Populist, But Not Popular
According to Mexican pollster Mitofsky’s April survey, Zelaya was Latin America’s least popular leader. Only 25 percent of the nation supported him. Another survey found that 67 percent of Hondurans would never vote for him again. Why? Because the Hondurans attributed to him a deep level of corruption; because they assumed he had links to drug trafficking, especially drugs originating in Venezuela, as former U.S. Ambassador to the O.A.S. Roger Noriega revealed in a well-documented article published in his blog; and because violence and poverty — the nation’s two worst scourges — have increased dramatically during his three years in power.
Simply put, a huge majority of the country — including the two major political parties (including Zelaya’s), the Christian churches, the other branches of government and the armed forces — do not want him as president. ~Carlos Alberto Montaner
Does it really make any sense to say that the collective response of all of the country’s political institutions to remove Zelaya from power, which reflected an overwhelming majority consensus of the population, resulted in an attack on democracy? What would its defense look like? It would be one thing to say that Zelaya should return to restore social peace because he still has broad support from much of the country, but this is not the case. He broke the law and most people there are sick of him. It’s all very well to say that the Honduran government should have handled things better, but what would bringing Zelaya back into the country and back into office do except exacerbate political tensions and increase the chance of civil strife? That is what the U.N. and OAS (and Washington as a member of both) are demanding Honduras do, and it doesn’t make sense.
I think you know the answer to these questions. Obviously Zelaya was about as unpopular as Bush during his later second term. But the democratic response to unpopular Presidents is to either not support their programs, legislate against them, not re-elect them (impossible in Honduras anyway), and if there is a constitutional mechanism for it, legally remove them from office. The non-democratic response is to bring in the army and stage a coup to force him out of the country in his pajamas. Isn’t this obvious? If Democrats in 2008 had called for the miltiary to remove unpopular President Bush from office and replaced him with Nancy Pelosi, would you consider that a part of the democratic process? Would you not worry just a bit about the constitutional violations it represented, and the precedent it would set? Wouldn’t the democratic correction for this be to re-install Bush as President to serve out the remainder of his term, or legally impeach him? What is so difficult to understand about the democratic process, that you can’t differentiate it from n extra-legal militaristic process? Why don’t you understand how touchy people in Latin America are about such things? We certainly would be if our government had acted in a similar fashion.
Of course, we have an impeachment option, and we have exercised it twice in our history. Evidently, they didn’t have that option. Their constitution created a very strong presidency that was constrained only by term limits, which means that once that constraint is threatened there is apparently no procedural remedy available to them. That’s a flaw in their system, but when the vast majority is opposed to the president and all of the country’s institutions virtually unanimously view him as a threat to the constitution I don’t see how removing him can credibly be called “anti-democratic.” If it’s also not illegal, as all of their leaders and judges keep insisting it isn’t, Zelaya’s defenders have no leg to stand on. The claim that the world is punishing Honduras in the name of democracy is superficially plausible, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
I had the impression earlier this week that impeachment was available to them, but I have since seen numerous new reports saying this is not the case. That seems to me to make a great deal of difference between here and there. Why don’t you care that most Hondurans are not troubled by what has happened? It is their country. The rest of Latin America should mind its own business, and so should we.
I too am under the impression that impeachment isn’t possible in Honduras. And yet, unless Zelaya actually represented a serious threat to the country, the democratic thing to do would be to wait out the next year and elect a new President. The strange thing is, Zelaya seems to have been deposed because he wanted to have a popular referendum, which I gather goes against the Constitution. And yet, deposing Zelalya goes against the Constitution, in a much worse way than merely proposing a popular referendum. So even on that score the coup makers were far worse violaters of the Constitution than Zelaya. The cure was worse than the disease. If they felt it was so important to get Zelaya out, why not amend the Constitution? If they can’t amend the Constitution, they shouldn’t violate it, because that’s the very principle they were supposedly protecting – not amending the Constitution. It’s quite a strange logic box to inhabit.
Actually, I am pleased in one respect that most Hondurans don’t much care about Zelaya’s being deposed. It does not appear to be causing a civil war or some such uprising. But I’m not pleased that they are taking this military coup for granted as a normal way of conducting politics. Zelaya himself was not causing anything harmful to the country, only turmoil inside the oligarchy. Aside from merely being unpopular, he was not trying to seize control of the government and install himself as dictator or anything remotely like that. So it’s not a good precedent at all. It’s not how democracies work. I think it’s rather obvious that Honduras needs to re-write its Constitution to include an impeachment provision – which is oddly enough the very thing Zelaya was advocating, that got him into so much trouble (proposals to amend the constitution).
