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

redhen689

dbjones,
Micheletti was next in line for the presidency. He was put in that position by constitutional law and has the backing of the congress and the supreme court. He knows his time in this position will only last until the swearing in of the new president after the November elections. btw, He is from the same political party as Zelaya. (The interesting thing is that even Zelaya's political party wanted him out.)
I have attempted to reply here 3 times, but the posts keep disappearing. Either there is a glitch, or I'm being moderated. I'm hoping that all 3 posts don't show up now, because that would be annoying.

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.

redhen689

He was next in line to complete the term of the president. He has the support of the congress, the supreme court and of the Honduran people. It is my understanding that he is not eligible to run for president, as once they have served time in the executive branch, they are ineligible to run for another term.

redhen689

dbjones, Micheletti was the equivalent of our Speaker of the House. He was next in line to complete the term of the president if anything ever happened to the president. From what I understand of the Honduran constitution, he will not be eligible to run for President for the period of at least 10 years. Elections are scheduled for November, and he has offered to move the date of the election up.
He has the support of the Honduran people, the congress, and the supreme court. He was from the same political part of Zelaya.

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...

jonabark

George Bush has often been in violation of Supreme Court Rulings. It is not the place of the military to intervene. How is a coup more democratic than a disagreement in the court system?

2 students who supported Zelaya's return and were acting in peaceful protest were killed today. Thousands of Zelaya supporters have been attacked with rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannans etc. Who did Zeklaya kill? The coup leaders have a history of violence and most were trained in the School of the Americas with its sordid history of torture, coups and death squads.

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.

jonabark

Here are some contentions from Ken Silverstein"s Washington Babylon:

A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup
There’s very little truth to anything you’ve read about the coup in American newspapers.

1)President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor, but he otherwise has been a very cautious, ineffectual reformer. The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feudal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics.

2) Zelaya was not seeking to stay in power by unconstitutional means; even if his political reforms had succeeded, he would have been out of power within the year. The only side guilty of unconstitutional action is the coup plotters.

3) Based on his response to events in Honduras, Barack Obama may as well be Ronald Reagan or George Bush when it comes to coups in Latin America. The Obama administration initially managed to muster “concern” about the coup, and has been acting in a cowardly fashion ever since. The only reason it has moved at all was that it was forced by the united front by Latin governments of left and right. If Zelaya is returned to power, it won’t be because of anything Obama did.

4) The American media does not believe in democracy, as seen in the routine portrayal of a moral equivalence between the elected government and the coup plotters. The Washington Post is the worst of the pack. For its editorial page, “democracy” is strictly utilitarian; it’s OK when our side wins; otherwise, we will justify vote-rigging or military action by the other side, even while pretending we support constitutional order.
xxxxxxx

The right wing people who justify murder( 2 peaceful demonstrators shot to death in Honduras yesterday) and military coups and invasions of non aggressors with the tactic of demonizing those they attack with whatever baloney they hear from the right wing talk show hosts reminds me of the blackshirts and brownshirts of the fascists. This reference and comparison is not hyperbole ; the death toll of these actions( Haiti, Honduras,Nicaragua, Iraq) is too high, too real, and too well documented. The lives taken are just as precious as those taken in Europe.

JohnH54

He is calling for elections.

judithod

Read "Honduras at the Tipping Point" by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in July 7 Wall Street Journal for an accurate analysis of the Honduran situation.

bhaack

SisterMarie says:

"He [Nixon] was days away from impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate...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..."

Hmmm, so SisterMarie, how exactly do you propose the Senate was suppose to remove Mr. Nixon if in fact Mr. Nixon had refused to leave office, as Zelaya did.

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?

Nathan Bedford

"...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.

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?

JamesM

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

ando

Do you ever have anything positive to say?

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.

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.

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.

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.