A Smart Take on Honduras
Manuel Zelaya
Brookings’ Kevin Casas-Zamora offers up the brief-but-informative take on what happened in Honduras that I’ve been waiting for:
As other Latin American leaders, President Zelaya fell victim to the virus of presidential reelection, an institution with questionable pedigree in a region that has paid a dear price for its fondness of caudillos. The real problem, however, was that by organizing a de facto referendum to test the popularity of his idea, Zelaya pursued his ambition with total disregard of his country’s constitution. The latter explicitly forbids holding referenda—let alone an unsanctioned “popular consultation”—to amend the constitution and, more specifically, to modify the presidential term. Unsurprisingly, the president’s idea met with the resistance of Congress, nearly all parties (including his own), the press, business, electoral authorities, and, crucially, the Supreme Court, that deemed the whole endeavor illegal. Last week, when the President demanded the Armed Forces’ support to distribute the electoral material to carry out his “opinion poll,” the military commander refused to comply with the order, was summarily dismissed for his refusal, and later reinstated by the Supreme Court. The president then cited the troubling history of military intervention in Honduran politics, a past that the country—under more prudent governments—had made great strides in leaving behind in the past two decades. He forgot to mention that the order that he issued was illegal. [...]
Now the Honduran military have responded in kind: an illegal referendum has met an illegal military intervention, with the avowed intention of protecting the constitution. Moreover, as has been so often the case, this intervention has been called for and celebrated by Zelaya’s civilian opponents. For the past week, the Honduran Congress has waxed lyrical about the armed forces as the guarantors of the constitution, a disturbing notion in Latin America. When we hear that, we can expect the worst. And the worst has happened. At the very least, we are witnessing in Honduras the return of the sad role of the military as the ultimate referee in the political conflicts amongst the civilian leadership, a huge step back in the consolidation of democracy.
His policy suggestion is that the United States and the Organization of American States should push for Zelaya to be reinstated. They point out that if Honduran civilians want to attempt to prosecute Zelaya through the civilian legal system, they can do that. One thing that I continue not to understand about this situation is does Honduras not have an impeachment mechanism through which congress can depose Zelaya? It seems to me that if the congress is inclined to go along with an anti-Zelaya military coup, there ought to have been some legal mechanism in place through which they could have changed presidents without subverting democracy.
As a more general point, my understanding of the evidence continues to be that parliamentary systems are less prone to constitutional crisis and breakdown. Latin America would do well to stop imitating us yankees and start imitating the vast majority of stable democracies. What’s more, for small countries like Honduras it seems to me that total demilitarization (à la Costa Rica) looks like a very attractive option.
134 Responses to “A Smart Take on Honduras”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
It’s a bit silly to push for reinstatement of Zelaya at this stage. He would likely be vindictive and cause seriously bodily harm to the coup-makers, who were just as much in the right and wrong as him.
But in any case, he shouldn’t be president anymore. He’s defied the constitution when he’s sworn to defend. One way or another, he cannot continue in that office. So all we are accomplishing, unless he is immediately impeached, is the return of a constitutional felon.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Agreed on all counts. I also suspect that (if a Presidential system must be retained) a six year term (or, alternatively one possible relection) might be wiser than a single four year term.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Honduras does indeed have an impeachment mechanism. I was reading something on BBC that suggested they were about to impeach him, until they got scared and settled for the military coup as a quicker solution.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Zelaya shut down a CIA drug smuggling route so he had to be removed.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Zelaya shut down a CIA drug smuggling route so he had to be removed.
Cut out the snark, you piece of junk.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I don’t see the evidence that what Zelaya did was unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court declared the binding referendum unconstitutional he changed it to a non-binding referendum.
And I don’t trust the media or what is coming out of Washington. How convenient that Washington and the Banking interests can say they were against a coup but boys will be boys in Latin America and the right-wing corporatists once again winning will just have to be accepted.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I’m not precisely sure how impeachment works in Honduras — I looked at the constitution last night (it’s long!) and couldn’t find anything. I’ve heard contradictory statements on the matter.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
They point out that if Honduran civilians want to attempt to prosecute Zelaya through the civilian legal system, they can do that.
Precisely.
He would likely be vindictive and cause seriously bodily harm to the coup-makers,
Based on what? There are elections scheduled for November. He’ll be a lame duck.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Based on what? There are elections scheduled for November. He’ll be a lame duck.
If he led a mob to attack military depots to forcibly, and illegally, take the ballots, what do you think he will not do?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I don’t see the evidence that what Zelaya did was unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court declared the binding referendum unconstitutional he changed it to a non-binding referendum.
From Wikipedia:
That seems pretty cut and dry to me. He was unconstitutional the moment he proposed it. He was removed because he kept pushing. To say nothing about his defiance of the Supreme court, his dismissal of the head of the armed forces, etc.
And I don’t trust the media or what is coming out of Washington. How convenient that Washington and the Banking interests can say they were against a coup but boys will be boys in Latin America and the right-wing corporatists once again winning will just have to be accepted.
Again, Wikipedia:
The Supreme Court, and every single member of the Congress. I don’t think this is a case of banking interests run amok. I don’t know much beyong what I’ve learned in the last 24 hours, but politics aside, Zelaya sounds like Nixon mixed with Peron.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
It is clear that this coup was engineered by the oligarchy in Guatemala, to get rid of a populist president who wanted to reform the constitution. There is a mix of personal ambition and a desire to try and change the balance of power and wealth in a country that is both the 3rd poorest in LA and has some of the highest wealth inequality in the world. The constitution was written by the oligarchs to try and prevent any social justice meddling by a reformist president. What were his options? For a better read on the situation on the ground in Guatemala, go to narconews
June 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The Supreme Court, and every single member of the Congress
Every single member of Congress. That includes his own party.
This is like every single Congressmen voting against a president. Think about it. If every single Democrat voted against a Democratic president.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Armed forces can be for three things:
1) Attack other countries
2) Defend against other countries
3) Control the country
I think only the Russian and Chinese armed forces could do all three. Obviously the Honduran armed forces are primarily for #3 (e.g. Battalion 316), so that’s why it exists. El Salvador invaded in 1969, so maybe there’s a little of #2. But yes, if the ruling class of Honduras didn’t want to do #3, they could disband the military.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
He basically was a candidate of one of the righist parties and abandoned them to become a populist, so seeing his party vote against him is no suprise. A unanimous vote shows me how corrupt the current system, since there are thousands in the streets protesting the coup, but they have no representatives in the legislature apparently.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Never believe any reformer whose first reform is, “I must stay in office longer than my allotted term”.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Richard Wang, I’d take you more seriously if you’d recognize that we’re talking about Honduras, not Guatemala.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
my bad sorry. I don’t know why I confused the two.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
A unanimous vote shows me how corrupt the current system, since there are thousands in the streets protesting the coup, but they have no representatives in the legislature apparently.
Yeah, apparently. If he’s defecting from one of the rightest parties, where are the leftists to get his back? I mean, unanimous? Say what you will about the U.S. Congress, but even with all the barriers to entry, we still have Barbara Lee and Ron Paul.
Look, I’m a sympathetic to left-wing movements as the next guy, but Zelaya sounds like someone exploiting populist rage for political gain. I want to learn more about this situation, so I’m sifting through the site you posted right now, but I’m only seeing propaganda dispatches and not much else to change my mind. Do you have any information that would lead me to believe he’s an actual reformer and not merely a demagogue?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Given the research done here, it’s even more surprising that Obama would take the side of current and future despots in Latin America. Chavez and Castro must be very happy.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Never believe, or more important recognize as legitimate, those who initiate a coup and then close the independent media, kidnap the president and exile him, bring the army into the streets to suppress popular protests, and declare martial law. I will go with the term extension president.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Not just Obama. The UN, Russia, the EU…frankly, I’m kind of surprised too. Maybe it’s just an automatic reaction to a coup d’etat, maybe a misunderstanding of the situation, but if there was ever a time for A military to depose a president, it seems like this one.