As for the rest of the world minding its own business, how hypocritical is that? You have spent many posts commenting on this matter, and yet you want everyone else to shut up about it? It’s one thing, I think, to argue restraint in action, but to suggest that people not even comment about what happens in other countries is an absurdity, especially coming from someone who spends much of his day writing about what happens in other countries. If you actually just minded your own business, you wouldn’t have a blog here. So what is it, are you retiring from blogging? It would be a shame, of course, but at least you would be minding your own business.
I wouldn’t be writing about this at all if the rest of the world were minding its own business. I don’t really want to be spending all of my time discussing the intricacies of Honduran political life. I would rather that we paid as little attention as possible to the internal affairs of other countries, and it would be wonderful if we stopped acting as if they mattered to us. I could find something else to write about. I find myself drawn to writing about these things because we are always inserting ourselves into them, or at least there is always constant pressure to do so, and because all of the people advocating for interference never shut up about them. These people also have an annoying knack for getting things wrong quite often, so someone has to offer an alternative. I would be perfectly happy writing about theology or domestic politics or just about anything else. So, here’s a deal: we can stop telling everyone else how to run their countries, dismantle the empire and cease provoking other nations’ hostility, and I’ll write about something else.
Bravo Daniel! An executive who who usurps the power of the Legislature and Judiciary sets a dangerous example, an example that must be addressed if it is not to become precedent.
It’s worth noting that the Honduran military showed no interest in establishing a dictatorship of their own.
I hope you understand I was being facetious about your own commentary. I love your writings about other countries, even when I disagree about them. I just hope you realize how silly it is to say that no one should care about what goes on in other countries. It’s one of the most natural of human interests, and its why I gather you know so much about what goes on in other countries. Maybe Honduras isn’t your favorite subject of study, but clearly you didn’t get a Ph.D. in Byzantine studies because you were minding your own business. You seem addicted as anyone to following the news cycle, which is almost entirely about other people’s business. You may have a political philosophy of non-interference, which I can respect in general but disagree with in some particulars, but you clearly have an intellectual interest in other people’s business, or you wouldn’t be interested in politics and international news at all. And don’t pretend your only interest in these things is in telling people they shouldn’t be interested in these things. You’re as addicted as anyone to being very interested in things that aren’t properly your own business.
As for dismantling the Empire, what business is that of yours, really? If you were really minding your own business, what would you care what the Empire was doing? “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” You are only interested in dismantling Empire because you care about what Empire does to other people. Which is a good thing, I think, but it doesn’t allow you to argue that we should mind our own business. Being social and poltiical animals, we are all constantly minding one another’s business. Not always wisely, of course, and that’s worth addressing too, as you try to, but it’s also necessary to be aware of what others are doing, and not turn a blind eye to it. Social pressure is a part of the traditional world also. In this case, the coup makers are being shunned by the world as a form of social pressure because they have violated a traditional tenet of democracy. That’s how communities work, even international communities. A conservative should understand that.
Hey people, how ’bout taking a look at the Honduran Constitution? It’s available in Spanish at this address:
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html. Some highlights and my quick translations (I couldn’t find an official English translation):
Let’s see:
“ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
. . .
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República”
ARTICLE 42 – Citizenship is lost:
5. Through inciting, promoting or supporting the continuity or reelection of the President of the Republic
- – that is, Zelaya lost his citizenship automatically when he began his bid for reelection – -
“ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública”
ARTICLE 239. The citizen that has held the titularity of the Executive Power cannot be President or Vice-President of the Republic. He who breaks this article or proposes its reform, as well as those who would support him directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their offices and will be prohibited of holding any public office for ten years.
- – that is, Zelaya ceased being president automatically when he began his bid for reelection – -
“ARTICULO 278.- Las órdenes que imparta el Presidente de la República deberán ser acatadas y ejecutadas con apego a la Constitución de la República y a los principios de legalidad, disciplina y profesionalismo militar. ”
ARTICLE 278. The orders of the President of the Republic must be obeyed and executed with regard to the Constitution of the Republic and the principles of legality, discipline and military professionalism.
- – that is, the Armed Forces were forbidden from obeying an illegal order, i.e., the one to organize Zelaya’s referendum, declared illegal by the Supreme Court – -
“ARTICULO 272.- Las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras, son una Institución Nacional de carácter permanente, esencialmente profesional, apolítica, obediente y no deliberante.
Se constituyen para defender la integridad territorial y la soberanía de la República, mantener la paz, el orden público y el imperio de la Constitución, los principios de libre sufragio y la alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la República”
ARTICLE 272. The Honduran Armed Forces are a permanent national institution, in essence professional, apolitical, obedient and non-deliberative. They are constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to keep the peace, public order and the supremacy of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and the alternation in the office of the President.
