Get E-Mail Updates

Electoral Double Standards in Latin America and Beyond

Thankfully, the crisis in Honduras may be reaching a political resolution. (Though as GP contributor Andrew Clouse observes on the ground in Honduras, the people--as opposed to the politicians--have more comprehensive demands.) But one factoid that's annoyed me throughout this crisis: Right-wing critics of Zelaya accuse him of wanting to amend the Honduran constitution to seek a second term. This, they claim, is one step toward Hugo Chavez strongman status. But meanwhile, in Colombia, a far more right-wing President Alvaro Uribe has awaits a potential third term after overseeing successive changes to that nation's constitution. So maybe I'm just not reading the right sources, but have Zelaya's critics leveled the same accusations at Uribe for seeking multiple terms? Especially given the level of repression--including illegal wiretapping of political opponents--Uribe and his security apparatus have committed.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Of course, no one will confuse Uribe with Chavez (or Zelaya), but can critics of Zelaya be honest enough to admit that it's his politics they oppose--and that democratic principles are playing second fiddle to other interests? Or does the fact that Uribe is "our s.o.b." change one's opinion about the legitimacy of those ever-increasing term limits? The underlying problem in all of these countries, according to one Colombian friend of mine, is caudillismo--and the fact that whether right- or left-wing, such a style of leadership remains popular throughout much of Latin America. At least the Obama Administration and every other country in all of Latin America condenmed the coup when Zelaya was ousted earlier this year. Which is more than could be said for the Bush Administration, which didn't immediately condemn the coup that temporarily removed Chavez from power in 2002, and only did so after Chavez was restored to office.

But speaking of presidential double-standards in international elections: The Obama White House has congratulated Hamid Karzai for his "victory," but massive vote fraud is still massive vote fraud. I'm still waiting for the Facebook and Twitter campaigns for "Where's My Vote?"--Afghanistan edition. Again, maybe I've just missed it, but where are the voices comparing the fraudulent election in Iran to the fraudulent election in Afghanistan?

Let me be absolutely clear: I am not comparing the characters or policies of Zelaya, Chavez, Uribe, Ahmedinejad, or Karzai....today. But it's clear that there's some selective criticism going on. Maybe that's just the way of the world, but I have yet to hear a mainstream journalist compare Zelaya to Uribe (rather than Chavez) when it comes to seeking multiple terms or draw parallels between election fraud in Afghanistan with what took place in Iran. Maybe I need to broaden my sources.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners and a photographer whose work can be seen at www.ryanrodrickbeiler.com.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 4:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 4:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

by: Jesdisciple

11-04-2009 @ 1:37am

Glad to see an equal-opportunity critic writing an article here.

But really, I don't see anything to add. Tyrants will be tyrants, and politicians will be politicians. (I was tempted to use "pseudo-tyrants" instead of "politicians.") They both deserve discipline, but we ordinary individuals really can't do much in that regard.

by: Jesdisciple

11-04-2009 @ 1:37am

Glad to see an equal-opportunity critic writing an article here.

But really, I don't see anything to add. Tyrants will be tyrants, and politicians will be politicians. (I was tempted to use "pseudo-tyrants" instead of "politicians.") They both deserve discipline, but we ordinary individuals really can't do much in that regard.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 2:42pm

The clear difference between Uribe and Zelaya is the rule of law. Uribe worked within the framework of the law, Zelaya did not. When Zelaya defied the constitution the legislators and Supreme Court justices threw him out. They enforced what they believed to be the law of the land. Apparently the true law of the land in Honduras is the will of Obama.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 2:42pm

The clear difference between Uribe and Zelaya is the rule of law. Uribe worked within the framework of the law, Zelaya did not. When Zelaya defied the constitution the legislators and Supreme Court justices threw him out. They enforced what they believed to be the law of the land. Apparently the true law of the land in Honduras is the will of Obama.

by: braden18

11-04-2009 @ 4:45pm

Speaking as a USA citizen living in South America with many Colombian friends who have told me of the repression under Uribe's rule, while his changes to the constitution may have been within the legal framework, his wiretapping enemies, threatening people with job-loss for voting against him, and repressing churches and NGO's as agents of the left are hardly examples of a good, law-abiding ruler. Uribe gets a much better picture in the U.S. media (in general) than the vast majority of his citizens would paint.