Frankly, as anything other than a face-saving measure, I’m unsure why pundits like Yglesias and Cass-Zamora are calling for his reinstatement. Again, I don’t know much about the political backgroung, but it seems like Zamora’s time of useful contributions to Honduran political discourse have come to an end.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Never believe, or more important recognize as legitimate, those who initiate a coup and then close the independent media, kidnap the president and exile him, bring the army into the streets to suppress popular protests, and declare martial law.
Specifics, please, not axioms. Why should anyone support Zamora? Seriously. Give me a reason. Specifically, what is he trying to do? Why can’t he do it under the constitution as it stands? How does he allegedly have popular support but NO allies in Congress?
I will go with the term extension president.
The WHOLE POINT of this section of the constitution is to use termlimits to negate the risk of Presidents becoming despots. The WHOLE POINT. Shit, Honduras revokes your citizenship, even if you’re not a public official, if you advocate for it. I think they’re pretty serious about it.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
They are simply lying, lying about everything:
- that the opinion poll had something to do with the term limit,
- that the Supreme Court ordered the army to remove him, and
- that the Congress voted unanimously to remove him – and this one is simply ridiculous, of course, unless the army threatened to kill those who won’t vote, which is, clearly, a possibility.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
If the Congress truly had no option other than a military coup this says some pretty bad things about the institutions in Honduras.
If what he was doing was illegal and the Congress unanimously agreed then they should have arrested him using civilian authorities.
An analogy would be after Watergate rather than using Due Process to impeach Nixon the Congress called in the 82nd Airborne and stormed the Whitehouse.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
abb1, citation?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
You know, sometimes it’s just a draw and we don’t have any basis for strongly favoring either side. Or, if you prefer, you can favor the immediate vs. potential legitimacy issue (i.e. it’s definitely bad to overthrow the president, but it’s potentially bad for the president to seek a new term through extraconstitutional means), but it’s nothing that a sensible person would go to the wall for.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Of Course Mr. Yglesias thinks the Honduras should demilitarize. Mr. Yglesias is a hipster, and hipsters tend to think that all problems could be solve if we just read some Foucault and Judith Jarvis Thomsen, take a few bong hits, and sing Kum-Ba-Yah. Men with guns are not popular at Georgetown cocktail parties. Fortunately, Latin American cultures have not been emasculated and p*ssified to the extent of the Anglo-American late-capitalist bourgeois cosmopolitan West. Latin American nations need more left-leaning militaries along the lines of the Velasco or Chavez. They don’t need more pacifist hipsters trying to get them to dismantle their armies. General Velasco’s military regime did infinitely more for the poor in seven years then the p*ssified, forked-tongued cosmopolite hipster social-democrats of APRA did in all their years of existence (frankly the entire APRA is a despicable blot on Peru’s national identity and should be abolished).
Back to the main topic of the post: yes, apparently Mr. Zelaya broke the constitution by striving to be re-elected. Big deal. That constitution, the military that defends it and the Supreme Court that upholds it and the Congress that abides by it, are all products of an oligarchic regime whose prime goal is to maintain its own oligarchic power. Its decrees are not worth their weight in toilet paper. As the late and unlamented Lyndon Baines Johnson said to Papandreou, “F*ck you and F*ck your Constitution.” The rights of coffee farmers to a school, a clinic, and a bowl of chicken and rice in the evening are worth infinitely more than abstractions such as ‘rule of law’, ’separation of powers’, and I don’t know what.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The main thing the world is looking at is how much this upsets stability in the region. Which is why the world is frowning on the coup
The feeling i get is that the Congress was concerned about Zelaya but knew his popular support was strong. So they probably felt that the appropriate political process for removal was too risky and just went with a coup.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
At first they said that he himself signed a resignation. They’ll say anything for you idiots to get excited about.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
At first they said that he himself signed a resignation. They’ll say anything for you idiots to get excited about.
Again: Citation, please, for any of these? Seriously, I’m trying to learn facts, not prop up one side.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It’s a very bad sign when your defenders can’t marshall specific facts to support you…
June 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Scythia, it’s hard to prove a negative, you know. So, why don’t you provide citations for all these “facts”; citations that don’t originate from the junta?
Until you do, why should anyone believe any of this stuff? I certainly don’t.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I’m a professor at your alma mater. FWIW, I think the answers to your questions about the constitutional situation in Honduras here, here and here.
Short version: Congress unintentionally replaced the impeachment clause with a clause allowing the Supreme Court to try a president who broke the law. Longer version: the Supreme Court and the military decided to oust Zelaya so rapidly because they feared he would defy an order to step down and provoke a much worse crisis than the one the country currently faces.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
because they feared he would defy an order to step down and provoke a much worse crisis than the one the country currently faces.
Really? Conducting an opinion poll would’ve been a much worse crisis than the one the country currently faces? Right, that certainly makes a lot of sense.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Thanks, Noel!
June 30th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
An ironic article considering that Mr. Kevin Casas himself was forced to resign his post as vice president of Costa Rica because of a leaked memo he wrote to the president that advocated a string of illegal tactics to win the CAFTA referendum. According to Casas its fine to be concerned about strong-arm tactics, when done to overturn a constitution written by the military during the Contra War, but such tactics are a-okay when it comes to pushing dubious free trade agreements in his own country.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Just to put things in perspective, a little bit of history from a neighboring country. In 1990 Colombia conducted an informal referendum calling for the election of a Constitutional Assembly. The whole thing was clearly illegal because the constitution back then prohibited constitutional assemblies and the referendum was not binding in any sense. However, there was enough consensus among all the relevant political actors so that the referendum went on without a hitch. Even the Supreme Court signed off on it with after some contortions. Ultimately the idea of convening a Constitutional Assembly, it was convened, it met and drafted the current Constitution. If you like, Colombia’s constitution is itself unconstitutional. That’s fine. Most constitutions are unconstitutional under the law they replace.
I’m not sure what my point but I would say the following. Sometimes a country enters a “constitutional moment” and may end up resorting to, how to put it?, creative ways out of the impasse. Informal referenda can do the trick. The thing that I find surprising, and the main difference between Honduras ‘09 and Colombia ‘90 is that Zelaya didn’t have (or built) enough consensus to pull it off. Yes, an informal referendum pushes the envelope of constitutionality enough to make everyone queasy. But it doesn’t have to be seen as a harbinger of chaos or tyranny. It certainly is a lesser affront than a coup.
I’m not defending Zelaya on the merits. I don’t know enough about Honduras. I’m just wondering if, on the scheme of things, his move was exactly the crisis his enemies want it to seem.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Oh-uh:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009400036_honduras30.html
It seems to remind me of something… Something that was happening quite recently… Nah, it can’t be… Clearly in this case the protesters are criminal thugs while honorable security services are doing their best to defend the constitution.
Ha-ha-ha. You idiots are cracking me up.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Specifics, please, not axioms. Why should anyone support Zamora?
Seriously, people, how hard is this?
June 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I’ve been living in Honduras for the last year and right now the positions the mainstream media and the Obama Admin are taking are COMPLETELY wrong and inaccurate. Prez Mel was stepping outside the Honduran Constitution to extend his term (something it TOTALLY forbids). A clear and large majority of Hondurans think Mel is a complete joke and a leftist-poser (he’s a ridiculously wealth rancher) who bent towards Chavez when its convenient.
Many articles paint him as a hero of the poor with his raising of the minimum wage, but he did it by 300 percent leading not to a reduction of poverty in Honduras, but massive layoffs (10s of thousands) by the textile factories that couldn’t afford (or didn’t want) to pay the new wages.
Its said to say, but this is one of the first times I have been not only disappointed, but quite angry with Obama. I’m a raging lefty (teacher… you get it) and he’s got it wrong.