— that is, the Honduran Armed Forces had a constitutional mandate to remove Zelaya once he began his bid for reelection – -
Finally,
“ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente”
ARTICLE 374. It will not be permitted in any circumstances whatsoever to reform the previous article [which deals with the parliamentary procedure for constitutional reform], the present article, and the articles regarding the system of government, national territory, the presidential term, and the prohibition of presidencial reelection” &c. [I left out the ending].
It is being reported that the Supreme Court gave a sealed order to the military commanders to remove Zelaya if he went on with his referendum on Sunday, which the court had ruled illegal. (Which, as you can see from the above, it obviously was). Articles 182-184, which I will not bother to translate, specify that the President has no authority to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court. The commanders tried to reason with Zelaya, but instead of backing down, he ordered the armed forces themselves to organize the referendum logistically, since other government institution had already refused to do so. The armed forces overthrew him and passed the power to the next-in-line Constitutional successor, as they should.
As for dismantling the Empire, what business is that of yours, really? If you were really minding your own business, what would you care what the Empire was doing?
The answer is rather obvious. Trying to trap Dr. Larison with a claim of inconsistency is not going to work.
Thanks t.u.d.
t.u.d.,
But Zelaya didn’t run for re-election. So he didn’t lose his citizenship. So he didn’t lose his Presidency. So the coup was illegal.
conradg,
He didn’t have to. Re-read the relevant articles of the Constitution. Article 42, for instance, says that one loses one’s citizenship through “inciting, promoting or supporting the continuity or reelection of the President of the Republic” – and I guess any reasonable definition of “inciting, promoting or supporting” would include preparing a referendum on the issue, even more so after said referendum is declared illegal by the Supreme Court, and even even even more so if there is an article in the Constitution which says this disposition (prohibition of reelection) is insusceptible of reform.
I think the most obvious thing about the Honduran constitution is its commitment to avoid caudillismo through a complete prohibition of reelection. Obviously, this preoccupation exists precisely because Honduran history is full of “Zelayas”. The Honduran crisis is just one more proof that one cannot overcome shortcomings caused by an underdeveloped socioeconomic and political structure through pieces of paper. That doesn’t make it any less true that Zelaya knew what he was doing and that he was bringing his country to the brink of disaster. Had he been a statesman really worried about the “Honduran poor” and whatever, he would have groomed a suitable successor, even if only a figurehead enabling him (Zelaya) to rule from behind the scenes. If only he had followed Putin’s example and not Chávez’s, all this could have been avoided.
I offer no defense of Zelaya as a political leader, but it’s very clear that he was very careful not to violate the constitutional provisions mentioned. Likewise, even if he did violate them, there’s no legal provision for the removal of the President.
But even more important, don’t these provisions in the Constitution seem rather insane? I mean, sure, it’s fine to make a second term illegal, to make it impossible to change this provision of the Constitution. But to declare anyone who even suggests this kind of reform is no longer even a citizen, and immediately deport them from the country? Doesn’t that seem a bit insane to you? It’s certainly anti-democratic. It’s also far from clear that Zelaya actually violated these provisions. He was certainly aware of them, and tried his best to skirt around them. Even so, what chance did he even represent to enact any kind of reform, given how unpopular he was? As Daniel points out, he was a very unpopular populist, so what real threat did he represent to the Republic? None. So what’s all this about “bringing the country to the brink of disaster”? It seems pretty clear that his opponents were just using this as an excuse to circumvent the Constitutional process and get him our of power to enhance their own political prospects. And it was his opponents who have in fact brought the country to the brink of disaster, not Zelaya. This cure is much worse than the disease.
conradg,
I don’t want to do an ad hominem, but I don’t think you have really read the relevant passages of the Constitution I quoted above. Yes, there IS a legal provision for the removal of the President: the armed forces are empowered to take him down if he begins agitating for reelection. No, it’s not the American system, because, if Honduras were the United States, it wouldn’t need such a strong provision against reelection anyway.
You ask, “don’t these provisions in the Constitution seem rather insane?” Two points. First, you grant that these provisions ARE the Constitution, so the coup was legal. Second, frankly, no. I’m Latin American myself (not Honduran; and, no, this doesn’t give me any special insights), and I can easily see the rationale for these provisions – as well as their weakness when put to the test in most of the countries of the region. (Exhibit I: Venezuela).
“It’s certainly anti-democratic”, you say. No more than the prohibition against a third reelection you have in the United States. “But we can change that without a full-blown revolution”, you might reply. True; but weaker political systems need stronger bulwarks. If with the absolute prohibition of the 1982 Constitution Honduras has already gotten into such a crisis after only 27 years, imagine with a weaker one.
