OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111
doc. 21 rev.
6 April 2001
Original:  English/Spanish

FIFTH REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF 
HUMAN RIGHTS IN GUATEMALA

CHAPTER III

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

A.      Introduction

1.       The Preamble to the American Convention states that: “The ideal of free men enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights.”

2.       In addition, the Preamble to the Protocol of San Salvador underscores the close relationship that exists between economic, social, and cultural rights and civil and political rights, in that the different categories of rights constitute an indivisible whole based on the recognition of the dignity of the human person; this is the reason why both require permanent protection and promotion if they are to be fully realized, and why the violation of some rights in favor of the realization of others can never be justified.[1]

3.       An analysis of the present state of economic, social, and cultural rights in Guatemala needs to be approached from a historic perspective in order to understand both the current problems and the progress that has been made as well as the challenges that the future holds. In this regard, we refer to the conclusions of the Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH), which indicated that:

[T]he structure and nature of economic, cultural and social relations in Guatemala are marked by profound exclusion, antagonism and conflict — a reflection of its colonial history.[2]  ….

The anti-democratic nature of the Guatemalan political tradition has its roots in an economic structure, which is marked by the concentration of productive wealth in the hands of a minority. This established the foundations of a system of multiple exclusions, including elements of racism, which is, in turn, the most profound manifestation of a violent and dehumanising social system. The State gradually evolved as an instrument for the protection of this structure, guaranteeing the continuation of exclusion and injustice.[3]

The absence of an effective state social policy, with the exception of the period from 1944 to 1955, accentuated this historical dynamic of exclusion. In many cases, more recent State policy has produced inequality, or, at the very least, endemic institutional weaknesses have accentuated it. Proof of this can be seen in the fact that, during the twenty years of Guatemala’s most rapid economic growth (1960-1980), state social spending and taxation were the lowest in Central America.

Due to its exclusionary nature, the State was incapable of achieving social consensus around a national project able to unite the whole population. Concomitantly, it abandoned its role as mediator between divergent social and economic interests, thus creating a gulf which made direct confrontation between them more likely.[4]  ….

Thus a vicious circle was created in which social injustice led to protest and subsequently political instability, to which there were always only two responses: repression or military coups. Faced with movements proposing economic, political, social or cultural change, the State increasingly resorted to violence and terror in order to maintain social control. Political violence was thus a direct expression of structural violence.[5]  ….

[O]ther parallel phenomena, such as structural injustice, the closing of political spaces, racism, the increasing exclusionary and anti-democratic nature of institutions, as well as the reluctance to promote substantive reforms that could have reduced structural conflicts, are the underlying factors which determined the origin and subsequent outbreak of the armed confrontation.[6]

4.       As a result of this situation, whereby the economic development of the vast majority of Guatemalan society has been historically delayed, the Agreement on Social and Economic Aspects and Agrarian Situation was signed as part of the 1996 peace accords. This agreement states that: “A firm and lasting peace must be consolidated on the basis of social and economic development directed towards the common good, meeting the needs of the whole population.  This is necessary in order to overcome the poverty, extreme poverty, discrimination and social and political margination which have impeded and distorted the country's social, economic, cultural and political development and have represented a source of conflict and instability.”

5.       In this report the Commission will study only some of the social, cultural, and economic rights set forth in the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the “Protocol of San Salvador.” This analysis will be conducted in light of the provisions of the Protocol of San Salvador and the terms of the Agreement on Social and Economic Aspects and Agrarian Situation. It will also strive to pay due attention to the country’s indigenous inhabitants, who account for more than 50 percent of the population, and to rural areas, in that Guatemala is essentially a rural country, with some 60 percent of the population inhabiting rural areas and most of the country’s foreign currency being earned from the land.[7]^,[8] Against this backdrop, the Commission will first analyze Guatemala’s Human Development Index (HDI) from a comparative perspective. It will then analyze the country’s health and education provisions, including as they apply to persons with disabilities.  Further, it will describe the terms of the Fiscal Pact, one the main tools being used to bring about sustainable social development in Guatemala.  Finally, it will offer its conclusions and recommendations.

B.                 Overview

          6.       On October 6, 2000, Guatemala deposited its ratification of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the “Protocol of San Salvador,” with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. The Commission values this initiative by the Guatemalan State, and hopes that the Protocol of San Salvador will be fully implemented and serve to promote and ensure greater social justice in Guatemala.

          7.       Guatemala has the hemisphere’s second most unequal distribution of income: the richest fifth of the population receives 63 percent of the country’s total income, while the poorest fifth receives only 2.1 percent. In addition, 39.8 percent of the population earn less than one U.S. dollar a day. It is estimated that 57 percent of the country’s inhabitants live below the poverty line.[9]

          8.       Sustained economic development is essential for ensuring public investment and achieving social goals. Recognizing the importance of this, the Agreement on Social and Economic Aspects stated that “the country’s accelerated growth is necessary to create jobs and social development.” Thus, in the peace accords, the Government agreed to adopt economic policies that would bring about the sustained growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) at rates no less than 6 percent per annum, so that an advanced social policy could be pursued. The growth in Guatemala’s GDP in recent years has been as follows: 1997, 4.3%; 1998, 5.1%; 1999, 3.6%; and 2000, 3.6% (estimated).

          9.       We can thus see that in 1997 and 1998, the Guatemalan economy reported growth rates in accordance with the targets set in the peace accords. These increased figures were essentially due to higher public investment and greater macroeconomic stability. However, the 1999 result and the estimated figure for 2000 are well below the 6 percent goal, which means lower job creation rates and lower income levels for the population.[10]

          C.      Human Development Index (HDI)[11]

          10.     In the year 2000 HDI survey, Guatemala’s ranked 120th out of a total of 174 countries. This meant that Guatemala had the hemisphere’s second lowest HDI, after Haiti.[12]

          11.     Breaking down the Human Development Index by geographical regions, the metropolitan region (Department of Guatemala) had the highest HDI figure. In contrast, the northern and northwestern regions, which have the highest proportions of indigenous inhabitants, reported the lowest figures. Thus, the income of the metropolitan region rose from 1.6 times the national average in 1989 to 2.1 times the average in 1994; the figure then stabilized at 2.0 in 1998. In contrast, the corresponding figure for northwestern region, where incomes are lowest, fell from slightly more than half the national average in 1989 (0.6 times) to about half in 1994 (0.5) and less than half in 1998 (0.4).[13]^,[14] A regional breakdown of Guatemala’s HDI figures appears in the following table.

          12.     These figures also reveal that in 1998 the HDI was higher than in both 1994 and 1989, with improvements at both the regional and nationwide levels. As stated by the United Nations Development Programme, “the improved indices were chiefly the result of increased life expectancy, followed by higher income levels. Improvements in education, while considerable over the period, did not lead to a greater level of participation in education in the 1994-1998 period.”[15]

          13.     Because around 60 percent of Guatemala’s population lives in rural areas, analyzing HDI evolution in both urban and rural regions is essential. For the country as a whole, rural HDI was 14 percentage points lower than its urban counterpart.[16] Similarly, as indicated by the following figures, the lowest urban HDI (0.60, in the northwestern region) was higher than the highest rural HDI (0.55, in the central region), with the exception of the metropolitan region (where the figure was 0.64).[17] The table below contains a breakdown of Guatemala’s rural and urban HDI figures:[18]