I don’t condone the military’s actions (I think this is a case of two wrongs don’t make a right) but what other actions can a country take in defense of its Constitution. The Supreme Court said “no” the military (which is in charge of supervision elections and referendums) said “no” Mel leads a mob to a military base… seizes the ballots for a vote that had been declared unconstitutional. His own party and supporters in the Honduran Congress said he was out of line (and voted on a resolution as such).
This is wrong and we are acting incorrectly. The media and Obama need to understand that this is not the usually military coup = bad. This is a defense of democracy.
If there is any negotiated settlement to this situation it needs to be the restoration of Mel, an agreement that he will not pursue his violations of the Constitutional, and the respect of the electoral process when the next presidential elections are held later this year.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I disagree. I don’t see anything wrong with arresting him, impeaching him or removing him from office by legal means. Instead, they decided to have a coup to avoid the problem of civil unrest leading to his reinstatement, but civil unrest happens for a reason.
The Honduran Congress should be put into the position of dealing with protestors trying to influence the legal proceedings. More to the point, the Honduran congress should be put into the position of making conditions better, so that a populist president who breaks the law can be removed from office more easily. Letting them get away with this coup means they don’t need to address the underlying causes of high levels of unrest in the country.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Hector
if we just read some Foucault and Judith Jarvis Thomsen, take a few bong hits, and sing Kum-Ba-Yah.
That sounds like the perfect summer afternoon, especially if it takes place out in nature, like at a park. Even though I admit to having no idea who Ms. Thomsen is, I’m going to check her out.
From the New York Times:
On June 2, Obama administration officials got a firsthand look at the brewing political battle when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Honduras for an Organization of American States conference. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Zelaya, and he reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his extended family.
Clearly he had to go.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
@Njori
Noel Maurer @ 33 has three links which provide a very good breakdown of the legalities involved; I suggest you check them out. Remember, the military is acting on the orders of the Supreme Court with the consent of the legislature; what the country lacks is a legitimate executive.
Also keep in mind the Honduran military has, among other things, responsibility for election supervision, so it’s not like the U.S. where they’re not allowed to act on foreign soil.
@ Dan:
Thanks! Great perspective.
@Poptarts.
lolz
June 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
If he led a mob to attack military depots to forcibly, and illegally, take the ballots, what do you think he will not do?
That might make sense if he hadn’t been forced out by the military.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
When did people start caring about Honduras so much? And why did the media completely ignore the people killed in Peru?
June 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Abb1, please be quiet. You’ve already demonstrated total cluelessness about the relevant issues, and on this subject you appear to be incapable of anything more than empty cliches about military juntas and banana republics.
For what it’s worth, my doctoral research was on Latin American politics, and I teach college classes on Latin American politics and US-Latin American relations, so I know a bit about the region. As much as vanity might compel you to believe otherwise, I assure you that your ignorance is painfully obvious.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
When did people start caring about Honduras so much?
It’s in the news! And I don’t know, for some reason I’m totally fascinated by this.
And why did the media completely ignore the people killed in Peru?
Hey! Yeah! What did happen in Peru? I heard something mentioned in passing but never followed up on it…
June 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
46, you know what they say in a case like this: “I know you are but what am I?”
And so, I posed a question for you in the previous thread, but you chickened out and didn’t answer. So, once again, why don’t you, instead of concentrating on my humble persona, enlighten us, share some of that bit of knowledge that you say you have?
Don’t be shy now, good fella.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
scythia,
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_6112.shtml
This makes for much better conspiracy theory material than this Honduras stuff.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
From the Constitution of Honduras:
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
For those who don´t speak spanish, the article stablishes that anyone who propposes (just propose) amending the constituion to alter term limits will be deposted (no need for impeachment procedures) and will lose political rights for 10 years.
Also, “ARTICULO 279.- El Jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas deberá ser un oficial General o Superior con el grado de Coronel de la Armas o su equivalente, en servicio activo, hondureño de nacimiento y será elegido por el Congreso Nacional de una terna propuesta por el Consejo Superior de las Fuerzas Armadas. Durará en sus funciones cinc años y sólo podrá ser removido de su cargo por el Congreso Nacional, cuando hubiere sido declarado con lugar a formación de causa por dos tercios de votos de sus miembros; y en los demás casos previstos por la ley Constitutiva de las fuerzas Armadas. No podrá ser elegido Jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas ningún pariente del Presidente de la República o de sus sustitutos legales, dentro del cuarto grado de consanguinidad o segundo de afinidad.”
The commander of the military is elected by Congress for a 5 year term and can only be fired by Congress. Trying to fire the commander was just another sign of how much Mr. Zelaya loves, just loves, the rule of law…
June 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Matt,
While everyone debates the Honduras question, you also raise a point that Jorge Dominguez (or one of his disciples) probably taught you while at Harvard. Presidentialism is bad and parliamentarism is good. Comparativists in general, and Latin Americanists in particular, have pretty convincingly undermined the Dominguez/Linz/Valenzuela take on this topic. Both the theoretical underpinnings and the empirical evidence are a bit more complicated then they would have you believe. Since you make this argument pretty consistently (parliamentarism good, presidentialism bad) you might look at some of the other work that is out there. For example, you could take a look at the following article:
Economic Performance, Institutional Intermediation, and Democratic Survival
Michael Bernhard, Timothy Nordstrom and Christopher Reenock
The Journal of Politics, Volume 63, Issue 03, August 2001, pp 775-803
Abstract
The breakdown of democracies has long been associated with poor economic performance. This study attempts to determine whether different configurations of democratic institutions can mediate the effects of poor economic performance. Using an original data set that includes all democracies from the period 1919 to 1995, we use continuous-time duration analysis to test hypotheses derived from the literature on democratization. Specifically, we test the interaction of party system and the configuration of legislative and executive power (parliamentarism and presidentialism) with economic performance to explain the likelihood of breakdown. Results suggest that majoritarian variants of democracy are more resistant to economic contraction than pluralist ones. Under conditions of economic growth, pluralist democracies outperform majoritarian ones.
Finally, take care not to compare wealthy, parliamentary democracies (mostly Western Europe) with poor presidential democracies (Latin America, parts of Africa and Asia). Mainwaring and Shugart (1997) and Cheibub (2007) help clarify (or demonstrate the difficulty) the many other non-institutional factors that probably matter much more when it comes to democratic survival than presidentialism vs. parliamentarism.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@50, where’s the evidence that there was anything at all about amending the constituion to alter term limits in that poll? I haven’t seen any so far.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
@50, where’s the evidence that there was anything at all about amending the constituion to alter term limits in that poll? I haven’t seen any so far.
Do a google search for “Zelaya second term.” While I can’t find a specific reference (it’s difficult to filter out news from after the coup) it appears to be widespread knowledge. Again, the Honduran constitution allows for removal from office for even proposing extending Presidential term limits.
But regardless, it’s illegal to hold a referendum within 180 days of a presidential election in Honduras. Zelaya defied a Supreme Court order and intended to carry out the referendum anyway.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Non-binding referendum is not a referendum, it’s an opinion poll.
And when you find something that credibly suggests that this opinion poll was proposing extending presidential term limits, post that link.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The poll was for a brand new constitution, without any warrant that the “set in stone” articles would be kept.
If you want to scrap the constitution, the name for that is revolution. But, once you’ve crossed that line you have to deal with the consequences and stop whinning about “coups”.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
@55
You’re unhappy with the consitution, or some parts of it (and you’re not mentioning the term limits specifically).
You want to conduct an opinion poll to find out how many people in the country are unhappy with the constitution.
Sorry, but this is nothing like a revolution.
Conducting an opinion poll is a crime only to those who are seriously afraid of the public. Frankly, I don’t understand how it can be construed as a crime at all, on this side of the looking glass anyway.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Scythia,
The government of the sleazebag social-democrat Alan Garcia had passed some laws opening up indigenous land in the Amazon region to oil, gas, and mining exploration. The indigenous peoples living in the area were incenced and launches a series of protests. In early June the Garcia government initiated clashes in which as many as 50 indigenous people and 10 policemen were killed. The leader of the indigenous activists has sought asylum in Nicaragua, the Amazon region is under curfew, Garcia is accusing the indigenous people of being stooges of the Bolivian communists, and Bolivia and Venezuela are accusing Garcia of genocide. Garcia’s approval ratings have fallen by a third, to 20%, and the conflict only looks to grow more bitter.
