Democracy is the Real Victim in Honduras’ Coup

by Ashley Morse 07-02-2009

On the morning of June 28, Honduran President Manuel “Mel” Zelaya was awoken suddenly as masked soldiers burst into his home. As the media has been rave to point out, still in his pajamas, the elected head of state was forced onto a plane and shipped out of the country. Later that day, the Honduran congress overwhelmingly elected its speaker Roberto Michiletti, a member of Zelaya’s own Liberal Party, as the country’s new president. The event was a chilling reminder that the days of military coups in Latin America are not quite over.

In the wake of Sunday’s events there has ensued a battle of interpretation both within Honduras and in the international community, in which the greatest point of contention is the basis of legality for the removal of President Zelaya and whether or not it was in fact a coup.

The main reason given by the Micheletti government for the ousting of the president was his move to put forth a non-binding referendum on installing an additional urn in November’s federal elections where the population would vote on whether or not to establish a National Assembly to reform the constitution. Many critics allege that Zelaya was in fact hoping to reform the constitution to allow him (and future Honduran presidents), to run for a second term. Other analysts point to the urgent need to reform the far from perfect Honduran constitution, which was written after civilians gained control of the government from the military in 1982. The Supreme Court ruled Zelaya’s referendum to be illegal and the military refused to help him administer the vote. Nevertheless, Zelaya decided to go forward with the referendum and was poised to do so until the military forcibly removed him the morning that the vote was scheduled.

While there are many discussions about whether Zelaya’s actions were legal, and his popularity may be indeed be demonstrably low, this does not justify the military’s storming of the presidential palace and forceful removal of the president. The fact that part of the population may be happy to be rid of Zelaya is utterly beside the point; a coup is a coup and that breach of legality is one which we mustn’t brush over.

The Honduran Constitution, with all of its shortcomings, does in fact provide for a legal removal of a president, democratically, by impeachment, not by a military ambush. The bottom line is that democratic institutions and the processes therein that administer transitions of power must be safeguarded to effectively govern and ensure individual rights. A long and unfortunate history of military coups in the region that kept democratic institutions perpetually weak has at least taught us this much.

Understanding the extremely complex political milieu in Honduras must take into account the frustration of the poor majority due to their exclusion from what is still a very young, tenuous, and splintered democracy. The question now becomes where does Honduras go from here? The international community has united in its response that the first step is to right the initial wrong of ousting the democratically-elected president through a coup. But Zelaya’s return to the presidency will in no way put an end to the institutional weaknesses and political divisions in Honduras, nor to the political marginalization and economic inequalities that underlie this crisis. Any steps forward will certainly require the accompaniment and support of the international community, but in the end it will be up to the Honduran people to address these deeply-seated issues and determine the future of their democracy.

Ashley Morse is a program assistant with the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a U.S. human rights organization that promotes democracy and socio-economic justice in Latin America and the Caribbean through analysis and foreign policy proposals informed by strong partnerships with civil society counterparts in the region.

Categories: Global Issues, Human Rights, War & Peace

ando

I think bloggers should put their true beliefs and opinions in their writings. For example, what does Ashley Morse think of Hugo Chavez or Raul Castro? If Zelaya were a conservative, would she be as interested in criticizing the coup? The history of Latin America, at least in the last 100 years, has been Right vs. Left with little to no wiggle room for those in the middle. For those on either extreme, they always think they're in the middle and the other side is the problem.

Some of us think that both extremes are the problem.

JamesM

Your comments would be a whole lot more credible if you did not take it upon yourself to go beyond the four corners of what has been written and you would address the concerns articulated in the posting. You seem to make sport of trying to impute a motive to Ashley Morse which has no basis in facts that you can ascertain. This is not the first time you have done this, and I have serious doubts about whether it will be the last.

ando

Do you ever have anything positive to say?

JamesM

Do you ever stop questioning the motives of the authors of the blog posts here?

