Another week, another revolution. This time the action finds itself a little closer to home in the Central American country of Honduras.
To cover the basics, the former president of Honduras, Jose Manuel Zelaya, made a bid to form a referendum allowing him to be president for life, a la Hugo Chavez. Zelaya ran into a problem though: Honduras’ constitution and its government, which didn’t allow for the president to make a constitutional rewrite. That power, as Mary O’Grady points out in the Wall Street Journal lays with the Honduran Congress.
The rest, as the saying goes, is history:
“But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.”
Zelaya continued his campaign, too:
“Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.“
The Organization of American States (OAS) issued a statement today, said Honduras has 72 hours to reinstate Zelaya, or face suspension from the group. The U.N. as well has taken the side of Zelaya, demanding his reinstatement as president of Honduras.
Zelaya had rushed to break Honduras’ system of checks-and-balances, and now that he lost, he has thrown a fit on an international scale. He has since argued that he would not seek to be re-elected or to extend his term if reinstated as president.
Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests that Obama and the Organization of American States (OAS) pay attention to this little quibble:
“Maybe the OAS, and especially the Obama administration, should take a look at that statement and consider it awhile. Honduras had legitimate reason to remove Zelaya from office, even if arguably they used illegitimate means to do so. Zelaya repeatedly violated the constitution of Honduras, first by attempting to hold the referendum, and second by illegally firing the chief of the Army, who reports to both the president and the legislature in Honduras.”
So is it a military coup if the military is acting on orders from the government which employs it?
No. In one of the very, very, very few areas where government is actually needed – the defense of the country, constitution and constitutional rights – the Honduran government actually did its job – even if its methods were a bit dated.
But perhaps the method used does deserve some historical scrutiny as Glenn Garvin writes for the Miami Herald:
“They may come to regret their decision. Honduras had a long and unpleasant history of military government in the 20th century, and perhaps the army will not march back into Pandora’s box and close the lid behind it so willingly.
But the initial signs are promising; the army, after getting rid of Zelaya, put congress in charge of choosing his replacement. Elections are still scheduled for November. Let’s see if the OAS and the United Nations and the Obama administration come back to take another snapshot then.”
If Iran is the template for what governments should not do – ignore its own constitution, lie to and intimidate its own citizens – then Honduras is the template for what governments should do: protect the constitution and the rights of its citizens.
As Fausta Wertz explains:
“This is in direct violation of the country’s Constitution, which forbids the President from calling for changes to the Constitution. Articles 373 and 374 of the Honduran Constitution specifically state that amendments [sic] to the Constitution be approved by 2/3 of the votes in Congress AND specifically forbid any President of the country from extending term limits. The Constitution also says these two articles can not be amended [sic].”
Reactions on the leftist blogs have been mixed, at best. Some, like Faith Simth at The Washington Note, sympathizes with the Honduran government, but expresses legitimate concern about the military’s influence:
“I always side with democracy. But in the immediate aftermath of this coup it’s difficult to say exactly which side is democratic. President Zelaya’s would be referendum was explicitly against the Honduran constitution, yet he insisted on moving ahead with the vote against the wishes of the nation’s Supreme Court, Congress, and military. Perhaps his power grab was buoyed by the success of his friend Hugo Chavez’ February referendum to end presidential term limits in Venezuela. Zelaya was certainly acting undemocratic, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to contain an overreaching leader; forcing him out of the country at gunpoint is certainly the wrong way. This is a tough call to make; one illegal act countered by another.”
However, the action taken by the Honduran military was completely legal. In fact, it was following orders given by the Honduran Supreme Court and both parties of the Congress.
Others, such as Counterpunch’s Alberto Thorensen, outright proclaim Zelaya as a modern day Prometheus:
“Currently, there is a tragedy being staged in the Central American republic Honduras. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity follows the events, as spectators of an outdated event in Latin America, which could set a very unfortunate undemocratic precedent for the region. In their rage, the almighty gods of Honduran politics have punished an aspiring titan, President Manuel Zelaya, for attempting to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. This generated a constitutional conflict that resulted in president Zelaya’s banishment and exile. In this tragedy, words are once again the healers of enraged minds. If we, the spectators, are not attentive to these words, we risk succumbing intellectually, willfully accepting the facts presented by the angry coup-makers and Honduran gods of politics.”
However, Dan Taylor, of the Huffington Post, triumphs the Honduran government’s actions, and is surprised at how little support the government has received by others:
“In reality, what has happened in Honduras has been a triumph for the rule of law and responsible action on the parts of those from both major parties who were adamantly opposed to Zelaya’s march towards becoming an old-style caudillo. The government and people of Honduras should be receiving plaudits, not condemnations from the civilized world. It is especially baffling as to why the USG would have moved so quickly to align itself with leaders who are distinctly unfriendly to it and are taking Latin America on a road that does not lead to freedom and democracy.”
While the Iranian Mullahs fight the people to keep a few in power, the Honduran military, Congress, and even the Supreme Court fight to prevent the president from amassing too much power.
But first you must assume that the president has power in his own country. As the OAS, U.N. and leaders of various other countries rush to illustrate, the power of Honduran politics doesn’t even rest within the country, setting a frightening precedent.
What’s being threatened is a country’s right to govern itself. The shameful precedent set by Chavez, Castro, the OSA, the U.N. and now Obama, proves that small countries are no longer allowed to be fully independent, but must conform to the whims of those who have friends in high places.
The Honduran government must tread lightly now that it has the attention of the international community. The promises of holding democratic elections in November must pull through – the next few weeks will prove if a third-world country can successfully practice its own independence.
