When I published my column about the invisible wall of distrust that blocks Guatemala’s development, I imagined that the most criticized points might be the historical examples or the international figures, but I did not consider that the central thesis of the article could itself provoke objections: that honoring contracts, respecting what has been agreed upon, is the foundation of justice and prosperity. A doctoral student from the Peoples’ Friendship University in Moscow, linked to ePInvestiga, responded bitterly, accusing me of defending plutocrats, confusing justice with business interests, and reducing public life to the cold letter of contracts.
I do not usually stop for personal attacks, but in this case the pause is necessary. Because what is at stake is not my column, but the philosophical principle that could pull Guatemala out of its labyrinth: trust as the organizing principle of common life.
This critic, close to statist currents, argues that the State may breach contracts if doing so responds to a “higher justice,” a morality placed above what has been agreed upon. That idea sounds naïve because in practice it opens the door to arbitrariness in ways that damage the image of our country. Who defines that justice? The ruler of the day, the negligent bureaucrat, the judge subjected to political pressure? This approach, rooted in Marxist-Hegelian thought, implies that the State decides when to comply and when not to, which is incompatible with the rule of law — just ask Putin. Kant made it clear: “A contract (pactum) is the act of two persons by which the property of one is transferred to the other through a reciprocal act of will.”¹ Its binding force does not depend on the whims of third parties, but on the very nature of justice itself.
I do not speak from academic theory. I speak from twenty years of business experience, which began with two partners and today supports forty Guatemalan collaborators dedicated to technology and artificial intelligence services. During that time, I have had to sign ruthless contracts, even unfair ones, and yet my partner, associates, and I have honored every single one because we understood that the value of a company and its brand is inseparable from the value of its principles and its word. It was that discipline that allowed us to survive when everything pointed toward disappearance. And it is that same discipline that I would like to guide the brand value of my country.
My motivation is transparent: I want a country where my children and grandchildren can find a better future. I do not write to defend guilds or privileges; I have criticized the Guatemalan business sector when it is wrong, such as with the ethanol law, which specifically favors sugar producers, or when the goal is to preserve the status quo instead of generating the profound changes our country so desperately needs. I believe in private enterprise because it is the engine of employment and prosperity, but I also believe that the private sector needs more drive, more vision for the future, and more united work for the good of the country.
Universal history offers a different verdict from that of this critic. Cicero wrote: “Fundamentum autem est iustitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas” — “The foundation of justice is good faith, constancy, and truth in promises and agreements.”² Marcus Aurelius summarized it in his Stoic ethic: “If it is not right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.”³ Locke affirmed that “the great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”⁴ Montesquieu observed that “the spirit of commerce produces in men a certain sense of exact justice.”⁵ Hamilton, while founding the American republic, pointed out that “a proper provision for the support of public credit is a matter of the first importance in every country.”⁶ Lee Kuan Yew, in the twentieth century, explained that “the foundations of our financial center were the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and an honest and stable government.”⁷ Douglass North argued that “economic performance depends on institutions and on the way they enforce the rules of the game.”⁸ And Daron Acemoglu has recently reminded us that “inclusive institutions, those that guarantee property rights and contract enforcement, are what sustain long-term economic growth.”⁹
Guatemala, by contrast, has cultivated a tradition of noncompliance: expropriations, unpaid debts, annulled contracts. The world has taken notice. Guatemala has accumulated more than 100 million dollars in judgments for international breaches, and the rankings on rule of law and corruption place us among the worst in the world.
Added to this is institutional weakness. And while Panama, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, and Poland attract foreign direct investment above 6% of GDP, we barely reach 1.6%.¹⁰ Some believe that it is the wealthy who are most interested in preventing foreign capital from arriving, but in reality, the problem affects everyone. More capital means more jobs, better salaries, more opportunities, more dreams, and better realities. The one who creates the conditions to attract investors and capital is the government, and in this century, only the government of Óscar Berger achieved foreign direct investment above 2% of GDP on average during its term, thanks to the confidence inspired by its plural cabinet. The other administration that surpassed that 2% threshold was Otto Pérez’s, but at the cost of undermining institutions: with honorable exceptions, corruption became a requirement for governing, a sin that remains with us to this day.
This is not an academic issue. It is the bread missing from the table, the factory that was never able to open, the young man who migrates because he cannot find opportunities after searching for so long. It is the price of having turned noncompliance into a policy of State and of allowing corruption to determine decrees, policies, and sectarian interests.
The critic says that honoring contracts is plutocracy. I maintain that it is republic. Republic, as conceptualized by Aristotle and Cicero, integrating all powers but with checks and balances. Plutocracy or oligarchy, just like popular democracy and tyranny, are forms of government that do not unite but divide. And what we need in Guatemala is unity, not more division. We need to find meaning and a project in living together, with a government team capable of representing the common interest of the Guatemalan people.
Guatemala will not be respected in the world as long as its rulers reserve for themselves the right to break their word. But if we recover the elementary virtue of honoring what is promised, we will be able to tear down the invisible wall that condemns us to backwardness. I want my grandchildren to inherit a country worthy of their trust. That is my motivation.
