“I, Rigoberta Menchu”: Questions of Secrets and Disclosure
by Merial Boschung
Beginning in 1960, one of the world’s most brutal civil conflicts arose in Guatemala between the militant government and the peasant population (Nobel Womens Initiative). In her autobiography I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala, the author describes her experience of this war as she traveled through her country to unify the Maya and ladinos. What strikes me is how, even though Menchu emphasises the importance of open discussion in conflict resolution, she simultaneously withholds significant information from certain groups, challenging the modern value of transparency in political affairs.
Sprinkled throughout her autobiography are Rigoberta’s reflections on the prejudice between the ladinos and the Indians. The Maya view ladinos as “traitors” (Britannica). But Menchu comes to understand “the barrier which has been put up” between the two groups as she engages in discussion with a ladino (Menchu 165). The growth of this friendship is a turning point in Menchu’s development. Without these conversations with her ladino friend, her beliefs surrounding ladinos wouldn’t have changed. This would have lead division to prevail between the two groups of civilians who ought to be working together against the government’s oppressive regime. Notwithstanding, Menchu’s praise of the power of open discussion is somewhat contradicted by the fact that she also keeps certain secrets from forces opposing her community. Menchu states that the Indians had “hidden [their] identity because… [they] wanted to protect what governments ha[d] wanted to take away from [them]” (Menchu 170). Essentially this means that nobody can steal what they don’t know exists. For example, in order to stay ‘under the radar’, the Mayan community adopted certain aspects of foreign culture, such as believing in Christian doctrine, however they “[didn’t] perform only Christian ceremonies” (Menchu 171). Menchu thereby facilitates discussion with certain groups to integrate peace and cooperation, yet hides aspects of herself and her culture from other groups to avoid confrontation and persecution.
At first glance, this behaviour seems hypocritical. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that ‘semi-truthfulness’ in this sense necessarily discredits Menchu’s legitimacy as a leader so much as it raises this important political question: In an age where political transparency is high on the list of civilians’ priorities, is it ever appropriate for a leader or government to withhold information from certain groups of people?
Menchu’s motives for secrecy were tethered to the threat of murder, torture, and disappearances, so I believe that it was right for her to keep her secrets. We see similar behaviour from the Canadian government during the 1979 Canadian Caper case, where they refrained from publicizing the hostage crisis until the Americans had safely landed in Canada (Global Affairs Canada). Ultimately, I think it is right for political leaders to withhold information that, if released, would be detrimental to the greater population. Rigoberta Menchu’s story illustrates the challenge we face in balancing the safety of our compatriots with the need for open and honest political dialogue.
Works Cited
Global Affairs Canada. “Ken Taylor and the Canadian Caper.” GAC. Global Affairs Canada, 10 July. 2013. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.
“Ladino.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Ed. Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, Abvram Martine, and Kathleen Kuiper. Encyclopedia Britannica, 04 Apr. 2016. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.
Menchú, Rigoberta, and Elisabeth Burgos-Debray. I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. London: Verso, 1984. Print.
“Rigoberta Menchú Tum.” Nobel Womens Initiative. Nobel Womens Initiative, 2016. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.
Whether it is appropriate for a leader or government to withhold information from certain groups of people is one of the most challenging political questions to this day. The person in charge must ask themselves, ‘will releasing this information cause more harm than good?’. However, such analysis is almost always subjective.
Though, most would look at Menchu’s situation and agree with her decision to withhold information; in the wider/global sense I would have to disagree that withholding information that the leader feels will cause more harm is the always the right thing to do, as it has the potential for a misuse of power. An example would be the current situation in North Korea where there is almost a complete lack of political transparency.
In today’s society, even in Canada, there is likely a plethora of information that is being withheld from the population. With that said, sometimes it is better to withhold information but in most cases this can be seen as an example of how even the “safest” societies are as corrupt as many others. Although, power and corruption do often come together. With that said, do governments/political figures not release certain information for the benefit of the people? Or do they do it with the benefit of themselves in mind? As a member of the population, the motives of the government is truly unknown.
It is often communicated to the general public that there are secrets that must be withheld from public notice for the good of the country. A certain level of discretion is necessary; the trouble is deciding when that discretion is doing more harm than good. This comes down to the questions of morality and ethics. Should a government be held morally accountable? Are governments incapable of being ethical? The answers for these questions would vary too much to ever be important, but it would be beneficial to see who ultimately benefitted from any such decision. Speculations can be made, but at the end it is the people’s reaction that matters the most.