The U.S. Shouldn’t Bless Honduras’s Flawed Elections

by Lisa Haugaard 12-01-2009

Elections took place Sunday, Nov. 29 in Honduras with National Party leader Porfirio Lobo declared the winner.

But elections carried out under a state of emergency — with visible military and police presence, by a government installed by coup, with a significant movement opposed to the coup calling for abstention, and with the deposed president still holed up in the center of the capital city in the Brazilian Embassy — are no cause for celebration. As Latin America Working Group wrote to the State Department on Nov. 24, “a cloud of intimidation and restrictions on assembly and free speech affect the climate in which these elections take place … basic conditions do not exist for free, fair and transparent elections in Honduras.”

The United States’ apparent eagerness to accept the elections and move on has put it at odds with many Latin American governments. “Latin American governments accused the administration of putting pragmatism over principle and of siding with Honduran military officers and business interests whose goal was to use the elections to legitimize the coup,” wrote Ginger Thompson in The New York Times.

The U.S. should not lift sanctions until civil liberties and human rights are respected and human rights abuses committed since June 28 are effectively investigated and prosecuted. Prior to sanctions being lifted, there must be an inclusive process set in motion for a serious, broad national dialogue to map out ways to strengthen democracy that involves all sectors, most particularly including those who have felt disenfranchised by the coup and elections under these conditions. The U.S. must work multilaterally with the OAS and partners in the region to support such an outcome.

The Quixote Center is leading a delegation of U.S. citizens in Honduras and is sending up-to-the-minute reports that can be seen on their Web site. Here is one excerpt from San Pedro Sula, Sunday, Nov. 29, at 1:30 p.m.

A peaceful march of over 500 people was just culminating at the Central Park of San Pedro Sula when a large armored tank with high pressure water cannons mounted on the top pulled up at the rear of the march — along with a large truck full of military troops. The 500 peaceful, unarmed protesters turned around to face the tank and troops — and in unison, they sat down in the middle of the street. The truck retreated 2 blocks. The soldiers got off the truck, and began to put on gas masks. Everything went silent — and suddenly the crowd was attacked with water cannons and gas. People are fleeing. There are wounded and detained. The QC delegation is fleeing the scene at this moment and will send reports.

A Miami Herald article contrasted the perspectives of those who abstained out of protest and those who voted to seek a way out of the crisis.

‘Why should I vote if the last one I voted for was run out of the country?’ said cabdriver Braudilio Germán. ‘I have voted in every one of the past elections, but I’m not voting in this one. In four years, if everything is running smoothly, I will vote again. They didn’t respect my last vote, and I’m mad.’ He said not a single member of his extended family planned to cast ballots.

“‘There has to be elections — there has to be,’ said Paola Rodríguez, 28, who choked back tears … ‘Honduras is so much better than this.”’

An international mission of Central American human rights groups concludes, “there are not the minimal guarantees of transparency, democracy and security for the November 29th elections.” The delegation, coordinated by the Central America program of Lutheran World Federation and including the Honduran human rights groups CIPRODEH and CODEH, observed that “although some political actors and institutions consider that elections are a necessary step to resolve the Honduran conflict, if they take place under the control of a de-facto government, in a militarized context … they can represent the deepening of the conflict rather than its solution.

Adam Isacson at the Center for International Policy asserts that while it is tempting to “shake the Etch-a-Sketch” and start over with a post-election Honduras, there are three reasons not to recognize the elections: 1) The people who carried out the June 28 coup will have gotten exactly what they wanted; 2) The conditions for a fair vote were not in place; and 3) Recognizing the elections will put the U.S. at odds with most of the hemisphere.