Peru is a country, unlike Honduras, where there is a genuinely grassroots, homegrown revolutionary force (as opposed to a wealthy rancher who belatedly discovered the virtues of the left). Humala, the radical-left colonel, is close to the indigenous movements and ready to step into the breach if Garcia’s government collapses. All in all, I would say that the situation in Peru is both more tragic and more historically significant than anything happening in Honduras now.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@56
Try that (to scrap the whole constitution because “the people” don´t like it) in the US and see how the USSC will react…
June 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Also at 56,
And why are you leaving unmentioned the firing of the military commander? Maybe it was also an “unbiding firing” I guess…
June 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Not that the US is necessarily a good example, but people in the US try to (and do) amend the constitution all the time.
But, once again, he wasn’t even trying to change the constitution, he was just running an opinion poll, for chrissake. How is that a crime? How can it be a crime? It’s just crazy, man.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I’m leaving unmentioned the firing of the military commander, because one article doesn’t give enough information, there must be more. What if the military commander refuses to obey lawful orders, what happens then? Your quote doesn’t say. But it must be specified somewhere.
I find it real hard to believe that the president can’t fire the general who refuses to obey the orders. At that point, what’s the point of having a president?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Is it unconstitutional to fire the military commander? When Bush fired his commanders (most recently Fallon) was he acting unconstitutionally?
There is obviously a struggle for power in the country. Traditionally, the U.S. has backed corporate stooges. Of course, the U.S. and their right-wing comrades are going to use the language of democracy to conceal their true intent; it’s not about bringing democracy and more about protecting our economic interests. The U.S. and the corporate stooges in this part of the World have decades of using their hard and soft power. It’s no wonder the leader of the coup was trained by at the School of Americas, the coup was pulled off in typical shock and awe fashion, and the age-old pr tactic of emasculating the President (exiling him in his pajamas and calling him undemocratic even though he is the elected leader, etc.)
Obama, as he is wont to do, will TALK about Democracy but be happy to have pro-U.S. cronies running the country.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
But, once again, he wasn’t even trying to change the constitution, he was just running an opinion poll, for chrissake. How is that a crime? How can it be a crime? It’s just crazy, man.
Take it up with the Hondurans. Based on my reading, it seems like a sitting member of government proposing extending presidential term limits — not sponsoring a referendum, merely saying “Hey, maybe we should extend term limits?” — is enough to remove them from office.
But keep in mind, that’s not why he’s been removed. Here’s the chain of events:
All for an “opinion poll”?
I said it before, but this guy is straight Nixonian. He claims to be a champion of the people, but he seems like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He says the constitutional convention is needed to break the stranglehold of MNCs, but doesn’t propose it until he’s about to lose power? Sketchy.
A lot of despots rise to power claiming to be left-wing. But power is power, it ain’t about politics. He sounds like the reason Honduras has term limits in the first place.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The Hondurean constitution also has procedures for amendments. But, Zelaya was trying to bypass it.
And if it was “just a poll”, why Zelaya was so eager to break the law in many ways just to have it done? You know, jusice should be blind, but not dumb…
If you want to argue that Honduras constitution is bad, I am ok with that. But you can´t pretend to defend it against the rule of the Supreme Court(and doing so as a foreigner just adds insult to injury).
Again, if you want to go against the rule of the SC on constitutioinal matters you are a revolutionary . Sometimes, that is a goood thing. But, once you have taken that road, you’re playing outside the consitutional rule (and must deal with the consequences).
Look, I´m not a lawyer (and not even an Hondurean) an I am not sure if it was a coup or not. I am just saying that the situation is much less clear cut then it appears. On the other hand, from all I have read about this situation, I am prety sure that Zelaya was aiming for a coup himself.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Is it unconstitutional to fire the military commander?
It’s my understanding that in Honduras the military commander is elected by and serves at the pleasure of the Congress, not the President, presumably to prevent situations like this one.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
And I should add that the American people, even so-called progressives, are completely gullible when it comes to digesting information about these events. The media reporting on the Georgia conflict, the Somalia pirate episode, the events in Iran, and now the Honduran coup, all demonstrate how even progressive immediately accept the company line and don’t ask critical questions even given the history of their government lying to them. It’s not like the U.S. doesn’t have a history of backing coups in these countries for crimminy sakes!
I guess now that Obama the Messiah is in power what the government says about this just has to be true . . . . and it’s there’s no way the C.I.A. or other government forces are pushing the limits against Obama’s wishes.
In any case the ease with which progressives have swallowed the official positions on these issues is extremely unsettling.
We have a lot of people making assumptions without many unbiased facts.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
to 61,
If the military commander doesn´t obey the law, the Congress can fire him.
To Jason,
You know, not all the countries in the world adopts the US constitution. These foreigners are strange, aren´t they? Go figure…
June 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The Hondurean constitution also has procedures for amendments. But, Zelaya was trying to bypass it.
Good point, Vladmir. But there’s one part of the constitution that can’t be amended under any circumstances, and which would require a constitutional convention to change:
Presidential term limits.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
@Vladimir
I am prety sure that Zelaya was aiming for a coup himself.
Such statements are all the better for a little evidence. Meanwhile, a real coup did take place. Do you line up with the coup makers or the elected president?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
@Jason
I guess now that Obama the Messiah is in power what the government says about this just has to be true
Obama’s position is that the coup is illegal. I disagree.
We have a lot of people making assumptions without many unbiased facts.
This is literally the best description of your entire post. I’ve listed some facts in my posts above. They seem pretty unbiased. I’m drawing conclusions off of them, but nothing I’ve stated above can change on your point of view. Get less stupid.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Scythia,
How do you know those are the facts? They seem very biased to me.
You call it a mob but why aren’t they freedom fighters standing up to a military coup? How did Zelaya raise a “mob” (once again your word choice reveals your bias) from captivity?
I don’t trust you on your number 2 fact either. I read that he followed the court’s ruling by changing his referendum to a non-binding vote, not defying it.
The coup has blocked most reporting yet “progressive” are willing to believe the filtered information coming out of there. This is in stark contrast to the events in Iran.
In both cases the American media has uncritically adopted the Obama government’s statements.
One thing I know for sure is we don’t know what the facts are and someone is definitely lying.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Scythia,
Stupid is as stupid does. You have uncritically swallowed facts you wish to believe. You are big on demanding proof yet don’t even acknowledge or realize your own biases.
How about you provide some unbiased facts there big guy.
It seems you’re the stupid one to ignore 50 years of history in the region and immediately adopt the facts put out by the American government and the coup leaders who have blocked independent reporting. How stupid is that? (and yes–Obama condemned the coup but basically supports your facts–it’s an age-old tactic–I will bet you bottom dollar Obama will learn to live with the new crony-capitalists so he can have the best of both worlds).
Once again. You’re a fool for believing you have the facts. I clearly state I don’t know all the facts and have a healthy skepticism. The fact you are screaming so loudly tells me a lot.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Jason:
And I should add that the American people, even so-called progressives, are completely gullible when it comes to digesting information about these events.
We don’t have any reason to doubt the “company line” on this or Iran. Look I’m as susceptible to conspiracy theories as the next person but there’s no “there” there.
Regarding Iraq, all of the conspiracy theories about that country were wrong, as troops leave and China buys up the oil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/global/01iraqoil.html?_r=1&hp
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government stumbled once again on Tuesday in its frequently delayed effort to award development rights to its most valuable oil fields. In a public auction it largely failed to attract the lucrative offers it sought from dozens of international oil firms invited to the bidding.
After the day long event, which was broadcast live on national television, the government came away with just a single deal struck from among the six giant oil fields and two gas fields it had put up for bid.
