Every community inevitably creates a culture, a shared way of thinking, speaking and living. This culture involves the ever-shifting behaviours and ideas relating to their laws and justice system. Guatemala is no different, it has its own way of thinking, speaking and living and its own legal culture, a product of its democratic experiences, governments and complex history, characterized by the judicialization of politics.
This article seeks to explore that phenomenon in light of recent events by addressing three central questions: What is judicialization of politics? How does it affect the Rule of Law? And what does it mean for Guatemala as the country approaches key institutional appointments in 2026?
What is judicialization of politics?
Judicialization of politics is understood, in a broad sense, as the use of law, legal discourse, litigation and judicial actions by a range of political actors, including politicians, social movements, and other individuals, to frame their political struggles in a way that they can turn to Courts to advance them. Similarly, this term is also described by Robert Goodin in the The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, as the "ever-accelerating reliance on Courts and judicial means for addressing core moral predicaments, public policy questions, and political controversies." This results in political struggles becoming legal ones, and allowing the Courts and judges to embrace a new role, that of arbiters of political conflicts.
This phenomenon is not new in Latin America. Some scholars argue that judicialization has existed since colonial times, while others trace its consolidation to more recent democratic transitions. According to Alexandra Valeria Huneeus, Javier Couso, and Rachel Sieder, judicialization can be attributed to multiple factors, including democratization, the entrenchment of the Rule of Law, neoliberal reforms, multiculturalism, globalization and the diffusion of legal norms, judicial reform, weak and decentralized states, heightened expectations regarding state obligations, erosion of sovereignty, political failure and competition, experiences of authoritarian rule, and the growing influence of non-governmental organizations. Regardless of its origins, it is undeniable that Guatemala’s legal culture is characterized by a heavy reliance on Courts and judges to resolve not only legal disputes but also political struggles.
How does the judicialization of politics affect the Rule of Law?
It was mentioned earlier how this judicialization gives the Courts and judges a new role, a quite empowering one. When it is known that judges are able to solve political disputes and even define the course of governments and democratic processes, naturally, this role becomes very desirable. In this type of legal culture, judges are casted as strategic actors who could seize on available opportunities to advance certain actors' power.
The instrumentalization of the justice system to pursue political or personal agendas poses a serious threat to the Rule of Law. A core principle of the Rule of Law is having, not only a separation of powers, but a judicial system that is independent and impartial. The rise of judicialization of politics blurs the line between law and politics, replacing legal and just decisions with partisan outcomes. This leads to perceptions that the Courts serve power and influence rather than the law itself. The aforementioned weakens judicial legitimacy and encourages political interference to hinder the objective application of the law, all of which directly undermines the Rule of Law.
And what does this mean for Guatemala in 2026?
Guatemala’s appointment of judges for the highest Court in the country, the Constitutional Court (CC), is already political in nature. The CC is composed of 5 main or regular judges and 5 alternates, who are elected by different authorities or entities, each through its own internal processes. Each one selects a main judge and an alternate, who will take over only if the former leaves, passes away, or cannot serve. These judges are elected by a) the President of Guatemala alongside the Cabinet secretaries; b) the Supreme Court of Justice; c) the Congress; d) the Higher University Council (Consejo Superior Universitario) of the University of San Carlos of Guatemala; and e) all active members of the Guatemalan Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados y Notarios de Guatemala). With this in mind, some would argue that the Constitutional Court may be tarred from the day judges are appointed. This concern is compounded by the recurrent misuse of judicial remedies, particularly the amparo (writ of protection), to interfere with political processes. The amparo is especially significant because when it is filed against high authorities such as Congress, the Supreme Court of Justice, the President, or the Vice President, it is resolved in a single and final proceeding by the Constitutional Court, without the possibility of appeal.
During the 2022 selection process of the Attorney General, which resulted in the reappointment of Consuelo Porras, approximately 16 amparos were filed. Several were resolved by the Constitutional Court, especially that one that effectively compelled the nominating authorities in charge of the creation of the shortlist of six candidates to include Porras. Therefore, creating a clear pathway for ex-president Alejandro Giammattei to select her amongst the other five. Numerous similar cases illustrate how individuals, organizations, and political actors use the law to solve political disputes and get their way. This has made the appointment process of the Constitutional Court held in April of 2026 be in the limelight because these Judges will be in charge of solving many judicial actions that will arise during the selection process of the new Attorney General, who must take office on May 17, 2026.
Guatemala's rule of law is fragile and the increasingly blurred line between justice and politics only exacerbates this vulnerability. While judicial decisions inevitably have political consequences, the problem arises when Courts and judges act as political actors themselves. When this occurs, public trust in the judiciary deteriorates, and perceptions of independence and neutrality are severely damaged, further weakening the Rule of Law.
