Freedom of expression threatened in Guatemala
Do you think it's fair for the TSE to pre-approve all interviews, forums, and debates for candidates in an election process? Neither do we. In the following lines, we tell you about the limitation of Guatemalans' freedom of expression and what we did about it.
On Saturday, March 9, we learned about the creation of Agreement 99-2019, which created “The regulations for the organization of debates, interviews, and public forums among candidates during the electoral process” by the magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). On Sunday morning, after an analysis, we identified that said regulation violated freedom of expression.
The regulation was briefly published on the website www.tse.org.gt and then removed, hiding it from the public, but social media and news outlets had already fully disseminated it. This worsens the situation since a state entity cannot arbitrarily hide information, and it becomes even more serious when that information contains provisions that restrict the freedom of individuals in the country. This action by the TSE constitutes a serious breach of the transparency that every public entity must uphold.
Why does this agreement violate freedom of expression?
The "prior approval" of expressing opinions and interviews is eminently a prior censorship since, in this case, the TSE would be in charge of approving or not what can be said and who can be interviewed in the different media.
All of this was disguised as equality and democracy to try to ensure equality among political parties and candidates for popular election. However, it contradicts all common sense, as it would have the effect of ensuring that the best-known politicians have no competition since citizens would not be able to learn about other political options.
What did we do to protect freedom of expression?
On Sunday, March 10, we analyzed the substance of the regulation and publicly spoke out about the violation of freedom of expression.
On Monday, March 11, we filed a constitutional protection action for the threatened violation of the right to freedom of expression against the TSE magistrates.
A few days after the action we filed, the TSE magistrates, by a majority, revoked the issued regulation. Magistrate Mijangos justified her dissenting vote by stating that she did not agree with the revocation of the regulation, as it was "a complement to the media regime, to achieve equity and equality in debates and substantial content during the electoral period."
Therefore, as a movement, we are conducting an evaluation of the provisions that limit freedom of expression in the electoral law and will request answers since the Constitutional Court has evaded ruling on the constitutionality of these provisions.
*We are still defending this issue, so we will be updating the information.
#ForTheRepublic - National Civic Movement