It was an electoral upset that almost no one believed possible given Arévalo’s vanishingly low poll numbers. And it was a blow to the governing party, which had launched a campaign to discredit anti-corruption journalists, prosecutors and judges, filing charges against some and forcing others into exile. 

And then the upset itself was upended. Losing parties filed an injunction to postpone the announcement of official results, alleging irregularities. The Constitutional Court ruled in their favor, freezing certification until it could review district tallies. The court's actions raised fears of a recount, a lengthy, controversial process that could delay the final round.

USIP’s Mary Speck reviews Guatemala’s roller-coaster election, analyzes reaction to the controversial high-court decision and discusses what this means for democracy and rule of law in Central America’s most populous country.

Why were the first-round results so surprising? How did Torres and Arévalo wind up leading a field of more than 20 candidates?

First, it’s important to note that neither Torres (who got nearly 16 % of the vote) nor Arévalo (with about 12%) got the greatest number of votes if measured by ballots cast. Nearly a quarter were either null (17%) or blank (7%). That suggests that a plurality of voters deliberately marred their ballots or left them empty, either out of dissatisfaction with Guatemalan politics or because their preferred candidate had been disqualified.

In the runup to the vote, the Supreme Electoral Council, or TSE, injected chaos into the campaign by rejecting some opposition candidates for seemingly minor infractions while ignoring allegations against others. Those disqualified included a major candidate from the left — Thelma Cabrera, a Maya indigenous leader — and two candidates from the right — Roberto Arzú, son of a former president, and Carlos Pineda, a populist, who was banned in late May after his candidacy began to surge in the polls. 

That still left a crowded field of more than 20 candidates, but polls suggested a three-way race between Torres, former diplomat Edmond Mulet, and Zury Ríos, the daughter of a former military president who governed at the height of Guatemala’s armed conflict in the 1980s.

In contrast, Arevalo’s candidacy was an extreme long shot, according to the polls. But his party the Movimiento Semilla (or the Seed Movement) had several advantages: its focus on combating fraud apparently struck a chord with a population that considers most or all politicians corrupt. While the movement lacked major donors able to finance traditional media campaigns on TV and radio, its young supporters were adept at using social media to bring out the vote. And although Arévalo himself had a relatively low profile, his last name resonates in Guatemala. The candidate’s father, Juan José Arévalo, served as president during the country’s brief “democratic spring” in the late 1940s, promoting reforms such as access to education and social security.

The strength of Torres’s party, the National Unity of Hope, or UNE, lies primarily in rural areas. As first lady during the presidency of her late husband, Álvaro Colom, Torres managed social programs — such as conditional cash transfers, food support and micro-finance — that won her wide support in the countryside, especially among women. But turnout in rural areas is driven largely by mayoral and congressional races and tends to fall in the second round when only the presidency is at stake. She also has high negative ratings, which makes it hard for UNE to move beyond its core supporters. That may explain why Torres made it to the presidential runoff in two previous elections, only to lose the final vote.

Why did political parties ask the Constitutional Court to prevent certification of the results? Were there major problems during voting on June 25?

Nine political parties joined the complaint, alleging that polling station tally sheets contained errors, inconsistencies, and erasures. But international electoral observers did not notice significant irregularities during the vote. Nor did the Guatemalan political delegates present at polling stations raise major objections. An observation mission from the European Union noted that election day was “largely calm and generally organized,” despite a few violent incidents. “Opening, polling and counting procedures were positively assessed by EU observers in the 599 polling stations visited,” the mission stated in its preliminary report.

The Electoral Observation Mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) stated that the “overwhelming majority” of polling stations they visited had delegates from at least four political groups present “at all moments of the voting (opening, midday, closing and counting).” Challenges were relatively low: Poll watchers questioned “less than 0.01 percent of the votes cast” on election day.

“Some of the political parties that are now seeking, through injunction (amparo) proceedings, to challenge the election results were precisely those that had the greatest presence of delegates at the voting tables on June 25,” the mission said. It warned against the “extreme judicialization” of Guatemala’s electoral process by political parties that were questioning the vote’s validity only after they lost. U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken issued a statement endorsing the EU and OAS missions’ conclusions, calling efforts to undermine the election “a grave threat to democracy with far reaching implications.”

Several opposition leaders, whose parties initially joined the injunction petition, are breaking ranks. Former front-runner Mulet called on the high court to certify the presidential results, allowing Torres and Arévalo to compete in the final round on August 20. The party of Arzú, one of the disqualified candidates, also withdrew from the injunction petition, affirming that while some municipal elections might be flawed, the presidential results were “clear and convincing.”

Importantly, some of country’s major business chambers have warned against undermining the electoral process.  The powerful private sector coordinating commission known as CACIF called the elections “participatory, transparent, and legitimate” while the Chamber of Commerce denounced any attempt to “nullify” the vote.

What’s at stake in Guatemala? Why do these elections matter to the United States and the wider region?

Guatemala is an important source of irregular migration to the United States and also a transit route for both South American cocaine and the pre-cursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl. U.S. objectives in Guatemala include not only boosting economic opportunities, but also strengthening justice and security institutions. Weak rule of law encourages widespread corruption, undermining development, fueling citizen mistrust and enabling drug traffickers and other crooked actors to co-opt or capture state institutions. That’s why the United States has invested heavily in Guatemala and other Central American nations by training police, prosecutors and judges, supporting local violence prevention initiatives, and strengthening civil society watchdogs, including independent journalists.

But U.S. relations with Guatemala have been rocky in recent years. Although the Guatemalan government has promised to support U.S. calls to stem migration, it has resisted efforts to counter corruption. In retaliation, the United States has slapped sanctions on current and former Guatemalan officials, including the country’s attorney general.

Flawed elections could further undermine support for democracy not only in Guatemala but the wider region. Two out of three Guatemalans said they considered most or all politicians to be corrupt and more than half disagreed that democracy was the best form of government, according to Vanderbilt University’s AmericasBarometer poll in 2021. The same poll showed that substantial percentages would support an executive coup to close down Congress, ranging from 26 percent in Honduras to 38 percent in Guatemala to 51 percent in El Salvador.

This raises the specter of instability throughout northern Central America, which only emerged from military government and civil war in the late 20th century. Whoever ends up winning the Guatemalan presidency would have faced an uphill struggle to establish legitimacy under the best of circumstances.  Now she or he will take office following a campaign marred by seemingly arbitrary disqualifications and contested results. All of which bodes ill for a country with a tragic history of war and repression that is still struggling to deal with high rates of criminal violence and extreme poverty.