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.