Background: This interview between Sylvia Davila, Katherine Marshall, and Brady Walkinshaw took place as preparation for a January 30, 2009 consultation in Antigua on faith-inspired organizations and development in Latin America. In this discussion, Davila talks about the challenges of mobilizing faith leaders and communities in Central America to address political and social issues. She argues that a lack of data on development challenges and an absence of an ongoing forum for dialogue are two primary barriers to effective advocacy by religious leaders. Ms. Davila also explores the causality behind the rise of evangelical Christian churches in Guatemala. She thinks it could be linked to the impressive response of those churches to both a devastating earthquake in 1976 and the destruction wrought by the 36-year long conflict in the country, which only recently ended.
Can you tell us a bit about your journey, and especially how you came to work with the Avina Foundation?
It is a rather long tale. I first worked for the Inter-American Foundation, an organization with a significant presence in the region, for 12 years. Through my work with the foundation, I began working through the base Christian communities around the country, just as we, the nation of Guatemala, were emerging from war. Our work focused on the indigenous populations which, as you know, in Guatemala lagged behind the rest of the population and were and remain relatively impoverished. The indigenous population had suffered gravely during the country's violent internal conflicts. My work with the base communities allowed me, over time, to see their strengths and weaknesses, and also to learn about the essential processes of community organization.
This period of my life increased my desire and commitment to work with the poor. After spending 12 years with Avina, I was presented with an opportunity that was important both personally and professionally: I was appointed vice-minister of agriculture, natural resources, and food. I am an agronomic engineer, and this experience gave me the opportunity to get in touch with a different dimension of development. It gave me the chance to see government from the inside, and to learn about those who influence and manage government policy.
My experience in government is why I now focus so sharply on the importance of political engagement. Being able to engage government gives you the opportunity to influence society in broad ways.
After working with the government for several years I had the opportunity, in 2005, to start working with Avina. I am now part of the regional team for Mesoamerica, with responsibilities for programs in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Belize.
I have two examples from my personal life that have inspired me to commit to development work. The most important, and one that defined my life forever, was my close relationship with my father, a just man who was always ready to serve others. He participated actively in volunteer programs and always received my mother's unconditional support to do so. The second major inspiration was my 13 years of Catholic schooling, where my education was always linked to social justice and service to the poor.
The nuns always emphasized that the church should take a “horizontal” approach instead of a “vertical” one. I remember that in my first years of Catholic school, one of the nuns told us that Jesus' open arms were a sign of His love for the poor. She told us that the love we showed to and shared with our fellow human beings was as important as our love for ourselves. And so these ideas about service, and caring for the poor have been with me since I was a child. I think the main reason for this is my religious education.
At the seminar there was much talk about influencing public policy for the benefit of the poor. Based on your work with the base communities, then with the government, and finally with Avina, could you comment on the theme?
In Guatemala, at least, there is a dual problem of a lack of political will among the leaders to change the status quo, and a lack of a common vision for Guatemala's future shared by its people. Because people don't have a common vision of the reality they desire, and because it is inherently difficult for them to engage politically powerful people, the poor in Guatemala have little political influence or power.
Guatemala lacks any real concept of civic education that produces citizens committed to shaping our common reality. This is part of what drives the tepid interest among Guatemalans in participating in the political process. Because knowledge about how to bring about change is lacking, there is a fear among the people of rejection, of failure. Because of a lack of a conviction that change is possible, there is little courage to promote a more just and inclusive society.
Another substantial barrier to better public policy is the difficulty of fostering dialogues that include all actors in the country, including religious leaders. If you cannot bring leaders together to agree on a common platform of change, then it becomes very difficult to promote ideas broadly among the people. Dialogue is an essential part of the process, and it is not happening.
From your experience, what inhibits the efficacy of the advocacy efforts of civil society and religious communities?
In thinking about how we can do better as religious or civil society communities, I think the first thing is that we need is to generate specific and concrete information. In the first instance a problem has to be identified and then information has to be collected about possible ways of addressing the problem. This process of problem identification, and problem-solving, is a journey that has to be taken. An important part of the journey is fostering attitudes that promote an honest dialogue. Such a dialogue has no preconceptions, and builds and strengthens alliances in such a manner that they add up and multiply the efforts. In these dialogue spaces, the voice of integrated faith communities, with well formulated positions, can be of great value in this process of collective construction. The faith communities must include all options—Catholic, evangelical, historic protestant denominations, and indigenous—if they are to speak effectively for the poor.
A major weakness that I see in Guatemala has to do with the fact that there are no such processes. There is no follow-up on what has happened in the past, and every three to four years the same problems are rediscovered again. Every four years! It is a fundamental weakness of our country that there is no implementation or institutionalization of any process to address urgently needed changes. Civil society could have a vital role here, but currently civil society in the country is weak, and does not often progress beyond protesting to actually making proposals.
