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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"No, what matters is the law."

No, what matters is people.

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

Wow! Tell that to the people of Darfur!

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.

apples and oranges dear fellow... honduras is not darfur. only the slaughter of innocents calls for interference. that is not happening in honduras according to a friend of mine who runs a school there.

"only the slaughter of innocents calls for interference."

first, I'm sorry to break news to you but the US has been interfering in Latin American politics long before you & I were born, with or without slaughters.

Second, I agree with you when you said that: "it's not up to america to bless or to curse the politics of Honduras". No problem with that.

However, I disagree with the alternative you propose which is , "mind our own business..." I think this is a sweeping statement not applicable to most of the situations in the world. That's is why I bring the Darfur example. "Minding our own business" is not change. It's rather the status quo!

Third, I'm glad that your friend, who runs a school in Honduras, have not witnessed or experienced the slaughter of innocents. Does that means that your friend's experience speaks for ~ 8 million people in Honduras? If you believe so, then you are right; "you should mind your own business"

Stein, Zelaya was NOT deposed because the military did not like him. The military carried out a legitimate order to arrest Zelaya, and then botched it by illegally sending him out of the country instead of taking him to jail to be tried for the crimes with which he was being charged.

You are saying people abstained in the elections because they feel that their vote wouldn't matter because the powers that be might just depose the one they elect on a whim. But this completely overlooks the peculiar circumstances that led to Zelaya's ouster, namely, the egregious behavior of Zelaya in disrespecting other branches of government, even to the point of leading a violent mob to storm a military facility to recover confiscated ballots for a vote that had been declared illegal by Honduras's democratic institutions.

The sad and multi-faceted truth, as I see it, is that untoward precedents will be set no matter what is done at this point. Yet Sojourners is seeing this matter very one-sidedly, and there has been NO discussion of which precedents are the ones we should worry about the most. There were irregularities in what occurred in June, and these should be investigated and dealt with. But to fail to recognize these elections will set a dangerous precedent that will encourage renegade presidents to abuse their position and put democratic governments at risk in the future.

By the way, anybody who would like to see the Honduran Congress's deliberations in progress (I'm writing at 4:23 p.m. Honduran time) may do so at http://www.telecatracha.com/2009/09/ten-canal-1... .

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.

apples and oranges dear fellow... honduras is not darfur. only the slaughter of innocents calls for interference. that is not happening in honduras according to a friend of mine who runs a school there.

Lets look at the Military Aid. Honduras is close to one of the Most meddlesome countries in Latin America, one run by Mr. Chavez who funds Rebel and Leftest groups in the area. Remember him complaining about our deal with Columbia I have to wonder how much was to rail against the Yankee American and how much was due to it hurting FARC. Becareful before you casts stones since one might just get fling back at you.

Hondours had an election with none of the Coup leaders on it. Question is do we respect it or do we demand they rehold elections until a canidate of our liking wins??? That is much more interfence in the Country than I want.

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.

Sorry, but just for the record: #1 the reason why Oscar Arias called the Honduras constitution the "worst constitution" in the New World is precisely because it has no mechanism for amendments, for impeachment, or for any reasonable interpretation. Can you imagine our constitution without its first 10 ("Bill of Rights") amendments??? #2 also, for the record, the stated provocation for the coup which removed the democratically-elected leader of Honduras was his having obtained ballots to conduct a survey (not even a referendum: a non-binding survey) to determine whether a majority of voters would agree that it was lawful for a sitting president to campaign for one (and only one) re-election. Finally, #3 for the record, NOBODY (!) has asked the United States to intervene militarily or in any way in the affairs of Honduras. The United States, as a nation, stopped providing Honduras with military aid after the coup, expressed its disapproval of the coup, and denied visas to the coup authors. Most of the democratically elected countries of the world agree that the US should not restore military aid to that country until there is some evidence (beyond an election controlled 100% by the persons who conducted the coup) that democratic rule has been restored. Honduras is under no foreign threat that would justify the United States using our tax dollars to prop up their armed forces. At no time has the United States interrupted the millions of dollars of humanitarian aid that this country enjoys. Only MILITARY aid was interrupted by the Obama administration, because it is a scandal for our country to be propping up a military that removed an elected president from office. I just can't see any earthly reason why we should be providing military aid to the Honduras armed forces at this point. But seriously, folks, NOBODY will accept another US invasion of a Latin American country... particularly the American people... no matter who is innocent or being slaughtered ;) count on it.

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.

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.

"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.

Lets look at the Military Aid. Honduras is close to one of the Most meddlesome countries in Latin America, one run by Mr. Chavez who funds Rebel and Leftest groups in the area. Remember him complaining about our deal with Columbia I have to wonder how much was to rail against the Yankee American and how much was due to it hurting FARC. Becareful before you casts stones since one might just get fling back at you.

Hondours had an election with none of the Coup leaders on it. Question is do we respect it or do we demand they rehold elections until a canidate of our liking wins??? That is much more interfence in the Country than I want.