George Vickers in Foreign Policy tells the U.S. government,

Don’t bless these elections and walk away. Instead, Washington should maintain its suspension of government-to-government assistance and not recognize the newly elected regime until there is a full restoration of civil liberties and steps are taken to prosecute human rights abuses. Next, the Obama team should work with the Organization of American States and other democracies — the vast majority of which is reluctant to endorse these elections — to find a way to bring Honduras back into the international community. For starters, if the new government is to recover any semblance of legitimacy, it will need to ensure that adequate conditions exist for a broad and pluralistic debate and dialogue, including with respect to any constitutional issues.

The Organization of American States’ Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression

expresses its deepest concern regarding the attacks against freedom of expression registered in Honduras in the last few days, particularly the constant interruptions and interferences to the broadcasting signal of TV Channel 36 and the explosion in the building of Channel 10.

Lisa Haugaard is the executive director for the Latin America Working Group.

Categories: Elections, Global Issues, Human Rights

SisterMarie

Actions by oppressive regimes such as what occurred at Central Park of San Pedro Sula or in Tianamen Square should be equally condemned by those committed to human rights. I strongly support the efforts of those to isolate this regime and restore democratic ideals to this country.

dpayton

It was not a "coup" that ousted Zelaya. Please be honest with your terms. He was removed pursuant to the country's Constitution which limited his term. If George W. Bush insisted he stay in past 8 years, I'm absolutely positive you wouldn't refer to an effort to properly remove him a "coup". How blatantly political of you.

And if those who supported that law-breaking President voice their position by sitting out of the election, that is their right. But it is far, far from being an illegitimate on that grounds. If the law-breaker himself tries to sneak back in and cause mischief, that's a law enforcement issue, but it is not grounds for delegitimizing the election. If a police presence is required because of that mischief, blame Zelaya, don't look askance at the election because of his foolishness.

And indeed, if the current government is behaving badly, it still has no bearing necessarily on the validity election. A series of straw men does not a brick wall make.

If we can't be honest with our terms, on a Christian site, there's really little to discuss.

SisterMarie

Any government which maintains it grip on power by gas or by water spray is not a legitimate government - whether it is Bull Connor, the Chinese government, or the current regime in Honduras. It is to our shame that we see any virtue or legitimacy in such juntas.

Stein

"He was removed pursuant to the country's Constitution..."

Can you quote the paragraph in their constitution which says that the military can kidnap a president in the middle of the night and ship him out of the country?

Let's not pretend that the de facto government was brought to power consitutionally. To be honest with our terms, I think we really do have to label it a "coup".

Two wrongs do not make a right. Simply because Zelaya was not behaving properly does not legitimate further impropriety.

If Goerge W. Bush insisted he stay in past 8 years, I'm absolutely positive I WOULD refer to an effort to "properly?" remove him after 7 years as a "coup". [Remember that Zelaya in fact did not start serving the second term that he was angling for. He was removed even before his first term had expired.]

So let's get to the nub of the issue. How best can we treat Honduras to help bring them back to constitutional order? "'Why should I vote if the last one I voted for was run out of the country?’ said cabdriver Braudilio Germán." Simply papering over past hurts is not going to bring healing.

dpayton

Can you quote the paragraph in their constitution which says that the military can kidnap a president in the middle of the night and ship him out of the country?

No. Neither can I find in our own constitution the paragraph about abortion being controlled by the federal government, yet our Supreme Court did manage to find it. Point being that, while a topic may not be specified directly in the country's Constitution, certain actions can indeed be taken. As noted here:

"The country has been in political crisis since June 28th, when ex-president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office by order of the Honduran Supreme Court. Zelaya was charged with attempting to illegally extend his presidential term, and once removed from office, his legal successor, Roberto Micheletti was sworn in."

I don't like abortion, and some folks in Honduras don't like what the Supreme Court ruled either, but all citizens, including the President, are under the same law.

If the Honduran Supreme Court ruling itself is unconstitutional, then fair enough. But one must prove that case before using the word "coup" to describe enforcement of a legal ruling.