The single successful contract went to a pairing of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field on offer: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of 17 billion barrels.
No Blood for Oil! When you falsely cry wolf, people are less likely to believe you when the real thing comes around.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
@64: And if it was “just a poll”, why Zelaya was so eager to break the law in many ways just to have it done?
But where’s the evidence that he broke the law at all, let alone in many ways? I haven’t seen any convincing reports of that.
All I see is that he wanted to conduct this poll and various government institutions wanted to prevent him from doing it. Did he break the law? Did they (except for the coup, obviously)? Not clear to me.
They say he broke the law – and he says they broke the law. All I see is some sort of power struggle, where one side has turned to violence, that’s all.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
As I said before, I am not sure it was a coup. I am sure it was not a “traditional south american coup” as most of the media and the US government is assuming.
And, while talking about elected oficial, let´s remeber that Congress was also elected (and ruled unanimously for the military action). Why supporting Zelaya should be seen as defending the will of the people and supporting the Congress not?
I believe that the international comunity should not take sides, but should demand that:
1) individual rights should be defended (and this includes the right to peaceful protest, free press, the whole package);
2) that the election takes place fairly (possibly with the help of international observers)
June 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It seems you’re the stupid one to ignore 50 years of history
The Cold War is over so communism is much less of threat. Things have changed.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
abb1:
But where’s the evidence that he broke the law at all, let alone in many ways? I haven’t seen any convincing reports of that.
Why would they make it up? To steal Honduras’s oil?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
If the military commander doesn´t obey the law, the Congress can fire him.
That would seem extremely weird and unusual. When the military commander doesn’t obey the orders, it’s hardly the time to hold a session of the congress, make speeches and vote.
Again, I find it very hard to believe. Do they have a constitution written by a surrealist? If so, who cares what it says anyway?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
He fired the military commander. He couldn´t do that, just read the constitution.
He gathered a mob to break in a military post to get the ballots, defying the supreme court rule.
These are facts that nobody is contesting, not even his supporters.
And, to Richard Wang, those are the facts that lead me to conclude that he was aiming for a coup himself.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
OMFG. For the last time:
Does anybody dispute any of these thirteen statements????
June 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
[Congressional control of the head of the armed forces] would seem extremely weird and unusual.
That’s because Central America has a history of despots. They’re trying to limit the executive’s ability to control the military.
Again, I find it very hard to believe.
Tough shit, we deal in facts.
Do they have a constitution written by a surrealist? If so, who cares what it says anyway?
If you don’t care about the rule of law, why do you care if there’s a coup?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
poptarts,
I guess it is a conspiracy that the United States supported a coup in Iran in 1953 and all across latin America the last 50 years. Us silly conspiracy nuts! If anyone has cried wolf it is the United States which LIED about these events. You have it exactly backwards my friend. If anyone has to prove a negative and show they are not lying now it is the United States. I wish it weren’t so but thems is the facts.
Meanwhile, you that uncritically adopt the American media’s position must really know what you’re talking about. They proved to be so correct when they all banded together and called anyone crazy who ever dissented from the company line on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. When people like you get stirred up by a unanimous media and call people like me crazy for being skeptical then it is highly likely someone is crying wolf. And history (even recent history, see e.g. Iraq) demonstrate that it is you that uncritically swallow the media and government position that are most often led astray.
And I’m curious to know why the United States attacked Iraq. To spread freedom?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“Again, I find it very hard to believe. Do they have a constitution written by a surrealist? If so, who cares what it says anyway?”
I don´t know who cares. But I am sure that the Hondurean people, who have suffered trhough many years under the rule of “caudilhos” who always portrait themselves as “Champions of the Poor”, should care about their constitution.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@Jason,
Once again, the position of the American media, and the American government, is that the coup was an illegal and antidemocratic action. We are disputing this contention. You are parroting it.
Once again, get your HEAD out of your ass.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
These are facts that nobody is contesting
I don’t contest these facts, but it’s not clear to me that they are crimes. You say it was against the law to fire the commander, but can you confirm it? And I don’t mean that article of the constitution, because it may not tell the whole story.
Thanks.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
What’s hilarious is how many of the ‘Honduras had it comming’ brigade here are the EXACT same people why bitched and moaned when I suggested that we at least wait for the votes to be counted in Iran before screaming fraud.
Apparently, if a leader is far enough to the left the folks on here will happily trade him for a dictatorship that murders protesters. You’ll even make up BS arguments that unnammendable constitutions written by Ronald Reagan in 1982 are more important than the democratic will of the people who actually live in a country.
Corporatist pigs are the only people who seem to be fans of Matt Y.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
poptarts,
The United States was involved in the Americas before and after the Cold War and its motivations have always been economic.
In fact, the United States supported a coup in Venezuela not to long ago. And remember the “official” line out of the Bush administration which the media dutifully reported as events unfolded? Who has a history of crying wolf here?
I suggest you read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine or Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Scythia, people would take you seriously if you could tell the difference between the ’supreme court’ and the ‘electoral court’.
I’d suggest that any constitution which precludes ammendments is not actually a constitution at all. It’s a writ of dictatorship, and nothing more.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Abb1,
Here is the link for the constitution.
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond82.html
Read it (if you can read spanish). After that, you tell me if you are going to believe in your lying eyes or in Zelaya.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Apparently, if a leader is far enough to the left the folks on here will happily trade him for a dictatorship that murders protesters. You’ll even make up BS arguments that unnammendable constitutions written by Ronald Reagan in 1982 are more important than the democratic will of the people who actually live in a country.
The rule of law is still in effect. There’s a civilian president, a congress in session, and a functional court system. There’s a temporary curfew which is about to be lifted. Civil law hasn’t been suspended. How is that a dictatorship?
FWIW, I’m with you on Iran. Also, bite me.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Yes Poptarts. I’m sure we decided to do the bidding of Chiquita Bannana because of the evils of communism. The systemic corruption of American government and corporations had absolutely nothing to do with it.
so… Are you an idiot, or are you a hack?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Scythia,
I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand. Sometimes a government says one thing and does another.
Is it really too hard for you to believe Obama would condemn the coup yet be happy it happened? See Pakistan for a good example of this.
I’m sure Obama will propose sanctions against this government, right? Just like we do against other undemocratic regimes in Iran or Venezuela? Because he’s so morally outraged? After all, we have a very clear history of supporting democracy in the region. We don’t just use the rhetoric to our advantage, right?
You are being deliberately obtuse for someone demanding others get their heads out of their asses.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Scythia, people would take you seriously if you could tell the difference between the ’supreme court’ and the ‘electoral court’.
I’d suggest that any constitution which precludes ammendments is not actually a constitution at all. It’s a writ of dictatorship, and nothing more.
Still wanna talk about “taking [people] seriously,” shithead?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
to Soullite,
It is possible to amend the constitution, but not all of it (the US also has some articles that cannot be amended).
And why Zelaya has the monopoly of the “will of the people” and Congress (which was also elected) has not?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Sorry, I can’t read Spanish. But even if I could – what I’m saying is that usually there are other laws, beside the constitution. Constitution gives a general outline, but it can’t resolve every possible scenario. What we need here is an expert opinion from some international organization.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Alright, I’m out of here. Debate amongst yourselves.
My post at #80 stands. Does anyone want to challenge any of those claims? Because my contention is that if all them are true, it was right to remove Zelaya from office. Peace.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Abb1,
No law can contradict the constitution. If this happens, the Supreme Court can repeal it. And, trust me, the constitution clearly establishes that the military commander is apointed by Congress and can only be dismissed by Congress (by a 2/3 majority).
June 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
It wasn’t so long ago- the 1980s- that the US government was supporting death squad governments in Central America. In fact, Bush brought back some of the death squad architects to work in his own administration. I’ve forgotten the exact numbers, but they were on the order of 85,000 and 200,000, not just a few hundred people.
