After the last G8 Summit we have heard a lot about the need for rich countries to invest more money in the poor, so-called developing countries and cancel the enormous debts which are strangling their growth. We have also been reminded that in most cases the poverty and stagnation of these countries have their roots in earlier times, when the powerful nations of Europe had taken control of their natural resources and cheap labour.

The independence of these countries from colonial rule did not serve them much better. They were still under pressure from the wealthiest parts of the world (often known as ‘the west’) to deliver cheap resources and labour, and sometimes the most corrupt and ruthless rulers were supported by western governments in their own interests. Corruption was encouraged for the sake of maintaining order and a steady supply of the necessary goods.

It is the ordinary people in these countries who have suffered most. Wages are low and work conditions bad. Health and safety laws don’t exist. There is no employment protection, there are no contracts, no guarantees against unfair dismissal, no support for people injured at work. There are no benefits if you become unemployed or if a woman has to stop work to have a baby. Health services are expensive and education is limited, often no more than a couple of years of primary schooling, often none at all.

Guatemala became independent from Spain nearly 200 years ago in 1821. The population celebrates Independence Day every year, though it was really only the ruling classes who ever benefited from it. Ordinary people remained poor, subsistence farmers or worked in low-paid jobs on the big estates. In time the country became what is called a ‘banana republic’, a country whose purpose was to provide cheap supplies, especially agricultural products, for export to its wealthy near-neighbour, the United States.

People were kept in fear and ignorance, partly by the catholic church which preached humility and a better life in the world to come, and partly by a policy of making sure that education, if it existed at all, should be along strict European, colonial lines. To this day, many country people in Guatemala still learn in school about European trees and flowers which they have never seen, or about the exploits of figures like Napoleon.

Since the G8 Summit there has been a lot of discussion about how and to which countries aid should be given and which countries’ debts should be absolved. Many commentators in press and television shake their heads and say that money should only be handed over to countries which practise "good governance" and work to rid themselves of corruption. They are indignant that so much western money disappears into the bank accounts of dishonest rulers, forgetting or disregarding the fact that western interests encouraged – and still encourage this way of operating towards ‘client’ countries in the developing world. International agreements are made between the ruling and business classes of different countries and very, very rarely involve those I have referred to as ‘ordinary’ people, men, and even less women.

Occasionally, as recently in Bolivia, popular feeling is so strong and public protest so overwhelming and well-organised, that such agreements are overturned and the people’s voices are heard. Much more often the people neither understand nor even know what is happening. They accept in silence what forces beyond their control throw at them. Maintaining this ‘culture of silence’ has always been one of the most powerful weapons of control by the world’s ruling classes.

In 1962, civil war broke out in Guatemala between resistance fighters who came to be known as the URNG and the governments of a series of particularly brutal dictators, all of them clients of the United States. The cause of the war was the poverty and the deep injustice suffered by the ordinary people in the country, most of them indigenous (native) Mayan Indians. It went on for 35 years, and when it came to an end in 1996, there were, as so often, no winners and really only losers. But one single factor made its conclusion different from many others of its kind: the peace was a legally negotiated agreement between the two sides. The URNG had the good sense and the good fortune to have excellent lawyers supporting them. They drew up a series of carefully worded agreements, really more like conditions, that both sides would have to sign before the peace became effective. The signing would take place in the presence of the United Nations (UN) and other international institutions. It would become an enforceable piece of international law, to be overseen by a specifically appointed mission from the UN.

A signed document on its own does not make a peace, as the last ten years have shown in Guatemala, but the law is the law, and slowly but surely many aspects of that bulky document are becoming reality.

Most recently a new set of laws, stemming directly from the peace agreements, declares that all citizens, including of course women, indigenous people and rural communities, have a right to take a direct part in the government of the country. Only with genuine full participation can ‘development’ take place. To do this, every tiniest local community will appoint its own Community Development Council (known as COCODES). Money will be provided by the state to support the COCODES. There will be different levels of COCODES, from local community all the way through to national government, all in constant communication, ensuring in this way that the ruling class cannot act nationally without consulting and agreeing with all the other, new levels of government – all this within the general principles of a unified, multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual Guatemalan state, and taking into consideration the need for environmental protection.

Buried inside the phrase ‘developing country’ is the idea that ‘development’ is something which some countries have and some countries don’t. But what does the word mean? Is it that some have good jobs, smart clothes, flush toilets, fast cars – and some don’t?

This kind of definition doesn’t work, since such people are to be found in every country in the world, rich and poor. It’s more to do with the way things work, how they hang together, and how the same opportunities are or are not open to everybody. It’s to do with health, education, roads, social security, working conditions, criminal justice and police – feeling that you are safe and feeling that you have choices in your life.

A man once said to me: "I want a world in which my son can become a doctor and my daughter an engineer," knowing that in his world that was completely out of the question. In Guatemala there are very few secondary schools or universities; let alone roads, transport, halls of residence; let alone books, laboratories, computers; let alone jobs and money.

The G8 Summit was concerned, maybe more seriously this time than before, about poverty, underdevelopment, harm to the world’s environment and global warming. Many countries seemed willing, maybe more so this time than before, to contribute money to boost development. Many thought that the key to development was to be found in the encouragement of trade between countries in the rich and poor worlds.

But most rich countries still insist on certain conditions for their support, and often these conditions vary from one state to another, usually because, in trade, they each want to sell their own goods and make something out of their investment. Even aid becomes competitive, and, as the G8 Summit showed, any internationally agreed system of support for development is still remote.

Guatemala urgently wants development and, though it is not on the priority list of countries in need, undoubtedly the government would willingly accept any hand-outs that came its way, even with conditions attached, which it might or might not fulfil. But a new spirit is alive in the country, which its own peace agreements have forced the government to promote.

Groups of trainers from a number of designated organisations are going from one rural community to another, working with community groups on how to form COCODES, how to collect, record and report the wishes and decisions of local people. There are stories of people walking for hours over rugged country to take part in these meetings. Reports I have heard suggest a sense of awakening.

Indigenous women are being made aware, often for the first time in their lives, of their own power as citizens. They no longer accept the definition of a citizen as someone who votes, then waits for four years till they have the right to vote again. They can now join the COCODES and send messages about their own life and community to government, where their voices have to be heard.

There are no miracles and progress may be slow, but a crack my be appearing in the culture of silence.

And for the G8 there is a message in the Guatemalan peace agreements. The government is probably as corrupt and self-seeking as any other, but it is subject to international law and the eyes of the UN special mission for Guatemala are on it.

The COCODES are a legal framework for putting the question of development in the hands of the people most directly concerned. They will affect all aspects of development, including production and trade, the priority of the G8. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that investment in smaller groups of well-informed producers, especially if they are women, yields better value for money, and so may not be wasted on lining the pockets of corrupt politicians and entrepreneurs.

July 2005