Honduras: Coup d’état sets precedent for democratic process
Posted September 21, 2009 at 12:50 am
On June 28, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was forcibly ousted from office by the Honduran armed forces through a coup d’état, under the direction of the Honduran Supreme Court. The coup d’état occurred because Zelaya proposed a non-binding referendum on having a National Constituent Assembly supplant the current Constitution, which prohibits re-election of the President. Zelaya’s term was to have ended in January 2010, and he stated many times that thus these proposed changes would not have affected him in any way. However, many of his fellow citizens saw his proposed changes in a very different light.
As the Associated Press commented, “Many Hondurans saw Zelaya’s attempt to hold a referendum asking voters if they wanted a constitutional assembly as a backdoor way of erasing the ban on re-election and heading toward socialist rule like that of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.” The interesting phenomenon is that this proposed suggestion was rejected by every major institution in Honduras, including the Honduras Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Supreme Court and even by Congress, which is controlled by members of Zelaya’s own political party.
It should be noted that in Honduras the military is responsible for logistics and security during elections, which led to the immediate event precipitating the coup d’état. On June 24, President Zelaya dismissed General Romeo Vasquez, the head of military command, after he refused to pass out election materials because the Supreme Court declared them illegal. In solidarity with Vasquez, the Honduran defense minister, as well as the respective heads of the army, navy and air force resigned. Furthermore, the next day the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Vasquez be reinstated. Congress began discussing how to impeach Zelaya from office, and voters were instructed not to vote in the referendum, which was scheduled to be held on June 29, 2009.
According to the New York Times, the Attorney General of Honduras issued an order to detain and, ultimately, to remove President Zelaya from office, for “acting against the government, treason, abuse of authority, and usurpation of power.” In the early morning of June 28, soldiers stormed the presidential residence in the capital Tegucigalpa, awoke the President and immediately sent him on a plane to Costa Rica.
The Supreme Court later that day announced that it had ordered the armed forces to remove President Zelaya from office, stating “…the armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law.”
The actual definition of a coup d’état according to the dictionary is “a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.” The removal of the Honduran President by force was wrong, and it is quite clear that the armed forces made a crucial mistake by exiling Zelaya from the country. The judicial order was to detain and remove him from office, not to awaken Zelaya in the early morning hours and exile him at gunpoint. In the eyes of the Honduran Constitution, that was a clear-cut violation—an act that I completely condemn.
Following this timeline, the present de facto government of Honduras has become completely isolated from the international community. The United Nations General Assembly unanimously called for the reinstatement of Zelaya, and the Organization of American States formally suspended Honduras.
In addition, not a single outside country has recognized this de facto government, which has implications ranging from military assistance to economic aid; in fact, the United States has now suspended all non-humanitarian aid, as well as the visas of several coup officials, including former Speaker Roberto Micheletti, the de facto president. In the end, the chances of Manuel Zelaya resuming his presidential duties are becoming quite close to nil as time passes. However, the removal of a democratically-elected president sets a dangerous precedent for the entire region, an action that should be strongly condemned.
11 Comments
Related Posts
No related posts.
Print This Post
Loading ...
On September 21, 2009 at 2:15 am John said
Not a single country exept Panama – Lol – I guess that Panama could be only counted as half of a country…
Source
http://www.ticotimes.net/dailyarchive/2009_09/0921092.cfm
On September 21, 2009 at 8:26 am Rudy Montana said
I disagree,it was not a coup.
On September 21, 2009 at 9:44 am catracho said
With all due respect, from your writing I gather that you have minimal or no understanding of Honduran law. First, the Honduras Constitution is very strict about four articles which cannot be changed. The articles in question refer solely to the form of government which is a republican democracy and that no person who has been President can ever be President again. While the second half of this prohibitions might sound archaic it should be understood in the context of the sad figure of political caudillos, politicians who extend their stay in power and make themselves the center of the state. This phenomena is at the corner of the excesses in Latin America whether from the right or left of the political spectrum. People like Chavez usurp democratic institutions and disguise their dictatorships as democratic. Honduras’ Zelaya wanted to do the very same thing but in Honduras any public official who proposes changes to those four articles ceases in his functions immediately and is barred from public office for one year so, in other words, when Zelaya was detained he was no longer the President of Honduras.