“It seems pretty clear that his opponents were just using this as an excuse to circumvent the Constitutional process and get him our of power to enhance their own political prospects”.
I’m no expert in Honduran politics, but I find this very hard to believe. It’s certainly not “pretty clear”. Elections were (and still are) scheduled for November, and with Zelaya unpopular, his opponents had all the more reason to wait if they could wait at all. And it was not the political opposition which engineered the coup; it was the two other Powers of the Republic, the Legislative and the Judiciary. It was an institutional coup, not a result of mass demonstrations in the streets against the government. They struck before Zelaya brought did a self-coup himself, which is what direct disregard for the Supreme Court’s decision would have amounted to.
“And it was his opponents who have in fact brought the country to the brink of disaster, not Zelaya”.
Let’s try a thought experiment. Imagine that Bush II had reinstated the draft through an executive decree and started rounding up people and sending them to the ends of the earth to die for the empire. Suppose your Congress passed a law vetoing it. Suppose your Supreme Court ruled that reinstating the draft through an executive decree was unconstitutional and ordered “cease and desist”. Suppose Bush nonchalantly said “I just don’t give a damn” and ordered the Army to go to the streets and enforce the draft. I think we would all agree, in this case, that is was Bush and not his draft-opposing opponents who began the crisis, and that it was Bush and not them that then escalated it. Zelaya’s opponents, whatever their faults, did not begin the Honduran crisis; Zelaya did, and he knew what he was doing. If you play with fire…
Of course, it is difficult to imagine the thought experiment I outlined above really happening in the US. And even if it somehow did, an impeachment would solve it. That’s because you’re a developed country with a stable political system, organized around parties and not only personalities, and a mature civil society. Not the case of Honduras or of most of the world. I see people complaining about the nonexistence of an impeachment clause in the Honduran constitution, but what good would it make if it had existed? If the Army had obeyed Zelaya’s illegal order and thereby sided with him against both Congress and the Supreme Court, Zelaya could disregard a Congressional declaration of impeachment just as he had already disregarded a Supreme Court decision cancelling his referendum and a Congressional decision to the same effect. In other words: the Army would have decided anyway. That this time they sided with the Constitution, which is not the habit in Latin America, to say the least, should earn them high praise.
Frankly, I don’t see how you read those passages as you do. It doesn’t seem to explicitly empower the military to remove the President from office during his first term, only to prevent the President from running for or taking office for a second term. And Zelaya did not run for a second term. He seems to have skirted around these provisions, knowing full well of their existence, by never actually running for re-election, or attempting to hold a binding referendum.
I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read, the way this coup was undertaken was simply not legal. I can’t argue with the experts on this, so I defer to them. But they don’t seem to agree with your analysis of this issue.
On the larger issue of whether this kind of provision is democratic, I’d disagree with you strongly that any military coup is democratic. One can write all kinds of things into a Constitution, that doesn’t make all of them democratic. You suggest that our term limits is anti-democratic, but you neglect to mention that this provision was voted into our Constitution by two-thirds majorities of both house and senate, and three-quarters of our state legislatures. You can’t get much more democratic than that. Plus, this amendment can be repealed at any time, by the same process. And there is no prohibition about proposing such an amendment. In fact, there’s no prohibition on political speech at all in our country.And the idea that someone’s natural-born citizenship can be revoked for any reason at all is simply inimical to the Democratic process, especially for something as minor as merely proposing to change the constitution. The notion that a President, as soon as he even opens his mouth about some taboo subject, suddenly ceases to be a President, or even a citizen, is also absurd and anti-democratic.
I can certainly understand why Honduras and other latin countries would be wary of extended Presidencies, but this is just as extreme a provision, and the method for replacing a President is also rather insane – a military coup, I mean really? This seems to be a provision for unilaterally usurping the democratic process at the slightest sign of displeasure. Again, Zelaya may be an ass, and may have messed with some legal issues, but he simply was not a danger to the Republic, and he did not need to be removed by the military. What exactly was to be risked in letting him finish this legal term of office?
Comparing this to your Bush scenario is absurd. Of course congress would impeach Bush in such an instance, as it did with Nixon. If instead of impeaching Bush, it called in the military and ousted him from power, I think that would alarm a lot of people. It would make us international pariahs.
The Hondurans seem to have a rather flawed Constitution, and Zelaya seems to be a shabby leader, but even so, the way the other branches of government has handled this has been even shabbier. I think it’s pretty obvious their constitution needs to be overhauled, but of course even suggesting that would make any Honduran an automatic non-citizen. Is that really democratic?