More On Honduras
Posted on June 30th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Don’t weep for Manuel Zelaya. It is the country he has so irresponsibly thrown into chaos that deserves our sympathy. Via Andrew, a Honduran blogger’s perspective:
I’ve yet to see more than one reporter reporting from INSIDE Honduras. So of course, with Zelaya in Nicaragua, his UN and OAS ambassadors still in place and his people calling out from other countries, of course everyone is making him out to be a martyr. He’s not. Really, people have to remember that this man had rejected the orders of Congress and the SUPREME COURT to stop his survey and had ignored them. The man was outside the law. Again, the coup was bad, but probably the only way out. This man was NOT blameless. Stop making him look like a martyr and a hero.
The same blogger has another post clarifying his original remarks. His view is that the coup was a mistake, but it was Zelaya who took Honduras over the cliff with his confrontational moves. The remarkable thing about Zelaya’s deposition is that he had managed to turn the entire legislative branch against him regardless of party. Heather Berkman of Eurasia Group explains how politically isolated Zelaya was and why:
“His own political party, his former vice president — they were all against the actions he was doing,” Berkman said. “No one knew how much he was spending. He had no coherent budget policy and his government was doing a terrible job on combatting rising poverty, crime, things like that.”
So Zelaya was evidently incompetent, power-hungry and engaged in violations of their constitution. Clearly, he is the ideal democrat. Here is more from a Daily Kos diarist who provides some additional information. So, yes, it appears that Washington and the OAS have jumped to the wrong conclusion and have handled this crisis in Honduras poorly.
Update: Here is an informative post from Juan Carlos Hidalgo at Cato@Liberty. Here is some interesting commentary on the history of the Honduran military. Via Fausta’s Blog, some groups of Hondurans living abroad have endorsed the removal of Zelaya. Tom Palmer has more.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Continuing the discussion from the previous post, I took a look at the Honduran constitution last night, and I did not find any provision for impeachment, although the document was long and I had no index to work with. I believe impeachment is rather rare in Latin American countries.
That said, if the entire legislature was indeed opposed to Zumaya continuing in office, there must have been some legal means to effect his removal. Perhaps amending the constitution to allow removal of an executive then implementing it. Failing that, I would consider a near-unanimous vote by the legislature for Zumaya’s removal and, if possible, approval by the Supreme Tribunal, sufficient even if technically illegal, as representing the will of the popular sovereign.
As it stands, however, we have a democratically elected representative removed by a military junta. I see no way in which that can be characterized as an expression of the sovereign will of the people.
I guess a good thought experiment would be such: can one ever think of a scenario in which the military is justified in removing the chief executive?
Zelaya failed at governing and had to go. Better a very quick change of power with the help of the military, than a long-drawn out term of bungling, just so that Americans can feel good about “democracy in Latin America.”
Additionally, I think Obama’s feeling the heat over his position in Iran. I think that he sees the Honduran situation as a good chance to appease some of his foreign policy critics, and will act on it, sadly.
Democracy is whatever the document says, and has no relation whatsoever to the desires of the majority.
I await more concurrence from the wealthy, elite and their instruments.
The UN came out unanimously (!) for Zelaya’s reinstatement. I guess that means I’m against it.
Evidently, there is a provision for impeachment, and their legislature was beginning the process, but Zelaya’s provocation with the crowd triggered the call for his deposition. On reflection, I am willing to grant that bringing in the military was an overreaction, but everything I have seen indicates that Zelaya was engaged in pretty grossly unconstitutional activities for his own benefit. He was openly conspiring against their fundamental law, and the military officers have sworn to protect that law. Zelaya’s opponents seem to be mostly guilty of haste and panic. Zelaya is a less-talented Venizelos of Latin America: he plunges his country into chaos and nonetheless wins the plaudits of the entire world as some sort of shining beacon of freedom. I may have overstated the case in favor of his opponents, but I don’t see how anyone defends this joker.
This entire business has been interesting in how it reveals what people consider most important in government. If majoritarianism and a populist demagogue threaten constitutional government, it seems that a lot of people will go for the former. That is, of course, unless it happens in Iran, where illegal behavior by the president is considered by all to be absolutely intolerable.
What law was broken exactly? He called for a binding referendum, their SC ruled against it. So he called for a non-binding referendum. Not only that, but it wasn’t even a referendum on a new constitution, but on whether a constitutional convention should be convened.
At any rate, if a constitutional government doesn’t have sufficient provisions for its own alteration, then naming a call to change a constitution “illegal” is only definitional and formal, and doesn’t address the fundamental issues. If the fundamental law is that there be no change to the fundamental law, then it’s a nonsense law.
It is no surprise that “a lot of people will go for [threatening the constitutional government” if that’s what people want. If people want to scrap their constitution and write a new one, they have every right to do so. Wouldn’t you rather have them do it through some sort of negotiation mechanism like a referenda/constitutional convention process than outright insurrection?
