artículo trata del papel de la sociedad civil tras un violento conflicto armado. Se argumenta que la transformación lograda por organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSCs) son más ambiguas de lo que suponen tanto donantes como ONGs. Se analiza cómo, diez años después de los acuerdos de paz de 1996, las OSCs de Guatemala han manejado el conflicto agrario. El artículo discute detalladamente el caso de una organización relacionada a la iglesia que asiste a campesinos en conflictos agrarios y los retos que enfrenta en definir sus estrategias. Indica que los donantes y las ONGs deberían de dejar de ver las dificultades del cambio organizativo en situaciones de posconflicto exclusivamente en términos de las incapacidades internas de la sociedad civil. Más bien, deberían repolitizar sus análisis y enfocarse en la importancia de procesos sociales y políticos más amplios en situaciones de posconflicto para identificar las opciones estratégicas abiertas a las OSCs.

Abstract

Este artigo trata do papel da sociedade civil após conflitos violentos armados. Argumenta que as transformações realizadas por organizações da sociedade civil (CSOs, sigla em inglês) são mais ambíguas do que presumem os patrocinadores e as ONGs que as apóiam. Analisa-se como CSOs guatemaltecas lidam com conflitos agrários após dez anos dos acordos de paz de 1996. Discute-se em detalhes o caso de uma organização relacionada à Igreja que assiste camponeses em conflitos agrários e os desafios ao definir estratégias. Defende-se que patrocinadores e ONGs ao apoiar tais organizações deveriam deixar de perceber as dificuldades de mudança organizacional em situações pós-conflito exclusivamente como consequência das incapacidades internas de sociedades civis. Ao invés, recomenda-se que suas análises se politizem novamente e que a importância de processos sociais e políticos mais amplos em situações pós-conflito deveriam ser focalizadas como opções estratégicas que se apresentam as CSOs.

Keywords

post-conflict peace buildingcivil societyagrarian conflictpeasant movementssocietal transformationGuatemalaposconflictoconstrucción de la pazsociedad civilconflicto agrariomovimientos campesinostransformación socialGuatemalaestabelecimento da paz pós-conflitosociedade civilconflito agráriomovimentos camponesestransformação da sociedadeGuatemala
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 91 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Goodhand, Jonathan and Hulme, David, ‘From Wars to Complex Political Emergencies: Understanding Conflict and Peace-building in the New World Disorder’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 1 (1999), pp. 13–26.Google Scholar

2 David Keen, ‘War and Peace: What's the Difference?’, in Adekeye Adebajo and Chandra Lekha Sriram (eds.), Managing Armed Conflicts in the 21st Century (London, 2001); Paul Richards, ‘New War: An Ethnographic Approach’, in Paul Richards (ed.), No Peace No War: An Anthropology of Contemporary Armed Conflict (Athens and Oxford, 2005); Christopher Cramer, Civil War is Not a Stupid Thing; Accounting for Violence in Developing Countries (London, 2006).

3 Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo/London, 1996/2003).

4 Dinorah Azpuru, ‘Strengthening Human Rights in Guatemala’, in Jeroen de Zeeuw and Krishna Kumar (eds.), Promoting Democracy in Postconflict Societies (Boulder, 2006).

5 Preti, Alessandro, ‘Guatemala: Violence in Peacetime; A Critical Analysis of the Armed Conflict and the Peace Process’, Disasters, vol. 26, no. 2 (2002), pp. 99–119.Google Scholar; United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), Informe de MINUGUA sobre el estado de cumplimiento de los compromisos de los Acuerdos de Paz en materia de tierras; informe de verificación (Ciudad de Guatemala, 2000); William Stanley and David Holiday, ‘Broad Participation, Diffuse Responsibility: Peace Implementation in Guatemala’, in Stephen Stedman, Donald Rotchild and Elisabeth Cousens (eds.), Ending Civil Wars (New York, 2002).

6 Manuela Leonhardt, Patricia Ardón, Njeri Karuru and Andrew Sherriff, Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) and NGO Peacebuilding – Experiences from Kenya and Guatemala: A Briefing Paper (London, 2002), p. 2.

7 Hilde Salvesen, Guatemala: Five Years After the Peace Accords; The Challenges of Implementing Peace, report for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Oslo, 2002); Amnesty International, Guatemala: Land of Injustice? (London, 2006).

8 Mathijs van Leeuwen, Partners in Peace: Discourses and Practices of Civil Society Peacebuilding, PhD diss., Wageningen University, 2008.

9 Mathijs van Leeuwen, Estrategias y experiencias de Pastoral de la Tierra San Marcos con el programa de la conflictividad 2001–2006 (San Marcos, 2007).

10 The former included research institutes such as AVANCSO, FLACSO, and ASIES, NGOs such as CALDH and CONGCOOP, labour movements such as UASP, peasant movements such as CONIC and CUC, and diverse pastorales de la tierra. The latter included donor agencies such as UNDP, GTZ, and the Dutch embassy, and international NGOs such as CARE, Cordaid, IBIS, and Trócaire.