Now all of the apologists for the oligarchy can weigh in. The person who studied the region and got a degree can explain this, and the person who’s been there can explain that. But the fact is that even in our own cities and towns you can easily find someone who sees exactly what you see, and disagrees entirely with you about what you see.
Fifty years ago we said that until there was land redistribution there would be unrest. I’m going to make a wild guess that in Honduras there still hasn’t been any land redistribution.
I’m also going to make a wild guess that the days of the oligarchy are numbered if the US won’t prop them up and support them. In fact, all of South and Central America is changing, and the days when the US could install a dictatorship with a little help from the NYT are almost over.
How sweet it is.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Under the normal circumstances, routine dismissal – I’m sure you’re correct. In a crisis, not so sure.
Anyway, according to wikipedia, the poll question was this:
“Do you agree that in the general election of November, 2009, a fourth ballot box be installed, in order to decide upon the convocation of a National Constitutional Assembly to approve a new political Constitution?”
The general election of November, 2009 is when his term ends, so someone else would be elected president in any case. Explain this to me: why this non-binding referendum had to be stopped by any means possible? Who does it hurt so much to know what people think about changing the constitution?
I just don’t see any drama here whatsoever.
The only logical explanation I can imagine here is that the elite wanted to get rid of the guy, they were looking for an excuse, and that was it. An excuse, a pretext, nothing more.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
…not even about changing the constitution, but about having a vote to decide if it needs to be changed. This is, like, nothing. A pre-meeting to a meeting to decide if we need a meeting. What’s the big deal, seriously?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Yes Poptarts. I’m sure we decided to do the bidding of Chiquita Bannana because of the evils of communism. The systemic corruption of American government and corporations had absolutely nothing to do with it.
so… Are you an idiot, or are you a hack?
You’re living in a time warp. Was the Vietnam War your heyday or something. Are you one of those DFH I keep hearing about?
I like this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/world/asia/29iht-viet.html
HANOI, Vietnam — Vietnam’s great war hero, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, has stood up to defend his country once again, this time against what he says would be a huge mistake by the government — a vast mining operation run by a Chinese company.
Now 97, the commander who led his country to victory over both France and the United States has emerged as the most prominent voice in a broad popular protest that is challenging the secretive workings of the country’s Communist leaders.
In an unusual step, the government has taken note of the criticisms in recent weeks and appears to be making at least gestures of response, saying it will review the project’s environmental impact and slow its full implementation.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
poptarts,
The United States was involved in the Americas before and after the Cold War and its motivations have always been economic.
In fact, the United States supported a coup in Venezuela not to long ago. And remember the “official” line out of the Bush administration which the media dutifully reported as events unfolded? Who has a history of crying wolf here?
I suggest you read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine or Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Latin America wouldn’t have drifted leftwards after the Cold War ended if what you say is true. There was no proof of US involvment in Venezuela, although I don’t put it past Bush or the CIA. But still 1 failed coup attempt (now 2) since the Cold War? Pretty weak.
Read this about Naomi Klein:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Shock.html
“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” seems like a more sensible book by a more rational author but I haven’t read it.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
What’s hilarious is how many of the ‘Honduras had it comming’ brigade here are the EXACT same people why bitched and moaned when I suggested that we at least wait for the votes to be counted in Iran before screaming fraud.
What’s hilarious is that in every single conflict without exception you side against America. Some might suspect a bias.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
C’mon Matt, I thought you had your bullshit detector repaired when you fell for the whole Iraq invasion thing. Seems like you better go in for a tune-up before you get hoodwinked by the surprisingly large number of Latin American military dictatorship apologists.
Now, I don’t know much about Kevin Casas-Zamora other than he was recently vice-president of Costa Rica, and I’m assuming he leans to the right considering he was elected with President Arias. That seems like a more fitting description than describing him as being affiliated with Brookings (which apparently thinks it’s a university now…WTF is with the .edu?). I do know that he is completely wrong about the planned non-binding referendum that was to be held before the coup and installation of the military dictatorship in Honduras came along to end democratic rule. The actual text of the resolution:
For some reason I can’t find the part in there that refers to a constitutional amendment to extend presidential term limits. I’m also quite perplexed as to how holding a constituent assembly AFTER the general election will have taken place is somehow going to extend President Zelaya’s term. I imagine this confusion is partly why every country in the America’s from the far-right (Mexico, Colombia) to the far left (Venezuela, Bolivia) and everyone in between has denounced the coup for exactly what it is. Given that you wouldn’t think there would be so much coup apologist bullshit flying around.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The apologies for the coup seem to be getting very intense today. It does appear that some things that Zelaya did were constitutionally questionable. However, the Honduran Constitution also has a few other things to say:
Article 3: Any assumption of public office by force of arms is illegitimate.
Articles 65-110: Freedom of the media, assembly, rights to due process, etc.
Articles 182-183: Habeas corpus.
Article 187: Rights mentioned above may be suspended by Presidential decree under certain conditions.
Article 245: President is commander in chief of the armed forces.
Article 278: Armed forces must obey President’s commands.
Article 311: Judges forbidden from participating in partisan political activities.
If Zelaya was acting with “disregard” for the constitution of Honduras what do you call the actions of the legislature, military, and Supreme Court?
June 30th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias » A Smart Take on Honduras [...]
June 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Steve,
The problem with your position is that only the supreme court can say who acted against the constitution. It is not Zelaya, Obama, Chavez or the UN. And the military have to defend the constitution, not the president. Again, if you want to have regime change in Honduras, say it clear.
You want the international community to step in and reinstate the president, defying the Supreme Court and the unanimous vote of the Congress, because you think that you know better how Honduras’s institutions should work? Another nation building exercise?!? That sounds great! Let´s spread democracy! I am sure we are going to be received as liberators! I´ll bet that in less than one day Obama will give a much improved version of “Mission Accomplished” speech! And all the americans will be redeemed for their sinful past in Latin America! You will have a clean record to start meddling again!
No… I don´t think it is a good idea.
The international community should demand that individual rights be respected and that the elections in November be fair. To try to reinstate Zeyala at this point would be a huge mistake and would do more damage than good to Honduras´s democracy.
If the forces backing Zeyala are so strong, they will easily win a fair election. Hey, maybe they can even get a Congressman or two!!!
June 30th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Matt,
Here is another take that you will find interesting:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/am%C3%A9rica-held-hostage-day-two-coup-honduras
June 30th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Vladimir, the problem with your position is that you assume no ambiguity in the document in question. You say it gives the Honduran Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution, but where exactly does it give them the authority to call up the military and have them remove the President from power? What provision is there for Presidents who abuse power? What provision is there for judges who abuse power? Please point out the unambiguous passages for me.
The military is also required by Article 278 to follow the President’s orders. What should the Chief of the Armed Forces do if he is issued an order he disagrees with? What should the President do if the Chief disobeys an order? What is the meaning of Article 3 of the Honduran Constitution?
I suggested no such thing, and I won’t bother with any of your other hysterical jumps to conclusion.
This isn’t about intervention, this is about honest appraisal of events. Though, it must be pointed out, the U.S. has already intervened substantially by training several of the military officers who participated in the coup. “It’s none of our business” is a sentiment I largely agree with, it’s the open cheerleading for military and oligarchical ascendence that is nauseating. After all, the worst thing Zelaya is being accused of is trying to hold a popular vote outside of the approved constitutional framework. Such would be openly cheered by the propaganda system if an executive in an official enemy state had attempted it, and you damned well know it. Suppose Ahmadinejad tried to hold an honest plebiscite outside the approval of the Guardian Council; do you doubt for a second that he would immediately be hailed in the West for the effort?
June 30th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
scythia, poptarts and Vladimar,
You guys are missing the big picture.
Two groups are fighting over the interpretation of the Honduran Constitution. Both sides accuse the other of acting unconstitutionally.
On the one hand, you accuse the elected President of usurping his power for “firing” a military leader (even though he may or may not have had that power and the military leader wasn’t removed from his office anyway) and leading a “mob” to seize the tools of, and to conduct . . . a non-binding poll. That’s the blow to democracy you allege the democratically elected President of Honduras has dealt.