There far too much to clarify which you seem to ignore about Honduras law and country and it would take too much time and space to teach you about it but it should suffice to say that contrary to your conclusion the actions in Honduras bolster democracy as they drew a line on the sand. Where the country moves from there is another story and hopefully future leaders will walk away from caudillismo and towards true institutional democracy.
On November the country will have its general elections. The candidates were elected in their political parties’ primaries a year before Zelaya was expelled and there is no reason for the elections to be questioned, none whatsoever. This notion that the elections lose validity under the interim government is a manufacture of liberal left propagandists as the truth is that the President of Honduras is not the person who calls the elections, the Electoral Tribunal does, and the Electoral Tribunal remains unchanged, composed largely by people from Zelaya’s own party.
Finally, as a Honduran who voted for Zelaya and who is well-versed in Honduran matters and politics, let me tell you that his government has been the most corrupt ever and that is not a easy feat to achieve given the many corrupt leaders our country has had over time.
On September 21, 2009 at 10:00 am Bob Johnson said
Unfortunately, you are not getting the whole story. The sitting President, Zelaya, clearly violated the Honduran Constitution. It states that any President who attempts to extend his term in office automatically forfeits his position as President. That part of their Constitution is unchangeable and is permanent. It was not a “coup.” Coup implies that the government is removed. It was not and is still in tact, with the exception of the President, who was replaced by the Constitutionally-named successor, much like Biden would replace Obama.
There is a lot more to this than I can type here, so check out Youtube which has a good interview by Greta VanSustern with current President Roberto Micheletti, and also do a web search on Senator Jim DeMint and his views on the Honduran situation.
On September 21, 2009 at 11:44 am Kareteka said
The supreme court of Honduras ruled 15-0 to remove Zelaya. 15-0 means the removal of Zelaya was legal. 15-0 means that removing Zelaya is the rule of law. 15-0 means that democratic norms were followed. 15-0 is the only real fact that would be considered in a court of law. 15-0 is what Zelaya supporters hate. 15-0 is what this author has tried to ignore.
Perhaps those who protest 15-0 would also want to reinstate Blagojevich as governor of Illinois. After all, he was democratically elected.
Viva Honduras. Viva 15-0.
On September 21, 2009 at 12:14 pm Tenaj said
Try reading the Honduras Constitution as part of your research first.
On September 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm john said
First off, I agree with the article that Zelaya was incorrectly removed. Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution states, “No Honduran Citizen can be expatriated neither surrendered to a Foreign State.” Please explain that article, if you understand the Constitution, Tenaj!
In addition, just because the Supreme Court ruled something does not mean that it is right. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that blacks were slaves, were property and Congress could not deny that. Kareteka, do you support that decision? Kareteka, do you support the Supreme Court’s ruling in Korematsu v. United States, in which the government interned over 100,000 American citizens on the basis of ethnicity? Your reasoning that just because the Supreme Court ruled on something, even if it was 100-0, does not mean that it is the correct application of the law.
Bob Johnson, if Biden attempted to invoke the 25th amendment, that would be seen as a coup. If Obama disputed any incapacity exists, and the majority of the cabinet would agree with Biden, that would still be a coup, unless Obama was dead or medically unable to complete his presidency. It should also be remembered that the Honduras Supreme Court ordered that Zelaya be removed from office, not awoken at dawn, forced onto a plane at gunpoint, and exiled, which as previously stated, violated the Honduran Constitution explicitly!
Catracho, you already know that Zelaya simply wanted to gauge the people of Honduras’s perception towards a national constituent assembly eventually replacing the current Constitution. The pertinent fact is that this would not have happened until November 29, 2009 concurrent with presidential elections, so this, if any, change would not have applied to Zelaya.