by: braden18

11-04-2009 @ 4:45pm

Speaking as a USA citizen living in South America with many Colombian friends who have told me of the repression under Uribe's rule, while his changes to the constitution may have been within the legal framework, his wiretapping enemies, threatening people with job-loss for voting against him, and repressing churches and NGO's as agents of the left are hardly examples of a good, law-abiding ruler. Uribe gets a much better picture in the U.S. media (in general) than the vast majority of his citizens would paint.

by: BlueDeacon

11-04-2009 @ 6:17pm

Ni, it isn't -- that was his point. Besides, you do not commit immoral acts to thwart a lawbreaker lest you miss the point of the law.

by: BlueDeacon

11-04-2009 @ 6:17pm

Ni, it isn't -- that was his point. Besides, you do not commit immoral acts to thwart a lawbreaker lest you miss the point of the law.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 7:24pm

His point was that both men wanted a third term. My point is that Zelaya attempted it illegally Uribe did it legally We subverted the constituion and the legal and judicial authority of Honduras. I see no reference to immoral acts in the article, is this yet another predictable Rick red herring.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 7:24pm

His point was that both men wanted a third term. My point is that Zelaya attempted it illegally Uribe did it legally We subverted the constituion and the legal and judicial authority of Honduras. I see no reference to immoral acts in the article, is this yet another predictable Rick red herring.

by: BlueDeacon

11-05-2009 @ 12:20am

You miss the point. Just because one side is Machiavellian doesn't mean the
other side needs to be.

by: BlueDeacon

11-05-2009 @ 12:20am

You miss the point. Just because one side is Machiavellian doesn't mean the
other side needs to be.

by: Jesdisciple

11-05-2009 @ 5:11am

That difference is negligible. One country (almost) had its freedoms forcibly stolen and the other got tricked out of them.

by: Jesdisciple

11-05-2009 @ 5:11am

That difference is negligible. One country (almost) had its freedoms forcibly stolen and the other got tricked out of them.

by: jeffp

11-05-2009 @ 11:30am

The author asks if this is a double standard, clearly no. Some of you are sounding like anarchists (selective anarchists that is). Zelaya knowingly defied the constitution. He was playing chicken with the elected legislators and the justices. Either they were going to let him run roughshot over the law (becoming the law himself) or they were going to enforce the law. They enforced the law. Now we have Obama coming in to run roughshot over the law. The real takeover is from Obama admin. This looks like dress rehearsal for constitution questions here in the US.

by: jeffp

11-05-2009 @ 11:30am

The author asks if this is a double standard, clearly no. Some of you are sounding like anarchists (selective anarchists that is). Zelaya knowingly defied the constitution. He was playing chicken with the elected legislators and the justices. Either they were going to let him run roughshot over the law (becoming the law himself) or they were going to enforce the law. They enforced the law. Now we have Obama coming in to run roughshot over the law. The real takeover is from Obama admin. This looks like dress rehearsal for constitution questions here in the US.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 2:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 2:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Jesdisciple

11-04-2009 @ 1:37am

Glad to see an equal-opportunity critic writing an article here.

But really, I don't see anything to add. Tyrants will be tyrants, and politicians will be politicians. (I was tempted to use "pseudo-tyrants" instead of "politicians.") They both deserve discipline, but we ordinary individuals really can't do much in that regard.

by: Jesdisciple

11-04-2009 @ 1:37am

Glad to see an equal-opportunity critic writing an article here.