How best to help bring back constitutional order? Again, you assume it left. In the meantime, the Honduran people have overwhelmingly, and in an orderly fashion, voted in a successor. Haugaard, as I noted, has built up a bunch of straw men to try to cast this election as illegitimate.

I'm still waiting do be "enfranchised" in the abortion issue in this country. Let's not paper over past hurts, eh?

Stein

"How best to help bring back constitutional order? Again, you assume it left."

Me and most of the other people in the Western Hemisphere.

"In the meantime, the Honduran people have overwhelmingly, and in an orderly fashion, voted in a successor."

It was not too many years ago that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly, and in an orderly fashion, voted Saddam Hussein in for another term.

dpayton

Are you really conflating the two elections? Really? You see nothing at all different between the two?

Stein

Of course there is plenty different between the two. I never said there
wasn't. I am merely dramatizing that a "peaceful" election does not
insure true democracy (as your previous post seemed to imply). I
believe that Honduras is in a fragile time. Simply denying the feelings
of a large segment of its population by blithely stamping legitimacy on
the coup or the subsequent elections does not seem to me to be helpful.

dpayton

Well then, neither did I say that a peaceful election alone guarantees a true democracy. What I have been noting all along that the election, plus a number of other indicators (see my response to Guarionex) does not suggest that some sort of military takeover has occurred, as Haugaard's use of the word "coup" would.

Nor does it necessarily deligitimize the election, which she basically states outright. All comers had an equal chance and equal opportunity; at least far better ones than in Hussein's "elections", which is why I feel your comparison fells flat, on so many levels.

Stein

Look at the results. The military did not like the president. After
the coup and these elections a new president more to their liking is in
place.

Now walk in the others' moccasins. You voted with the majority and the
candidate you favored became president. This president was a champion
of your causes, but made some powerful enemies. His enemies kidnapped
him from his house in the middle of the night (I'm not making this stuff
up; it really did happen). His political opponent, YOU'RE political
opponent, was given the presidency instead. In those moccasins I would
be hoppin' mad.

All comers did NOT have an equal chance. How likely is it that if a
president had been elected and the military did not approve, that they
would remove him (or her) also? Many voters believed that. Then why
bother to vote? It really doesn't matter whether you or I believe
that!!! It really does matter whether voters believed that.

Can't you see how this whole process has torn away at the fabric of
democracy -- and that something more substantial than sweeping it under
the carpet needs to be done to restore the confidence in democracy?

dpayton

All comers did NOT have an equal chance. How likely is it that if a
president had been elected and the military did not approve, that they
would remove him (or her) also? Many voters believed that. Then why
bother to vote? It really doesn't matter whether you or I believe
that!!! It really does matter whether voters believed that.

No, what matters is the law. Was anybody unlawfully excluded from running as a candidate? I agree, some people have reason to be mad, but perception of a 'coup' does not make it one. Neither does it make it one when the military happens to like the results of an election. This was not because of the military forcing Zelaya supporters away from the polls; it was voters not voting that did it. Democracy in action, if you will.

Democracies deal with fabric tearing all the time. The Nixon cover-up and resignation certainly cast ours in a bad light, but we came through just fine. Some say the Bush/Gore election damaged our democracy, yet now it's not even fodder for comedians anymore.

Should Honduras take steps to restore confidence in its democracy? Absolutely! But they should not be subject to outside pressure if that pressure is due to inaccurate portrayals of what happened.

Stein

"No, what matters is the law."

No, what matters is people.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Bye.

dpayton

Stein, before you run off, I do want to clarify that, in matters of whether an election is flawed or not, as is the topic of the original post, what matters is whether it followed the law, not the emotions of people who didn't like the outcome. "People matter more" is true most often, but in matter of legality, which is what the original post is about, it is the law that matters. Sloganeering may sound like the high road, but it's less than helpful in clarifying matters.