In addition, Article 373 of the Constitution states that the Constitution can be amended by two-thirds of the legislature. It is true, Catracho, that Article 239, which I presume you are referring to, does prohibit the President from attempting to amend restrictions on succession, but the Supreme Court did not even mention this article in the case file.
Finally, Kareteka, I do not wish to discuss the Blagojevich case. But suffice it to say, that you do not seem to understand the Blagojevich case at all. The fact of the matter is that he was democratically elected twice, and was removed without any evidence. He was not permitted to utilize basic American rights, such as a fair trail, or the right to confront his accusers. Lastly, before the legislature voted to impeach and convict him, he urged the legislators to listen to the allegedly incriminating tapes, which they refused to do!
Until there is concrete proof, than in many ways Blagojevich was removed via a coup, albeit not a military one.
Nice article, and thanks for saying the truth! Viva Honduras and the truth!
On September 21, 2009 at 7:07 pm john said
First off, I agree with the article that Zelaya was incorrectly removed. Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution states, “No Honduran Citizen can be expatriated neither surrendered to a Foreign State.” Please explain that article, if you understand the Constitution, Tenaj!
In addition, just because the Supreme Court ruled something does not mean that it is right. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that blacks were slaves, were property and Congress could not deny that. Kareteka, do you support that decision? Kareteka, do you support the Supreme Court’s ruling in Korematsu v. United States, in which the government interned over 100,000 American citizens on the basis of ethnicity? Your reasoning that just because the Supreme Court ruled on something, even if it was 100-0, does not mean that it is the correct application of the law.
Bob Johnson, if Biden attempted to invoke the 25th amendment, that would be seen as a coup. If Obama disputed any incapacity exists, and the majority of the cabinet would agree with Biden, that would still be a coup, unless Obama was dead or medically unable to complete his presidency. It should also be remembered that the Honduras Supreme Court ordered that Zelaya be removed from office, not awoken at dawn, forced onto a plane at gunpoint, and exiled, which as previously stated, violated the Honduran Constitution explicitly!
Catracho, you already know that Zelaya simply wanted to gauge the people of Honduras’s perception towards a national constituent assembly eventually replacing the current Constitution. The pertinent fact is that this would not have happened until November 29, 2009 concurrent with presidential elections, so this, if any, change would not have applied to Zelaya.
In addition, Article 373 of the Constitution states that the Constitution can be amended by two-thirds of the legislature. It is true, Catracho, that Article 239, which I presume you are referring to, does prohibit the President from attempting to amend restrictions on succession, but the Supreme Court did not even mention this article in the case file.
Finally, Kareteka, I do not wish to discuss the Blagojevich case. But suffice it to say, that you do not seem to understand the Blagojevich case at all. The fact of the matter is that he was democratically elected twice, and was removed without any evidence. He was not permitted to utilize basic American rights, such as a fair trail, or the right to confront his accusers. Lastly, before the legislature voted to impeach and convict him, he urged the legislators to listen to the allegedly incriminating tapes, which they refused to do!
Until there is concrete proof, than in many ways Blagojevich was removed via a coup, albeit not a military one.
Nice article, and thanks for saying the truth! Viva Honduras and the truth!