On the other hand, a man trained at the School of the Americas, leads a military takeover of the Honduran government, on behalf of a right-wing oligarchy, and attacks Honduras’ infrastructure, kidnapps the elected President at gunpoint, flies him off in his pajamas, limits press freedom and limits individual freedom and who knows what else because the military has limited information coming from the country. Many of the people have taken to the streets to oppose the coup.
The leaders of the right-wing coup (and that characterization is the only legitimate characterization of the above events) put it’s interpretation of the constitution out in public and the American media and even progressive bloggers have uncritically accepted the narrative and conclusions.
But frankly, the arguments justifying the coup itself, as well as the rhetoric comparing these right-wing military men with freedom fighters upholding their constitution is a bit too much to take. It’s a ridiculous and Orwellian (or Bushian) charge. He wanted to have a poll of the people and therefore he needed to be removed in a military coup. It’s like the Bush administration saying Guantanamo detainees were committing acts of war by killing themselves.
I don’t know all the facts but I see a rush to enforce the company line when I see one. And it’s been the same company line in Central America for many decades. And I see a lot of people that call themselves progressives uncritically accepting the company line.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Let’s agree to disagree. I spent too much time on this thread this morning and kind of got overheated. My apologies to those I called names.
If you want to talk about the big picture, Jason, and not the finer points of Honduran law (which, let’s face it, none of us are qualified to do), to me it’s all about consolidation of executive power.
The number-one threat to a functioning democracy (which is what Honduras appears to have) is an overpowerful executive branch. That was one of the problems with the Bush administration. That was probably the main problem with the Nixon administration. When the president is no longer accountable to Congress or the courts, he’s no longer accountable to anybody. That’s despotism.
Based on Zelaya’s actions in this crisis, that’s what he appeared to be doing. Leaving aside questions of motive, he was establishing a precedent where the president could disregard the legislature, judiciary, and even the constitution itself. That’s absolutely unacceptable.
I’m a left-winger. I’m much more likely to side with agrarian reformers than the Catholic Church. But despotism is despotism. It doesn’t matter if you’re coming from the left or the right. Ultimately it creates a system where the state feeds itself.
That’s where I’m coming from. I don’t give a whit about the politics of either side in this; when the president defies the courts and the congress so he can rewrite the constitution, he’s got to go. And even if you think this is one of those uniquely rare situations where he’s right to do so, that’s a revolution–in which case he’d better have the guns to back him up.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:16 am
@Scythia:
Did you read comment #110? Care to step down a little bit lower?
You’re looking a little silly and calling yourself a “left-winger” does not excuse silliness. How old are you btw?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:00 am
This thread just wouldn’t have been complete without your content-free ad hominem, Boyd.
@Jason: You’re not willing to believe that Zelaya’s unconstitutional actions were a prelude to a presidential coup, but you are willing to believe that he was overthrown, not because he violated the constitution, but as a result of a shadowy right-wing conspiracy that apparently embraced the entirety of the Honduran government other than himself?
Zelaya tried a power play that attacked the most fundamental (or at least most legally rigorous) sections of the Honduran constitution. He failed and, as mandated by the constitution, was removed from office, with no apparent harm done to the order of succession or the upcoming elections. I realize that when Latin American populists are deposed and the military is involved, people tend to think the worst–because the worst is usually what happened. But from the information available, I don’t see anything here except the squashing of a legitimate threat to Honduran democracy.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:41 am
And because of the coup, Honduran democracy has been saved? Interesting. Too bad they had to destroy the village in order to save it.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Scythia,
Legally you’re correct. Zelaya was disregarding the constitution and the military appeared to have some legality on its side. That said, I don’t really care what the Honduran constitution says. It was written in 1982, hardly the most democratic or just of times in most of Central America, and it was wrtten to protect the oligarchy against just such men as Zelaya. Honduras may have been a functioning ‘democracy’ but it certainly was not a place where the needs of the poor were being taken into account. In a country as poor, unequal, and under oligarchic dominance as Honduras, a revolution is just what the doctor ordered.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:39 am
To Steve,
You say it gives the Honduran Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution, but where exactly does it give them the authority to call up the military and have them remove the President from power? What provision is there for Presidents who abuse power? What provision is there for judges who abuse power? Please point out the unambiguous passages for me.
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
See, anyone who proposes alteration to term limits should be imediately ousted and loses its political rights for ten years. No mention of impeachment procedures there. Where is the ambiguity here?
Article 3 prevents a military coup, but says that is the duty of the military to defend the constitutional order. Which means that they have to respect Supreme Court orders regarding consitutional matters (something that the president is also bound to do).
Article 278 says that the military must obey the president. That is ok.
But see this:
ARTICULO 272.- Las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras, son una Institución Nacional de carácter permanente, esencialmente profesional, apolítica, obediente y no deliberante. Se constituyen para defender la integridad territorial y la soberanía de la República, mantener la paz, el orden público y el imperio de la Constitución, los principios de libre sufragio y la alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la República.
There is such a fear that a caudilho will try to do exactly what Zelaya is doing that the constitution explicitily mentions that the military have to defend the alternance of power of the presidency.
ARTICULO 279.- El Jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas deberá ser un oficial General o Superior con el grado de Coronel de la Armas o su equivalente, en servicio activo, hondureño de nacimiento y será elegido por el Congreso Nacional de una terna propuesta por el Consejo Superior de las Fuerzas Armadas. Durará en sus funciones cinc años y sólo podrá ser removido de su cargo por el Congreso Nacional, cuando hubiere sido declarado con lugar a formación de causa por dos tercios de votos de sus miembros; y en los demás casos previstos por la ley Constitutiva de las fuerzas Armadas. No podrá ser elegido Jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas ningún pariente del Presidente de la República o de sus sustitutos legales, dentro del cuarto grado de consanguinidad o segundo de afinidad.
Zeyala has tryed to fire de commander of the military not once, but twice.
Why don´t you be honest like Jason and plainly says that you want to overule the constitutional order of Honduras because Zeyala is a leftist and the constitution be dammend?
This is my last post. You can all pat yourselves on the back for defending such a paragon of democracy like Zelaya.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:43 am
Ok. I can´t resist that.
So Hector, ilegaly you are correct, right?
With friends like these Latin America doesn´t need enemies…
July 1st, 2009 at 8:54 am
For readers of Spanish, this Honduran jurist discusses why he feels the military coup d’etat is illegal and unconstitutional, and why in general the proposed poll by Zelaya was indeed constitutional.
(Maybe if I have time later today, I’ll translate it. Or someone else could.)
July 1st, 2009 at 9:00 am
Vladimir,
I’ve made no bones about the fact that I think liberal democracy is silly and inappropriate for a country like Honduras. Honduras needs a revolution and it needs to junk its oligarchic constitution, and to be ruled by an authoritarian leader of the Left. Whether Zelaya is that man is less clear. With all your burbling about ’separation of powers’, ‘rule of law’ and such you are just serving the interest of the oligarchy, not the peasantry.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:01 am
By the way, nobody in the region believes this nonsense that the military was simply a tool used by a civilian government to restore order.
The military, which has dominated Honduras for generations, whether leading the government or standing behind the civilian rulers with a watchful, coup-worthy eye, asserted its power.
The military is the dominant force, and the legislature and courts its enactors.
Good god, we’ve got writers in the U.S. apparently impressed that after a violent coup d’etat, the legislature votes to affirm the violent coup d’etat just carried out by the military. Wow. Who would expect such a thing? Approving the violent coup just carried out by your traditional death squad military does not, contrary to assertions, demonstrate the power and majesty and independence of the legislature. Rather it’s exactly what you saw following or just preceding dozens of military coups in Latin America.
It’s laughable to use that as a standard and it’s why none of the other governments of the region (including a very, very distancing Colombia) take this argument that a military coup was made okay by post-hoc legislative action seriously.