11 Alison Van Rooy, ‘The Art of Strengthening Civil Society’, in Alison Van Rooy (ed.), Civil Society and the Aid Industry: The Politics and Promise (London, 1998); Kees Biekart, The Politics of Civil Society Building: European Private Aid Agencies and Democratic Transitions in Central America (Utrecht and Amsterdam, 1999).

12 Leonhardt et al., Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment, p. 13.

13 Rachel Sieder, Megan Thomas, George Vickers and Jack Spence, Who Governs? Guatemala Five Years After the Peace Accords (Cambridge MA, 2002), p. 16; Kaldor, Mary, ‘The Idea of Global Civil Society’, International Affairs, vol. 79, no. 3 (2003), pp. 583–93Google Scholar.

14 Jenny Pearce and Jude Howell, ‘Civil Society Discourses and the Guatemalan Peace Process’, in Jude Howell and Jenny Pearce (eds.), Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration (Boulder and London, 2001), pp. 150–1.

15 Enrique Alvarez and Tania Palencia Prado, ‘Guatemala's Peace Process: Context, Analysis and Evaluation’, in Catherine Barnes (ed.), Owning the Process: Public Participation in Peacemaking (London, 2002).

16 Pearce and Howell, ‘Civil Society Discourses’, p. 158.

17 Interviews with representatives of FLACSO, the Dutch Embassy, IBIS, GTZ, CATIE, and Cordaid.

18 Sieder et al. (eds.), Who Governs?, p. 18.

19 Interviews with representatives of FLACSO, AVANCSO, ASIES, UNDP, GTZ, Trócaire, HORIZONT3000 and Veterinarios sin Fronteras.

20 Kay B. Warren, ‘Indigenous Movements as a Challenge to the Unified Social Movement Paradigm for Guatemala’, in Sonia Alvarez, Evelina Dagnino and Arturo Escobar (eds.), Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-Visioning Latin American Social Movements (Boulder and Oxford, 1998); Pearce and Howell, ‘Civil Society Discourses’, pp. 150–1.

21 Interview with a representative of a Latin American research institute, 16 Feb. 2006.

22 Interview, 17 Feb. 2006.

23 Interview with a representative of a donor agency, 15 Feb. 2006.

24 Kees Biekart, ‘Seven Theses on Latin American Social Movements and Political Change: A Tribute to André Gunder Frank (1929–2005)’, European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, no. 79 (Oct. 2005), p. 90.

25 Michael J. Brown, Jorge Daly and Katie Hamlin, Guatemala: Land Conflict Assessment, report submitted to the United States Agency for International Development (Washington DC, 2005), p. 4.

26 In 2000, 18.6 per cent of land was in the hands of 94 per cent of landowners, while 62.5 percent was owned by only 1.5 per cent of the population (Amnesty International, Guatemala, p. 4). On usurpation of indigenous territories and exploitative labour relationships, see Carlos Canacho Nassar, Bettina Durocher, Juan Antonio Fernández and José Vinicio Letona, Tierra, identidad y conflicto en Guatemala (Ciudad de Guatemala, 2003), p. 26; FAO, Situación agraria, conflictividad y experiencias en la resolución de conflictos de tierra en Guatemala (Rome, undated), pp. 14–15; and Annalisa Mauro and Michel Merlet, Access to Land and Recognition of Land Rights in Guatemala: Analyses and Perspectives (Rome, 2003), p. 8.

27 Nassar et al., Tierra, identidad y conflicto.

28 Mauro and Merlet, Acceso a la tierra.

29 See in particular ‘Acuerdo sobre aspectos socioeconómicos y situación agraria’, signed on 6 May 1996.

30 Salvesen, Guatemala: Five Years; Coordinación de ONGs y Cooperativas (CONGCOOP), La acción política basada en la negociación y la protesta: las ocupaciones de campesinos/as e indígenas de fincas en la región sur de Guatemala (Mixco, Guatemala, 2004); Amnesty International, Guatemala.

31 A notable example of commitments that were not implemented was a progressive tax system (see Preti, ‘Guatemala: Violence in Peacetime’). Regarding ineffective commitments, for instance, civil society representatives were disappointed with the national Land Registry that came into effect in June 2005. Landowners were given priority to claim those parts of their properties not yet properly registered in their name (the so-called excesos). Although many small farmers had started the procedure of registering land, they were still waiting for their titles. New legislation did not improve protection of communal lands, as long as authorities failed to check whether registered lands were indeed vacant (on this, see also Amnesty International, Guatemala; and MINUGUA, Informe).

32 For instance, Amnesty International observed that international agreements to ensure that no forced evictions took place were not respected (Amnesty International, Guatemala).

33 A 1999 referendum formally rejected the political and legal implementation of much of the agreements.

34 Gauster, Susana and Isakson, S. Ryan, ‘Eliminating Market Distortions, Perpetuating Rural Inequality: An Evaluation of Market-assisted Land Reform in Guatemala’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 8 (2007), pp. 1519–36Google Scholar.

