Honduras And The Cult Of The Presidency
Posted on July 3rd, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Even so, there is no evidence of Hondurans clamouring for the president’s return with anything like the enthusiasm of outsiders. ~The Economist
This much has been clear. Al Giordano can whine about statements from the “Oligarchic Diaspora” to his heart’s content–it doesn’t make the transitional government’s actions any less popular, nor does it change the overwhelming consensus of the Honduran political and military leadership that he had to be removed from power. We have seen in many “color” revolutions that the “pro-Western” or “pro-American” faction in other countries is often more oligarchic and has a much narrower social base than its opponents. Naturally, those are the causes that Westerners have embraced wholeheartedly, including during the Iranian protests. Today we have the spectacle of the world united in support of the cause of a disgraced cattle baron with 25% support who allies himself with Hugo Chavez, and they call that support for democracy.
One of the dangers of any sudden change in who holds political power, be it a coup or revolution, is that it does not necessarily reflect public opinion and has not been done with the consent of the majority. Worse than any simply legal violation, it can damage the social and political fabric of the country, and it can tear at the organic constitution that has grown up over time. As a result, the sudden change creates upheaval and conflict in the country, and introduces bitter divisions that can lead to cycles of violent resistance and reprisal. If the change is violent, as if often is, it can radicalize the entire society and make future political compromise impossible. However, what we have seen in Honduras does not fit these descriptions at all. Somehow the deposition of a wildly unpopular, law-breaking president has been declared anti-democratic. I would have thought that only Cheney-like presidential cultists could so closely identify the substance of democracy with the element in modern republican government that is most monarchical, but I would be wrong about that.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
5 Responses to “Honduras And The Cult Of The Presidency”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
However, what we have seen in Honduras does not fit these descriptions at all.
Do we actually know that? Short of being from the Honduran street, this seems to be the kind of long-distance viewing Sullivan propped up to describe Iranian protesters as some sort of potent revolutionary force.
While this is speculative, I do find it interesting that the newly sworn in President has indicated he may ask for elections to be held sooner. I wonder if he will run election in it, and if so, how could anyone defend this coup as anything but taking advantage of a situation to further his own political ambitions. I have no doubt, from what people have pointed out, that Zelaya was acting illegally; but that doesn’t make his opponents some saints for law and order. What will eventually transpire will bear us out one way or another.
I think the thread running through Obama’s policies is the repetition of popular, elite liberal causes from the 1980s, when “US Out of El Salvador” was the rallying cry. This seems to explain
a) his desire to massively expand all government spending while also demanding a cut in the DoD budget;
b) his nuclear freeze and disarmament overtures, where the issue of today is nuclear proliferation to psychopathic nations like North Korea;
c) his feelings of solidarity with the “anti-imperialist” forces in Iran and Venezuela; and
c) his deep confusion about how populist, leftists like Castro and Chavez and Zelaya are the bad guys in Latin American politics, and the US was on the right side in the Cold War in siding with guys like Pinochet and groups like the Contras.
I doubt very seriously that Obama thinks that Pinochet and the Contras were in the wrong. Also, while Chavez and others are populists in the Peron mold, Castro was and is a Leninist who just poses as populist.
a) his desire to massively expand all government spending while also demanding a cut in the DoD budget;
You just sound ridiculous when you say this. If by “cutting the budget” you mean “not raising” the budget by a arbitrary number that indicates American strength. The Pentagon budget is the largest its ever been, and the guy is increasing the number of troops in the military. You are either an idiot or a liar.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the post since you can’t even seem to get facts correct.
There is an interesting cognitive dissonance going among those who have averred that Zelaya was such a clear and present danger to Honduran civil liberties that his overthrow by the military (as opposed to the civilian government) was both necessary and justified, given the picture painted by same people of a man who had almost no political support among the military, the legislature, the business community, or the populace at large. Even strong men need a base of support. If Zelaya were universally despised, it’s hard to see how he could pose a threat, or garner himself an illegal second term, which was purportedly his object, referendum or no referendum.