So, this past week we’ve been inundated with news about
Ashamed as I am to say it, I’ve grown extraordinarily frustrated and jaded. Yes, 24 and jaded; sad, no? World events don’t quite affect me like they used to. But for some reason this did, which is weird because I’ve never been there, nor do I have friends or family who currently live there. I suppose to a certain extent it’s because in the past I’ve worked on projects in various parts of
The purpose of this entry is not to give a play-by-play analysis of the events following Sunday; my good friend Fausta has written what is, by far, the best summary and analysis in English on this. If you haven’t read her entries, stop reading this right now and go check out what she has to say. (See here, here, here, and here.) For someone's perspective who is living in Honduras, see here. Rather, I want to focus a bit on several aspects of the issue of
Now, like most things in the international arena, events tend to become politicized and key details are often lost in the weeds. In the case of Honduras, a country followed by very few prior to Sunday afternoon, the lack of background information and historical and political context certainly did not help political pundits have a complete idea as to what was really going on in the period prior to Zelaya’s ousting. In this instance, I think said lack of information can greatly distort, or at the very least be a huge detriment, in understanding what happened and its repercussions.
Full disclosure: I am not a student of Honduran history, political or otherwise. However, working on projects in the country has permitted me to study the country’s political dynamics perhaps more than the average Joe.
Mel and his opposition: actions and their consequences
Nearing the end of his presidential term, Mel Zelaya casually suggested the use of a poll which would ask the question if a cuarta urna, a fourth ballot box, could be used to determine if presidential term limits could be removed, permitting re-election, as a referendum question on the 29 November 2009 presidential elections. (Note: the way the non-binding poll was packaged and presented, it would be benign, merely gauging the pueblo’s feeling as to if the cuarta urna could be included.) Following the transition back to democracy, Latin American constitutions went to great pains to limit the number of terms a president could be in power; wounds left by dictatorships lead by the military or other caudillos (strongmen) were still fresh. The Honduran constitution went beyond what most other constitutions stipulated: the article prohibiting presidential re-election is known as an articulo petreo, which essentially translates to an article set in stone; that is to say, it cannot be changed. However, following the lead of his fellow ALBA members, constitutionality was a mere suggestion in Zelaya’s mind, and he continued to push the issue among the Honduran polity. Given that
Fast forward to 2009: Honduras has become somewhat of an anomaly in the region (in a good way) in the sense that not only is there separation of powers between the governmental institutions, but the people are not overly averse to the military, despite its role in the country’s tumultuous past. The Supreme Court ruled that Mel’s proposal to hold a poll was unconstitutional, and forbade that it take place. The Honduran Congress and members of the National and Liberal parties agreed with the Supreme Court and did not support Mel’s poll. (Note: Mel is a member of the Liberal party; members of his party were vehemently against this poll.) In typical Latin American fashion, when all else fails, go to the military and see if you can get them on your side to push through your agenda. The problem, if it might be called that, is that
Now is where things could get a bit hazy, particularly if you’re relying just on US media outlets. The way some have described Sunday morning, you would think that what happened was akin to Pinochet’s military coup d’etat against Salvador Allende in 1973
But was this a military coup, in the Latin American sense? I would argue no. Sure, the military was initially the most visible element, as members of the Armed Forces were those who presented Zelaya with the court order and removed him from him home, but this wasn’t Vasquez Velasquez’s revenge. At no point did the Honduran military become the government, and as far as I can tell based on reading news and information from my contacts in Honduras and other Central American countries, that was never their intent. Wonkish as it sounds, I would be more inclined to call it a constitutional coup. The Honduran Congress then took what they felt, according to the constitution, to be the appropriate measures of removing Zelaya (the Honduran constitution does not have a provision for impeachment as the
All right, so there’s a brief overview of Sunday. Before going any further, I want to point out the politicization of this day. I am very disturbed how many pundits on both the left and right are letting their personal politics get in the way of common sense. Some will immediately condemn this, because a democratically elected – notice I did not say a democratically behaving – leader was removed from his position as president. They completely disregard, or are at the very least willingly ignorant, to the fact that Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution, and when the institutional checks moved to restrain executive power, he thought himself above the law, a la Chávez, and moved to push through his initiative. “But he is a popularly elected leader!” some cry. Yes; so were many of history’s despots, but I would be hard-pressed to find many people who defend some of the most notorious… On the other hand, there are those who immediately praise Zelaya’s ousting because they do not agree with his politics or because they see him to be a Chávez puppet. While I personally believe both are true, because the Honduran institutions are truly separate and the constitution provides for mechanisms to remove a seated president, I am not entirely sure that the opposition to Zelaya carried out his removal in the best way. Ideally, he would have been removed and tried by the court system, and not given an opportunity to leave the country, but hindsight is 20/20. The most severe consequence of this is almost Orwellian in nature, where authoritarian Hugo Chávez is being hailed as a democrat because his opinion coincides with that of the OAS (which is, IMHO, on par with the uselessness of the UN) and other international bodies and governments. This emboldening of Chávez has certainly bolstered his ego – as if he needs it – and lent credibility to his position, as it is shared by every government in the world, save Taiwan.
Outside looking in
Given that we live in a globalized world in which 24-hour news networks grow more dominant in our society, nothing exists in a vacuum. In some respects, this can be a blessing, as few people in the world can claim ignorance on world events; on the other hand, it can be somewhat of a curse, as the bombardment of information can be overwhelming. Said bombardment, however, allows us to see the myriad opinions of many world leaders in a 45-second news clip. The reaction to the events in
Hugo Chávez
Where to start with Chávez… His declarations should come as no surprises whatsoever to anyone who has functioning neurons. What might be a bit more surprising, though, is the shameless spin and hypocrisy of his statements, and the way international organizations were swift to agree with them. For those of us who follow
OAS and Insulza
I don’t care for the OAS. At all. The best friend and I joke that the OAS building in DC would make lovely apartments, which would certainly be much better use than what it currently functions as. While perhaps noble in its early period, the OAS has become a club of governments, and indeed, behave as such. Similar to the chavista attitude colored by hypocrisy, the OAS, led by Insulza, routinely overlook political situations which violate the Inter-American Democratic Charter in countries which such a pronunciation against the leader might not be viewed as being politically correct or beneficial. One needn’t look beyond Insulza’s behavior: once he realized he would not receive the Chilean presidential nomination for
Barack Obama
Now, I am not a huge fan of the vast majority of Obama’s policies. There are several fundamental problems which I think need to be addressed. First, his statements put an excessive emphasis on the fact that Zelaya was democratically elected, but do not at all discuss the way in which, as late (particularly following Honduras joining ALBA), Zelaya has hardly behaved like a democrat. Democracy is not just about being elected; the essence of democracy is what happens between elections. Is constitutionality upheld? Is the Rule of Law respected? Are minority and/or opposition rights respected? Is there freedom of expression/press/religion/speech? This once again proves to me that the Obama administration has no Latin America strategy; Restrepo has certainly not lived to any expectations many in
For such men and institutions who constantly remind us of the need for national sovereignty and self-determination, I find it extraordinarily curious – especially in the case of Chávez – that his will seems to supersede the will of the Honduran people when it comes to the Honduran government and its functions. Has political correctness become kowtowing, signifying that citizens are now to be beholding to the will of impotent and highly politicized international organizations? If that is the case, the reaction to