On September 22, 2009 at 11:59 am catracho said
John,
To compare the decision about slavery with the one made in Honduras is ridiculous. One is an obvious mistake resulting from the prejudices of the time which, by the way, conflict with the declaration that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. Your attempt at rationalize your erroneous view on this particular judicial decision in Honduras does not mislead those of us who know the laws in Honduras and who know, face to face, the players in this farce. Yes, I know both Zelaya and Micheletti. Neither one warrants my confidence and to be honest the political system in Honduras is so corrupt that it would take a deluge to clean it up. I, like many other Hondurans, want change but Zelaya did not mean change at all. I know more about this issue than you could possibly imagine and let me tell you that you are dead wrong on this issue. For instance, you claim that the survey (as Zelaya calls it) would have been concurrent with the general elections. False, on June 28 the survey was to be carried out and there are somethings you should know before you pretend to lecture others on this issue: First, any such activity had to be made public in the State newspaper, similar to service by publication in the U.S. Zelaya waited until Friday June 26 to made the survey public and the question had been modified from “do you support that on November 29 a fourth ballot be placed to decide about calling for a constitutional assembly” to the following question “do you agree to call a constitutional assembly?” The implications of the change itself, the brevity of the notice, are obvious as it’s obvious that people whom I know had already been notified that they would be members in that constitutional assembly and that the results from the survey had been tabulated before the survey even occurred as computers wee set up in buildings rented in secret by Zelaya’s government using public money which was not approved or accounted for.
I am not here to defend the interim government. I personally think that Micheletti is as much a part of the problem as Zelaya is. Both are members of a political elite that has done nothing for the country. Quite frankly, both sicken me. But I do know that as long as we can continue to vote in freedom we have the chance of learning how to use our vote. Zelaya’s mold is that of Chavez and his minions and I don’t want demoracy a-la-Venezuela, we Hondurans don’t want that and it’s up to us to decide that not for foreigners.
You alluded to the “file” that the Supreme Court of Honduras has on this matter and I ask you: Have you seen the file? I must assume that is not the case so what is your basis to state that Article 239 was not invoked? I read many transcripts and this article was clearly invoked. No judicial expert contends with the fact that Zelaya, under Hondura’s Constitutional law, committed a crime that warranted his removal from office on its own merit. But oddly enough you avoided commenting on the many other charges that were appended to the decision and which are now the subject of open investigations that should, unless the political parties in this mess reach an agreement for amnesty, lead the way to indictments against Zelaya and many of his high ramking officials.
That Zelaya should have not been removed from the country cannot be disputed. The military, albeit they excused themselves claiming they only tried to prevent bloodshed, did violate the law when they put Zelaya on a plane and that is being investigated by the courts at this very moment.
Finally, the process to amend the Constitution is not merely by 2/3 of the votes in Congress but those amendments must be reaffirmed by a similar vote in the following Congress. But I ask you and any other person who pretends that Zelaya is a benevolent poltiician, just what part of the Honduran Constitution is an obstacle to progress? The only articles that cannot be modified refer to Honduras being a republic and a democracy and that the President cannot be reelected. Show me one proposal by Zelaya that could have not been achieved by the amending process? nothing, nada, zip. He made no such proposals because his only true goal was to stay in power and in that he shows his ego as he is despised by the majority of Hondurans, believe me, the vast majority of Hondurans, 85% are against him.
On September 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm Marlo Lopez said
I am not sure if my opinion will be appreciated or not, but who cares. Anyway, the Honduran Constitution was frame for the oligarquy and to protect their way of life. The petreus articles( no changes) it is just another way to states”you are not allowed to makes changes without my consent”" even if you want to. The consulta popular (referendum) was mean to ask the people “do you want to change these articles of the constitution? , and the simple answer was to be a “yes or no” The interpretation that is in the media regarding Mr. Zelaya’s continuism was just a propagand of the right wind of the country to protect their interests. Now, the country is on the streets protesting for their right to make these changes and to return democracy to their country. Please do not put attention to what the Honduran supreme court states because it is just a bunch of guys getting paid by the oligarquy to do whatever they want to.
On September 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm moneypee said
ANd a unanimous 15-0 supreme court ruling should be overturned immediately by who? The US administration and covert ops? The US media? The Europeans? Hugo Chavez? Who should have the authority to overrule the unanimous decision of the HOnduran supreme court? Article 102 sounds like it is most applicable to citizens not holding elected office. That is a thin argument. Who should intervene? Should the US send an invasion force? Perhaps we should suggest that Chavez does, it’s his neighbor.