If he was as unpopular and unlikable as your commenters suggest, and/or if people are happy with their Constitution, then he’d lose the referendum and that would be that. Unfortunately the military, not Zelaya, has turned it into a contest of force.
I enjoy your blog, and you’re normally very astute, but you’re way off base here.
Countries whose majorities have never had much of a voice could use a little majoritarianism. The executive of Honduras changed to a non-binding referendum and the Legislature passed a new law last week to make that illegal, then got the military to toss a Democratically Elected Leader out in his PJs.
IMHO, we could all do with a little less Chavez (or Ahmedinejad) Derangment Syndrome.
As much as I don’t like them, the majority in Iran should decide their fate, and there’s zero evidence those in the street represent a majority.
According to this and this, he definitely broke the law when he ordered the military to carry out his poll and then when he unilaterally dismissed the head of the army, which is a power that is apparently vested in the legislative branch and can only be carried out by super-majority. It was Zelaya who provoked the contest with the army.
“IMHO, we could all do with a little less Chavez (or Ahmedinejad) Derangment Syndrome.”
Quite true. I don’t much care about Zelaya’s policy proposals or his ties to Chavez. Chavez’s influence in the region is always exaggerated. For that matter, I don’t much care if a majority of Hondurans wanted to rewrite their constitution to create the so-called “particpatory democracy.” Even if I think imitating Chavista policies will do Honduras no good, that is their business. What does seem clear is that Zelaya is a power-hungry, law-breaking executive, and he has been dealt with by his countrymen accordingly. If he still commands majority support, I would use this as another example of how easily majoritarian democracy can start sliding into democratic despotism and eventually authoritarianism.
Actually, now that I have glanced through a link I provided elsewhere, it appears that there are certain constitutional provisions enumerated in Title VII which their Constitution says _cannot_ be amended, including the term of the President’s office and the prohibition of his re-election. It seems to me that this would make Zelaya’s proposed “referendum”…..whether binding or non-binding….to be a very hot-button issue to the other branches of govt..
“No re-election” is a big deal in a number of Latin American countries, as a result of sad experiences.
Populist caudillismo is more picturesque than effective, and it can get nasty, but as vicious political systems go, there are far worse.
Who is more of an infeliz, W or Chávez? Which has harmed his country more. Pay yer money and take yer choice.
A constitution with a four-year presidential term-limit that is incapable of amendment strikes you as a democratic document? A constitution that “explicitly forbids holding referendums — let alone an unsanctioned “popular consultation” — to amend it” falls in the same category?
Obviously someone wanted some protections against caudillismo. Equally obviously all those protections benefit a ruling elite, or as FP put it:
“Unsurprisingly, the president’s idea met with resistance from Congress, nearly all political parties (including his own), the press, the business community, electoral authorities, and, crucially, the Supreme Court, which deemed the whole endeavor illegal.”
Honestly, which sectors of society stand to benefit when term limits are so short that no reform can be made? Its a recipe for the status quo. If the elite becomes predatory or dysfunctional, what’s the remedy? There isn’t one, its illegal.
Zelaya gave an illegal order to a general to step down. So clearly the general wasn’t bound to obey it. The logical thing to do is disobey, which he did. Then he was fired and then reinstated by the SC. He provoked a contest, they won. So where is the need to kidnap him? If they were so secure in the legitimacy of their position, and the illegitimacy of Zelaya’s orders, why take him out of the country?
I’m not saying Zelaya has anyone’s interests other than his own at heart, but the law in this case is plainly absurd. Condemning him for breaking the law against referenda is an empty formalism. You don’t have a “society of laws not men” when the laws privilege a handful of men over the rest. So he can’t be accused of trashing the “society of laws” with any justice.
Thanks Grumpy Old Man….I wasn’t aware that the prohibition on re-election was quite so widespread, but I see from the morning paper that I just haven’t been paying attention to the constitutions of these countries. I’m afraid that I have developed the habit of regarding South American constitutions as toothless scraps of paper….”empty formalisms”, if you will.
In my youth, I was much more Jeffersonian about these things. But I no longer fetishize the democratic impulse as much as I once did and I think everyone recognizes that the South American experience with republican democracy has been, on balance, pretty bad….though much better for the last twenty years or so.
As to term limits being for too short a time frame to accomplish much, well, Reagan felt the same way and I think we can all guess what Clinton would say. Would everyone feel comfortable allowing Obama or, God Help Us, Bush a shot at a cozy FDR-style sixteen years in office? Or maybe just an extra – heapin’ helpin’ of emergency powers.
Honduras apparently chose to enshrine some pretty sharp anti-democratic features in it’s constitution from a nicely honed distrust of human nature and the character of populist fervor. I might disagree but it doesn’t seem to me to necessarily irrational or oppressive in conception.