35 Amnesty International, Guatemala.

36 Byron Garoz, 2002, quoted in CONGCOOP, La acción política.

37 This was in addition to numerous roadblocks (including attacks on police stations and other public installations) and protest rallies.

38 Interviews with CONGCOOP, FLACSO, CONIC, CNOC, HORIZONT3000, Seprodi and several pastorales de la tierra.

39 MINUGUA, Informe; Eduardo Baumeister (ed.), Entonces, sí hay avances. Tierra, territorios y reforma agraria: experiencias y propuestas en Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras y Perú (Guatemala, 2005).

40 Brown, Daly and Hamlin, Guatemala: Land Conflict Assessment, p. 7.

41 MINUGUA, 2003, quoted in Nassar et al., Tierra, identidad y conflicto.

42 See also Amnesty International, Guatemala, pp. 10–11.

43 Interviews with representatives of Pastoral de la Tierra Interdiocesano Quezaltenango, Pastoral de la Tierra Quiché, REDASCAM and MTC.

44 Sieder et al. (eds.), Who Governs?.

45 Brown, Daly and Hamlin, Guatemala: Land Conflict Assessment, pp. 8–9.

46 Sieder et al. (eds.), Who Governs?.

47 Formerly, CONTIERRA formed part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Nutrition, which had a reputation for representing mainly the interests of the agricultural establishment.

48 Deininger, Klaus and Hans, Binswanger, ‘The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges’, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 14, no. 2 (1999), pp. 247–76Google Scholar.

49 Edward Lahiff, Saturnino M. Borras and Cristóbal Kay, ‘Market-led Agrarian Reform: Policies, Performance and Prospects’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 8 (2007), pp. 1417–36.

50 Klaus Deininger, Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction (Oxford and Washington DC, 2003).

51 Borras, Saturnino M. Jr., ‘La Vía Campesina and its Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform’, Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 8, no. 2/3 (2008), p. 263Google Scholar.

52 See also Susanne Jonas, Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemala's Peace Process (Boulder, 2000).

53 Gálvez et al., 2000, quoted in Nassar et al., Tierra, identidad y conflicto, p. 50. Historically, the term ladino refers to those speaking Spanish and of mixed European and indigenous descent. Currently, although often used to frame social, economic and political differences in Guatemala, the opposition Maya–ladino is a simplification. Many people do not identify themselves with one group or the other, and economic differentiation does not coincide with this distinction. See Charles R. Hale, Más que un Indio – More than an Indian: Racial Ambivalence and Neoliberal Multiculturalism in Guatemala (Santa Fe, 2006).

54 Next to the peasant movements and pastorales de la tierra, a number of NGOs and research institutes are analysing or advocating on agrarian issues, including CONGCOOP, CALDH and AVANCSO.

55 Plataforma Agraria was established in 2000 and included the research institute AVANCSO, the human rights organisation CALDH, the peasant movement CONIC, and the pastorales de la tierra.

56 Warren, ‘Indigenous Movements as a Challenge’.

57 Interviews and own interpretation of interviews with representatives of CONGCOOP, CNOC, CONIC and several pastorales de la tierra.

58 Interviews with representatives of several pastorales de la tierra, parish priests, MTC and CONIC.

59 According to the participating organisations interviewed, Plataforma Agraria had been formed precisely with this objective in mind – to establish a more open organisation and guarantee grassroots participation.

60 Dorothea Hilhorst, The Real World of NGOs: Discourse, Diversity and Development (London, 2003).

61 Examples mentioned include the 2005 participation of CONIC in Plataforma Agraria, the alliance between UASP and CONIC in March 2006, and the proposed alliance between Plataforma Agraria and CNOC in the same year.

62 In 2006, stories circulated about pre-electoral deals between CONIC and the government, which would account for CONIC's support for controversial government reconstruction plans after Tropical Storm Stan and its absence in the delicate discussions on the Código Agraria.

63 For example, Prensa Libre, reporting on the demonstrations in March 2006, was more interested in the economic damage caused by the blocking of the capital's avenues by thousands of peasants than it was in their demands. Over the course of 2006, limited attention was given to the particulars of agrarian conflicts in the newspapers.

64 Some newspapers condemned the demonstrations in March 2006, and suggested that protestors did not know what they were protesting against and had been paid to participate.

65 Interview, 5 May 2006.

66 Although I could not confirm rumours about peasant movements rerouting donor funding to ‘illegal activities’ such as occupations, the existence of such rumours demonstrates the unwillingness of international NGOs to support more confrontational activities.

67 Pastoral de la Tierra de San Marcos, Sistematización de experiencias del programa de capacitación campesina (San Marcos, 2002).

68 Juan-Carlos Peinado, Apuntes para la sistematización del conflicto agrario paradigmático ‘Finca San Luis Malacatán’ (San Marcos, 2006).

69 Joel Hernández Sánchez, Finca San Luis Malacatán, Departamento de San Marcos, internal document, Pastoral de la Tierra de San Marcos (San Marcos, 2003).

70 Chandler, David, ‘New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of State Sovereignty’, Political Studies, vol. 51, no. 2 (2003), pp. 332–49Google Scholar.