ElrondPA

There's a lot you're leaving out of your analysis. It wasn't just the military--not even primarily the military--that removed Zelaya from power. His arrest was called for by a unanimous Supreme Court. The legislature almost unanimously agreed and affirmed the transfer of power--to a member of Zelaya's own party. The military went beyond its mandate in throwing Zelaya out of the country, but the rest of what happened was totally as prescribed by the Honduran constitution (Micheletti was the next in line for the presidency). To call it a coup is like claiming that Nixon was toppled in a coup.

Note also that the candidates in Sunday's election were selected by both parties BEFORE Zelaya was ousted. And the turnout for the election was HIGHER than it was in the election that voted Zelaya in (and, for that matter, higher than the turnout in the 2008 US election).

Is all well in Honduras? No. But it's hardly the authoritarian jail that many Zelaya apologists have been claiming. (I haven't heard any condemnations from Sojourners of the rioting and looting the Zelaya faction has been committing.) It's nothing like the abuses of freedom that are happening in the home of Zelaya's best friend, Chavez of Venezuela, where democracy and the rule of law have lost all meaning.

Stein

You also leave out so much from your analysis; whatever doesn't fit the
conclusion you want. However, I'm too busy to debate particulars. Give
it a rest.

Guarionex

"Neither can I find in our own constitution the paragraph about abortion being controlled by the federal government, yet our Supreme Court did manage to find it."

First of all, abortion has nothing to do with Honduras. That's a bizarre deviation from the topic. But if you thinks that will help you clarify your point, good look. (It is not working)

Now, "He was removed pursuant to the country's Constitution which limited his term." ?

Well, YOUR claim would be valid if you could find the statutory mandate in the constitution of Honduras that allows the removal a president BEFORE the end of his/her term. Once you find that, please also try to find the actual protocols to execute those actions.

Please provide the facts to back up your "eloquent" claim. Meanwhile, I think your response is, how should I say it? "blatantly political".

dpayton

The allusion to abortion was not in referring to the specific issue itself, but the fact that the federal government, through the Supreme Court, has ruled on something that isn't necessarily in the Constitution itself. Many on the Left, decrying the exact same thing in Honduras, have no problem with it for their pet issue. As most authors on this blog lean to the left, I though it an appropriate comparison of the Supreme Court vs constitutionality.

This was in response to the use of the word "coup" by the author, which suggests a violent and disorderly overthrow of a government, typically followed by rule by the military that did the overthrowing. Instead, in Honduras, a branch of the duly-elected government ordered the military (i.e. the military did not act on its own accord) to remove the sitting President, and called for new elections (again, not usually the result of a coup). Those who disagreed opted to protest by sitting out the election, which is their right, but now, through an orderly election, marred by security measures required due to mischief by Zelaya himself, have chosen a new leader.

All this has been, compared to a "coup", quite orderly and without summarily rounding up supporters of Zelaya, as would typically happen in a coup.

Granted, as I've already noted, the question of whether the decision itself is constitutional is a fair one. But it should be answered before using loaded words like "coup". Ms. Haugaard called it that, not me. She should define her terms and explain her choice of words. All I'm saying is that, from my perspective, flawed though it may be, she choose poorly.

And she used that as a launching point to try to discredit the election with, as I said, a number of straw arguments that have no bearing on the election's legitimacy. And she complained about the "disenfranchisement" of people who voluntarily sat out an election, which I find, again, a poor use of the word.

But this hinges, I believe, on whether this was a "coup" or not, and there's no way, based on the common use, or even the dictionary use, of the word "coup", that this fits the definition. It's inflammatory and, by my lights, used only to push her political position.

irish_annie

it's not up to america to bless or to curse the politics of honduras, but to mind our own business... for a change... selah.

Guarionex

Wow! Tell that to the people of Darfur!

dpayton

Guarionex, I must agree with your sentiment. There are time we do need to reach outside our borders and help those who are afflicted. Holing up inside our box forever is irresponsible.

We may disagree on which matters in which to intervene, but we can't just sit by the pool and let the word go by.