There is a good role for legal formalism, but that doesn’t mean that one can concentrate only on Zelaya’s political games and forget that Honduras really is controlled by a rigid, military-connected oligarchy.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 am
By the way, most likely due to discussions with leaders of other nations (I’m thinking especially the U.S., but probably not exclusively), Zelaya has promised that upon resuming power, he will no longer attempt any actual act or assessment of revising the Constitution or altering Honduran Presidential term limits.
He also pointed out before the UN that for all the discussion of the judicial actions against him, to this day no actual court processes or charges have been formally filed.
I can’t say, but I’ve looked for them, and all I’ve found are press accounts and judicial spokespersons and military spokespersons, so far I’ve not found a single instance of any of these legal orders of the detention or expulsion of President Zelaya being formally published or released.
Maybe they’re secret. Maybe they don’t exist. Maybe no one cared to publish them. I dunno. But it’s pretty odd.
If indeed no such rulings or judicial orders have been formally filed, it sort of makes it silly to talk about how legal and Constitutional these procedures have been, or may have been, or ought to have been. Hell, even in that piece of ludicrous trash Bush V. Gore our Supreme Court formally took a case and published its decision.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:12 am
Incidentally, I just realized (while reading this:http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/685), that all this stuff about holding a referendum 180 days before the elections is a bullshit too.
He announced his poll, there’s nothing in this poll about the term limits, and only then this 180-days law was passed, it was passed only about a week ago.
This is not how things should work. If they (the congress) don’t want polls within 180 days before the elections, they can, of course, pass the law; but the poll that’s already announced and is being prepared clearly shouldn’t be affected by it.
So, it appears that the guy has done nothing unconstitutional at all, and, in fact, the coup d’etat started when that SOA-trained general refused to follow his orders.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Sorry, I have to take exception with your last few lines:
“As a more general point, my understanding of the evidence continues to be that parliamentary systems are less prone to constitutional crisis and breakdown. Latin America would do well to stop imitating us yankees and start imitating the vast majority of stable democracies. What’s more, for small countries like Honduras it seems to me that total demilitarization (à la Costa Rica) looks like a very attractive option. ”
This line of thought may seem to be true through an anecdotal survey of past coups, but it does not stand up in political science research. As is the case with most things, things are more complicated than they seem.
A new study by Taeko Hiroi and Sawa Omori, published in Democratization, a refereed journal, shows that yes, uninterrupted parliamentary democracies do face a lower risk of first break downs than do presidential democracies. However, they also find that parliamentary democracies with prior breakdowns have a higher chance of breaking down again than presidential democracies where that is also the case.
Other studies argue that regime-type does not affect the incidence of breakdowns. See: Ulfelder & Lustik 2007: Jay Ulfelder and Michael Lustik, “Modelling Transitions To and From Democracy,” Democratization, 14, 3, June 2007: 351-387.
Just because one presidential democracy has fallen does not mean you should add that to the general argument that all presidential democracies are prone to breakdowns. What you should have looked at is the precise mechanisms by which the democracy broke down. I would argue that in this case, a history of military intervention and an unpopular president contributed to the breakdown. Civil-military relations need to be fixed, not the system of government. It is possible though, that the presidential system in Honduras is not the best it could be. Why didn’t the Supreme Court and Legislature use impeachment as a method? Was there an allowance? There are issues with the particulars of the Honduran presidential system, not something systemic for presidential democracies at large.
In the Hiroi and Omori piece, they argue that fixed terms in presidential democracies give stability to this regime type. Indeed, it is a wonder why the anti-Zelayaist did not just let his referendum fail and then let his term run out. There is nothing to indicate that the system itself allowed or biased the anti-Zelayaists to launch the coup.
For the article see: 2009. Taeko Hiroi and Sawa Omori. “Perils of Parliamentarism? Political Systems and the Stability of Democracy Revisited.” Democratization 16(3).
The Honduran case is unfortunate. It is another case of a military in Latin American overstepping its bounds, this time at the behest of political elites. But it is not a clear cut case of a weak presidential system.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Link to the proposed alteration of term limits, in unambiguous language, here:
In fact the text of the proposed referendum was: “Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?”
Show me how Article 3 provides for the Supreme Court to call the army chief and have him arrest the President, various politicians and foreign ambassadors, and censor the media, right here:
What is it you think Zelaya is doing?
Consult this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
and at least attempt to argue honestly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Read Article 3 again and tell me what it means. Read the referendum language again and tell me what it means.
Then do the little thought experiment I proposed earlier; imagine if the President of Iran had attempted to hold a popular referendum outside the approval of the Guardian Council. How would Western governments react? How would the American mass media react? How would you react?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Not sure if this thread is still alive but…to recap Kevin Casas, disgraced former vice president of Costa Rica is a hypocritical hack. Here is a much better analysis by a Honduran academic – in Spanish though.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The last post reminds me, I keep seeing all these allegations that lots of leftists are foolishly portraying the presumably dangerous Zelaya because they love authoritarian leftists, but really the opposite is happening — a lot of centrist and center-right types are happily overlooking an obvious military coup and accepting the flimsiest of pseudo-legal rhetoric by coup supporters in order to, well, not justify, but to say that this coup maybe isn’t so bad, and it’s all Zelaya’s fault anyway.
Which is sort of true, but the main problem is the degree of power that the death squad military possesses in Honduras, not that a President would overstep his bounds and prompt a coup.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
How is it ’sort of true’?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Just in the literal sense that the President of Honduras got in a power struggle with the military, and the Honduran military responded with a coup.
Of course the military should have no, zero, none whatsoever of a role in the governance of Honduras. That it’s in the Constitution is a pathetic holdover from death squad banana republic days. But it does, so anyone carrying out such a challenge as Zelaya presented should always do so with eyes fully open as to what the consequences of particular actions may be. Sometimes you may choose confrontation anyway, but I do get the sense that Zelaya didn’t really make any alternate plans as to what would happen should the military fight back.
The point simply being that presumably a more oligarchy-friendly leader would have avoided such conflict with the Honduran military, whether or not it was ‘the’ or ‘a’ right thing to do.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ah. I thought you were saying that it’s sorta true that it was Zelaya’s fault. But the more I read about it the more it looks like the guy probably hasn’t done anything problematic (in the legal sense) at all.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
abb1: There are two really different questions. One is whether or not Zelaya did anything seriously illegal in doing or doing in a particular way this poll thing. I dunno, there are probably legal questions either way, and the Electoral Tribunal certainly issued some detectable rulings. Let’s put that aside, because from time to time we know that Presidents do illegal things and sometimes there are disputes among varying branches of government about whether something is or is not illegal.
The second question is much simpler: If what was alleged to be illegal (this poll thing about a Constitutional assembly) was illegal, does it in any way authorize the military to shoot into the Presidential palace, expel the President by force, shoot the opposition leftist leader at his home, arrest the Cabinet, and authorize after a ‘vote’ some legislative leader not in the line of succession as a new President?
Probably not.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Re: Of course the military should have no, zero, none whatsoever of a role in the governance of Honduras
Of course. Because men with guns are bad, of course.
Look, I dislike the Honduran military as much as you, but it’s possible (and has happened) that the military can be a progressive force. See Peru in 1968, or Panama the same year.
I confess to not knowing too much about Zelaya’s accomplishments- has he really accomplished a lot of genuinely progressive reforms in the last few years?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Right. Like I said, I just can’t see how conducting a poll, and especially a poll that doesn’t have the taboo subject in it, could generate all that passion. I can’t believe the poll is anything but a pretext.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Hector, I’m going to go out on a limb here and recommend we privilege the empirically available record of the role of the Honduran military in that society over your nostalgia for a leftist Peruvian general of 1968.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 am
And because of the coup, Honduran democracy has been saved? Interesting. Too bad they had to destroy the village in order to save it.
Indeed, a real coup is always worse than a hypothetical coup. If you want to defend a Constitution you should never act preemptively.