FilmDoctor

The Honduran President violated the law. The police and military authorities have the option to enforce it, especially in this case where the President was obviously trying to establish another Neo-Marxist dictatorship in the region, in an illegal manner (no one is above the law). Once again, Barack Obama and his Neo-Marxist cronies distort the truth to the point perhaps of even lying. Anyone recall that verse about not bearing false witness? Socialism is a return to slavery! www.americanvision.org, www.abidingtruth.com, www.answers.org, www.equip.org, http://twitter.com/FilmDoctor, http://www.republicanassemblies.org/, http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/blog.php.

BlueDeacon

You simply do not enforce the law by breaking it, nor by abrogating the principles on which the law stands. Also remember that military coups are fairly common in that part of the world -- the army doesn't like someone it gets rid of him/her. But, to you, it's all about ideology, no?

And as for "bearing false witness," you might want to take your own advice because calling anyone a "neo-Marxist crony" is nothing more than a slur, let alone a lie.

jonabark

According to your peculiar and undemocratic logic, the people with organized firepower( police and military) should make final governing choices and can depose elected officials without a just legal process. You justify this logic with name calling. The people who are leading this coup have a far more sordid history of death squad actions and torture than the moderate President. Theirs are real crimes , not arguments over constitutional process.

Your arguments are dangerous tactics that justify repression and violence against political ideas and organizations; if these tactics were turned against Republicans you would cry foul. According to your name-calling Europe and Japan are slave societies, and Social Security is a movement toward slavery. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who would never tolerate your ideas being applied to their own country.

I believe you are angry because you have been misled by a dangerous ideology that has been revealed as a massive hoax.

Minnesotan

I caution Sojourners from painting this as "saintly President unjustly ousted by evil military." This is a much more complex situation, and the President was trying to take over the government, like the presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia have, establishing one man, strong arm rule over the people. Please do not make this sound like it is the "rich" fighting the "poor." In terms of justice, the Honduras situation can be characterized as a leader greedy for more power bending the laws of his nation to advance his own purposes, and being called to account by the elected assembly of the people and national supreme court, who ordered the military to act to stop further lawlessness.

BlueDeacon

That's not what it's really about. Read the post again -- in fact, there is a mechanism in place to remove the president legally if need be.

JohnH54

How is it possible for you to be on the wrong side of every issue?

BlueDeacon

Maybe you ought to consider asking yourself that question. I'm not trying to be snarky in saying that, but my concern is law and justice, not unexamined ideology.

redhen689

The Honduran government did remove him legally. The military was responding to a court order. It was not a coup.
The Honduran constitution allows for the immediate removal of the president for attempting to extend his term in office

The following quote is was written by Anabella Hedman:
"...How is that kind of intent sanctioned in our Constitution? With the immediate removal of those involved in the action as stated in Article 239 of the Constitution which reads: “No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.” Notice that the rule speaks about intent and that it also says immediately –as in instant, as in no trial required, as in no impeachment needed.

This immediate sanction might sound draconian, but every country knows its own enemies. Requiring no previous trial might be crazy, but in Latin America a President is no ordinary citizen, it is the most powerful figure of the land and historically the figure has been above the law. To prevent that officer from using its power to stay in office Honduras has constitutional rules such as the mentioned one."
"No matter what the international community says, the Honduran people are PROUD, happy, and at peace that DEMOCRACY HAS PREVAILED in our country. We have accomplished what other stronger and more economic stable countries have not been able to do; we have done what Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Iran have not been able to accomplish - we have LEGALLY FOUGHT attempts from our now ex-President and his socialist supporters (Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, etc.) to change our Constitution to allow for re-election of our presidents, an article that is CLEARLY not allowed for reform EVER! The Honduran people have LEGALLY FOUGHT attempts to abolish democracy and we have prevailed!!!"
~Anabella Hedman~
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/grou...

BlueDeacon

The Honduran government did remove him legally. The military was responding to a court order. It was not a coup.
The Honduran constitution allows for the immediate removal of the president for attempting to extend his term in office.

