A Bishop’s Murder Raises Fears of a Past Coming Back to Life

Last week, Latin America’s democratic prospects dimmed. The murder of a Guatemalan bishop closely identified with the human rights cause seemed a throwback to a bygone era, unbefitting a region proud of its democratic progress.

Many questions still surround Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi’s murder, and probably will for some time. The most important is whether the murder was a common crime or politically motivated. In light of the circumstances, even the most cautious observers incline toward the latter. Gerardi presided over the production of the most detailed and thorough account to date of Guatemala’s 35-year-old civil war. The report, which pointed to the military’s responsibility for most of the war’s atrocities, was released two days before his slaying.

Gerardi was zealous in his work on behalf of human rights. Surviving an assassination attempt in 1980, he was forced into exile soon after. His brutal murder--he was beaten to death with a concrete block--has transformed him into a martyred religious figure much as Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero was after he was shot to death in 1980.

For some Guatemalans, it is tempting to believe that virtually nothing has changed since their government and guerrilla forces signed a peace accord in December 1996. Nearly four decades of conflict and a longer, tragic history of violence and exclusion have dulled many citizens’ sensibilities. In addition, the “peace” has been accompanied by an unprecedented crime wave that has done little to boost public morale. Democratic reflexes already had attenuated before Gerardi’s murder.

Other Guatemalans will surely interpret the tragedy in less dispiriting terms. After all, Guatemala did not, according to credible human rights groups, have a single “disappearance” last year. This is a remarkable achievement for the country that introduced the term to the human rights lexicon. Ironically, the bishop’s death came two weeks after the U.N. Human Rights Commission decided to end observation of Guatemala.

Thus, it is not a great leap to view the murder as a sad anomaly within otherwise improving conditions. The administration of Alvaro Arzu has attracted policymakers who are competent and committed to the peace agreements. Although the government is limited in its capacity to carry out the country’s ambitious political, economic and social agendas, progress slowly is being made. Gerardi’s murder might be seen as a “last gasp” of the few, remaining enemies of the Guatemalan peace process who are unhappy with the curtailment of the military’s role, truth-telling exercises or, worse, the prospect of accountability for any past abuses.

But such an optimistic interpretation would be overdrawn. The bishop’s murder is a jarring reminder of a sinister strain in Guatemalan society, one that may be contained by peace but not eliminated, at least in the short term. The peace accords are but a vital step in a much larger, more formidable process of national reconciliation.

Guatemala now faces a severe test. It is crucial that further polarization be avoided at all costs. The government has the responsibility to find and bring to justice the perpetrators of the crime. So far, one arrest has been made in the case. The justice system’s record of carry-through on such matters, however, does not inspire a great deal of confidence.

The murder also gives the government an opportunity to move more vigorously in forging a greater measure of consensus among diverse sectors of Guatemalan society. Some of Arzu’s initial steps, including setting up a special investigatory commission, are encouraging in this regard. The bishop’s death, moreover, should serve to temper both the government’s occasional triumphalism over the peace accords and independent groups’ occasional impatience and frustration with the government’s pace of implementing them.

Fortunately, Guatemalans are getting badly needed support from national groups and the international community. The Catholic Church, scores of foreign governments and myriad organizations have condemned the killing in the strongest possible terms. While it is easy to dismiss or underestimate the value of such declarations, they are very important and should become a drumbeat.

Indeed, a similar message of support needs to be heard beyond Guatemala’s borders. Signs of democratic erosion, and exhaustion, can be discerned throughout the hemisphere. By all accounts, in Venezuela and Paraguay, the most popular politicians are former military officials who once attempted to topple civilian governments. The security situation in Colombia has deteriorated substantially. In Peru, the armed forces exercise enormous power, and the political system there bears few traces of checks and balances commonly associated with democratic rule. In Chile, where the hemisphere’s elected heads of state just celebrated a summit gathering, the country’s former dictator, who presided over more than 3,000 deaths, has just become senator for life.

Even in Argentina, where democratic government has been in place for 15 years, the issues linked to the previous period of military rule are still being played out. Legislation that had halted prosecution of the juntas was recently repealed. The decision to set up a museum of historical memory about that awful period was just announced.

Gerardi’s report on the human rights abuses of Guatemala’s civil war was titled “Nunca Mas.” Similar reports bearing similar titles have been released elsewhere in the region. The question is whether the broad public, both within Guatemala and beyond, will be sufficiently resolute to turn that refrain into a guarantee.