Churches have supported dialogue processes in a variety of ways, but their contributions are rarely about structural issues in our society. It is not customary to talk about politics, religion, or sex in our churches or in our homes. Yet, if these themes are not addressed in depth, it becomes very difficult to build a well-informed society. In these areas, youth are strikingly noteworthy for their utter absence. In our country the general perception is that politics is dirty. The truth is that we have let politics remain in the hands of the same individuals, because we do not have the spaces for citizen participation.
The churches, I believe, have not played the role they should in the building change processes. Churches come out when there is a problem, where they perceive there is a conflict with their own specific doctrine, for example when issues arise concerning reproductive health, but that is where they stop. Monsignor Ramazzini discussed this very clearly at our seminar. And I agree with him on the point that there are not participative processes that would lead us to a socially inclusive education.
At Avina, we have emphasized, and give the highest priority to issues of governance and the rule of law, among other issues. We look for leaders working on initiatives that are in line with these priorities and create alliances with them.
In the case of Guatemala, for example, we are supporting the inclusion of the country in the Latin American Justice Network. We would like to help to increase access to justice, especially for those communities for whom justice has been denied for centuries, such as indigenous populations, among other reasons because of language barriers. What are some ways in which the Avina Foundation is working with religious leaders and communities? We collaborate with all the sectors and leaders of the civil society that work in the same areas as we do. Religion is not a criterion we use to determine our partnerships. However, we work with religious leaders and communities in areas of common interest.
As we discussed during the seminar, Avina has worked together with religious leaders to contribute to the changes that have taken place, especially in education. We have contributed to the development of the inclusive education reform in Guatemala (a reform that was the product of a broad dialogue among civil society actors). Guatemala, as you know, is a country with big gaps in access to opportunities and wide social differences.
Recently, we have seen the Conference of Bishops and, through specific statements, the bishops themselves take some public positions on issues that are important to the country. The position that the Church has taken against open-pit mining was very important. But in general, and without going into details, I believe, with all due respect, that there has been a lack of good communication between the Church and the other sectors of the civil society. Better communication would help foster a stronger common advocacy position and would prevent confrontations. There are some issues where I have my own personal point of view and where the Church has taken a very firm and leading position, such as on reproductive health and agrarian issues.
Could you comment a little more about the work of the churches with the peasant sector as well as on agrarian issues?
Agrarian reform has been discussed in Guatemala for many years without much action. It is my belief that this issue can be addressed in a number of different ways. One of them, which is the source of much debate, is the expropriation of land, an idea that should be discussed very widely but also very carefully. Another option, and one that is probably more viable, is to bring idle lands into use. This would contribute to the development of a more efficient productive sector in regards of employment generation, development of productive chains, access to food, and food security and sovereignty.
Of course, this requires a pragmatic view of the problem, as well as of the aspects involving access to resources such as credit, technical assistance, organization, and markets.
A major focus of our discussion has been on the Bishops' Conference and the Catholic Church. Can you tell us about your perceptions of the work of the evangelical churches?
In the case of Guatemala, at least, I have seen impressive solidarity in the evangelical churches in two important historical events that our country has lived. One of them was the 1976 earthquake, and the other, the 36 years of internal armed conflict. In both circumstances, the evangelical churches gave away construction materials and money freely, especially to the indigenous communities. What happened after those events is that the people of the communities receiving the assistance converted to evangelicalism.
A part of this story is that the secular groups, which traditionally were an important part of the Catholic Church, are not as committed as they should be. I work with the social pastoral at my parish and it is difficult to encourage participation among the laity. There is a strong tendency to believe that people that do volunteer work do it because they have nothing else to do.
Without a strong social work ethos at the parish level, each individual can only be inspired to volunteer through his or her own will. Without this it is impossible to establish the foundation and processes that can help build a better society.
Given the perspective you have based on your work with the government, base communities, and civil society, what direction do you think the religious communities should take to work together for development in Guatemala? What are your major concerns about this?
I deeply believe in an open and transparent dialogue that will allow us to make our contributions from each of our distinct positions. However, there is a view that the Church should participate only by strengthening faith itself, nothing beyond. Civil society, for its part, when it takes a legal form, is required in the statutes of each entity state to explicitly whether it is religious or secular, or apolitical. This is a first obstacle that tends automatically to limit dialogue. Also, the government tends to play its role from a partisan political space, which limits participation as well. I do have worries, even though there have been statements in support of an inclusive and open dialogue. Thus far what we see is that most actors, instead of pursuing a vision of a better country, instead seek the satisfaction of their own interests.