But really, I don't see anything to add. Tyrants will be tyrants, and politicians will be politicians. (I was tempted to use "pseudo-tyrants" instead of "politicians.") They both deserve discipline, but we ordinary individuals really can't do much in that regard.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 2:42pm

The clear difference between Uribe and Zelaya is the rule of law. Uribe worked within the framework of the law, Zelaya did not. When Zelaya defied the constitution the legislators and Supreme Court justices threw him out. They enforced what they believed to be the law of the land. Apparently the true law of the land in Honduras is the will of Obama.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 2:42pm

The clear difference between Uribe and Zelaya is the rule of law. Uribe worked within the framework of the law, Zelaya did not. When Zelaya defied the constitution the legislators and Supreme Court justices threw him out. They enforced what they believed to be the law of the land. Apparently the true law of the land in Honduras is the will of Obama.

by: braden18

11-04-2009 @ 4:45pm

Speaking as a USA citizen living in South America with many Colombian friends who have told me of the repression under Uribe's rule, while his changes to the constitution may have been within the legal framework, his wiretapping enemies, threatening people with job-loss for voting against him, and repressing churches and NGO's as agents of the left are hardly examples of a good, law-abiding ruler. Uribe gets a much better picture in the U.S. media (in general) than the vast majority of his citizens would paint.

by: braden18

11-04-2009 @ 4:45pm

Speaking as a USA citizen living in South America with many Colombian friends who have told me of the repression under Uribe's rule, while his changes to the constitution may have been within the legal framework, his wiretapping enemies, threatening people with job-loss for voting against him, and repressing churches and NGO's as agents of the left are hardly examples of a good, law-abiding ruler. Uribe gets a much better picture in the U.S. media (in general) than the vast majority of his citizens would paint.

by: BlueDeacon

11-04-2009 @ 6:17pm

Ni, it isn't -- that was his point. Besides, you do not commit immoral acts to thwart a lawbreaker lest you miss the point of the law.

by: BlueDeacon

11-04-2009 @ 6:17pm

Ni, it isn't -- that was his point. Besides, you do not commit immoral acts to thwart a lawbreaker lest you miss the point of the law.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 7:24pm

His point was that both men wanted a third term. My point is that Zelaya attempted it illegally Uribe did it legally We subverted the constituion and the legal and judicial authority of Honduras. I see no reference to immoral acts in the article, is this yet another predictable Rick red herring.

by: jeffp

11-04-2009 @ 7:24pm

His point was that both men wanted a third term. My point is that Zelaya attempted it illegally Uribe did it legally We subverted the constituion and the legal and judicial authority of Honduras. I see no reference to immoral acts in the article, is this yet another predictable Rick red herring.

by: BlueDeacon

11-05-2009 @ 12:20am

You miss the point. Just because one side is Machiavellian doesn't mean the
other side needs to be.

by: BlueDeacon

11-05-2009 @ 12:20am

You miss the point. Just because one side is Machiavellian doesn't mean the
other side needs to be.

by: Jesdisciple

11-05-2009 @ 5:11am

That difference is negligible. One country (almost) had its freedoms forcibly stolen and the other got tricked out of them.

by: Jesdisciple

11-05-2009 @ 5:11am

That difference is negligible. One country (almost) had its freedoms forcibly stolen and the other got tricked out of them.

by: jeffp

11-05-2009 @ 11:30am

The author asks if this is a double standard, clearly no. Some of you are sounding like anarchists (selective anarchists that is). Zelaya knowingly defied the constitution. He was playing chicken with the elected legislators and the justices. Either they were going to let him run roughshot over the law (becoming the law himself) or they were going to enforce the law. They enforced the law. Now we have Obama coming in to run roughshot over the law. The real takeover is from Obama admin. This looks like dress rehearsal for constitution questions here in the US.

by: jeffp

11-05-2009 @ 11:30am

The author asks if this is a double standard, clearly no. Some of you are sounding like anarchists (selective anarchists that is). Zelaya knowingly defied the constitution. He was playing chicken with the elected legislators and the justices. Either they were going to let him run roughshot over the law (becoming the law himself) or they were going to enforce the law. They enforced the law. Now we have Obama coming in to run roughshot over the law. The real takeover is from Obama admin. This looks like dress rehearsal for constitution questions here in the US.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 2:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 2:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 4:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.

by: andrewclouse

11-05-2009 @ 4:10pm

Thank you, Ryan. Really good questions.

One thing that has struck me through this Honduran political crisis is how easy it is to justify and explain corruption and illegal actions when they advance our particular ideology. But the precedent set by this coup could next time be used to justify corruption that is unfavorable to our personal ideology. For this reason it is important to seek the truth before making a judgement and not the other way around.