But not BAMN.

dbjones

I concur with those who remind us that no issue is as simple naming one side right and the other wrong. This situation reminds us that democracy does not come easy. Rousseau came up with the myth that people "give" authority to leaders, but i can't think of much data to substantiate his theory. Mine is that people with power assume leadership, and that people without power follow for protection from threats, either outside the community, or from their own leaders. So democracy is not natural. Our own American myths tell us that we became a country for the common good of our citizens, but we have had to redefine citizen several times over the last 233 in order to be truly democratic (acknowledging room for debate on whether we are there yet). Don't take me for a cynic, though. I am just trying to be realistic. I believe, however, that God calls us to do that which is not natural. Like our flesh against which we struggle to be holy, the corruption of power is something against which we are called to struggle to be just societies. Help me out to apply this to Honduras. My current thoughts are: the judicial/legislative/military branches did not choose the best option in their struggle for justice; in fact, they took a step backward. However, compared to previous regime changes in their history, there is progress. My hope is for the mediation of a solution which will further democracy. If we go to the extreme of condemnation, will we alienate the current goverment pushing them farther from justice? Yet if we don't stand for justice, what message does that send?

bhaack

Is it now the official position of the Christian-political left to embrace democratic authoritarians?

According to the Honduras Supreme Court Zelaya broke the law and so they ordered the military to remove him.

Is it the official position of Sojournors that Democracy means that the checks and balances on an elected official are meaningless?

Ms Morse says: "While there are many discussions about whether Zelaya’s actions were legal...this does not justify the military’s storming of the presidential palace and forceful removal of the president". I am curious what exactly does justify the removal of an elected official if breaking the law does not. Does Ms. Morse also hold the position that the proceedings to remove Nixon from office where undemocratic and illegal?

Perhaps the Honduran courts should have waited to try to remove Zelaya from office AFTER he had further consolidated his power as the now democratic-dictator Chavez has done in Venezuela. Perhaps that would be more to Ms. Morse's democratic sensitivities.

Thanks for weighting in Ms. Morse.

BlueDeacon

Does Ms. Morse also hold the position that the proceedings to remove Nixon from office where undemocratic and illegal?

Read the entire post again -- if you remember, the U. S. military did not remove Nixon from office.

JacobS

I have to disagree that the "coup" in Honduras was a threat to democracy. Considering the situation in Honduras, and the support from multiple political institutions, I would contend that Honduras' coup was an affirmation of democracy.

What seems to be the most troubling aspect of the coup was that it was carried out by the military in a region that is famous for military coups. But the coup was supported and engineered by the democratically elected congress and supreme court. It is worth noting that the military removed a president, but the fact that they did not establish a military regime demonstrates remarkable progress in Honduras.

There was no major ideological shift as there have been in past coups. A member of the ousted president's own party succeeded him, suggesting that his overthrow was less about his worldview than his effort to expand his own power at the expense of other democratic institutions. Given the tendancy of strong leaders (like Chavez) to emerge in Latin America, it is easy to understand why the people of Honduras support the coup. It was not simply to remove an unpopular leader, but to preserve Honduran democracy as well.

From an American perspective, the idea of a military removing an elected official from office is appalling. That doesn't fit into our beliefs and experiences. But consider that the Honduran constitution is barely 25 years old. They'll learn as they go, but this is far from the crisis it was made out to be.

bhaack

Correct, they didn't have to because Nixon had the good sense to resign. Zelaya blatently disregarded the law and then stirred up a mob to steal reforendum ballots even though the supreme court ruled against him.

How exactly is the court supposed to remove an acting president who is defying the law from office?

SisterMarie

"...Nixon had the good sense to resign."

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it "good sense." Nixon didn't have any other option. He was days away from impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate. Even his closest political allies had turned against him.

Having said all that, however, we were never close to the military officials stepping in and removing him from office. That would have definitely been unconstitutional in America just as it is wrong for any country that has a constitutional system for removal from office for officials who abuse their power.

dbjones

I don't think i have heard enough about Micheletti. What are his motives? If this was his own attempt for power, that is problematic. Is he truly interested in the preservation of democracy? What has anyone heard about him?