|
||
Is the OAS Against Democracy?
The Organization of American States (OAS) finds itself in a conundrum. When it condemned last week's coup in Honduras, the OAS was convinced that it was defending democracy. Today, the OAS is not so sure. In his recent visit to Tegucigalpa, the OAS secretary general José Miguel Insulza found himself in the awkward position of threatening a government that is supported by virtually all democratic forces in the country.
This is a crisis of asymmetrical illegitimacy--an international condemnation of a domestically legitimate government--that the OAS does not know how to address. It could start by trying to understand why so many Hondurans support the new government.
When the Honduran military ousted a sitting president last Sunday, many analysts saw in this crisis the return of a Latin American ghost--the military coup, which had been relatively absent from the region for decades. But the coup, a deeply troubling event, was not the only ghost from the past to have re-emerged. The other ghost was hyper-presidentialism.
Hyper-presidentialism occurs when elected presidents try to take the law into their hands, ignore constitutional limits, supersede the Congress and the courts, and use every possible trick to prolong their stay in office. Hyper-presidentialism directs a grave assault on democracy, because it is a challenge to political institutions coming from none other than the commander and spender in chief.
Hyper-presidentialism has become a recurrent problem in many Latin American democracies since the 1990s, and it set the stage for the Honduras coup. The democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, tried to run roughshod over the judiciary and the legislature.
The trigger was Zelaya's desire to seek another term in office. The Honduran Constitution prohibits re-election and, remarkably, the mention of one's desire to end this prohibition. Under normal circumstances, calling to reform this excessive constitutional restriction would seem perfectly reasonable. But democratic presidents must convince people of the need to reform, not exacerbate citizens' insecurity. Zelaya failed in this task. Everything he did suggested that his ultimate goal was to empower the Executive to the detriment of the other branches of government, and this scared all democratic forces.
This dark scenario of an electoral referendum turning into a mechanism to undermine the existing branches of government was not that far-fetched. It mirrors previous actions by Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez, Zelaya's strongest current ally. In the early 1990s, "self-coups" staged by Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Jorge Serrano in Guatemala were internationally condemned. Chávez avoided such condemnation by acting through a constituent assembly, which in 1999 disbanded the other branches of government and granted formidable powers to the Executive.
Zelaya failed to provide credible assurances that he did not harbor similar undemocratic intentions. Zelaya's populist line--a center-right millionaire's sudden self-proclamation as the "champion" of the poor--convinced no one. Even Zelaya's own party and several cabinet members argued with evidence that Zelaya was breaking the law and hoping to usurp the roles of the Congress and the judiciary. Zelaya's decision on the eve of the coup to re-name the referendum as a "poll" so as to circumvent the Constitution was as insulting to everyone's intelligence as the Congress' claim the following day that Zelaya had resigned.
Ultimately, the tragedy is that the military played a crucial role, siding with the judiciary and legislature over the Executive branch and undermining the military's constitutional role as an apolitical institution. While certain Hondurans avoid labeling this as a coup, the curfew and the arrests of journalists have made the reality of the situation all too clear.
Yet, it is also clear that the constitutional order broke down before the military acted. In democracies, the military owes allegiance to the Presidency, but the Presidency owes allegiance the rule of law. That chain of command broke down in Honduras, but in reverse order.
The inter-American community, and especially the OAS, shares some of the blame for this mess because it provided virtually no help during the six-month standoff in Honduras. In similar Latin American crises, international actors have sometimes intervened with good results. The most recent example occurred in Bolivia last year, when South American countries forced the government and the opposition to yield in negotiations over constitutional reform. But this spring, the OAS was too busy addressing the non-urgent issue of Cuba's return to its ranks to be bothered with the troubling issue of hyper-presidentialism in Honduras. Largely devoid of international help, the efforts by democratic actors in Honduras to stop Zelaya failed, and the result was the coup.
The lesson for the inter-American community is clear. Unless it develops a more sophisticated mechanism for Latin American democracies to help themselves from hyper-presidentialism, the region will also fail to deal with the other ghosts of its authoritarian past.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Letting the now X Pres. back into the Country would become the first step of allowing him to seek foreign Military "aid" to support him as soon as he landed!
The people of Honduras should be able to elect a President that will lead them, and not be "stuck" with someone that decides to break the laws of Honduras anytime he wants to!
We American would not accept that, why are we expecting the People of Honduras to do that?
This may turn out to be Obama's first real "blunder" in foreign affairs...
In short, a Constitution as a transcript of the hearts and minds of people, the living breathing will of people that may be changed in a heart beat by the people.
In a democracy the people control the law and sit above the law, for the will of the people is the law.
Whereas in a dictatorship the law controls the people, for the law cannot be changed by the people as it is a god that must be worshipped by the people.
Perception: Venezuela is a democracy.
Reality: The only thing that is allowed in VZ is what Chavez decides to allows.
Perception: Chavez was legally elected.
Reality: The first time yes, but after he fired everyone working for state-owned companies who opposed him, there were no longer real elections. People continued to lose their jobs as Chavez nationalized more companies, and the Chavistas found out who voted against them. And payoffs to the Bolivarian Circles in the barrios are nothing more than hush money, and the pigs and beer they provide for the village get Hugo his votes.
He also used millions of STATE Bolivares, and the resources of the state, to campaign. He hijacked the airwaves. Shut down opposition papers, radio and TV stations. All against the law, but of course, the law doesn't mean anything to him. Never has. He bends and twists and stretches it into something obscene.
In no sense of the word were subsequent elections "free" elections.
Perception: Chavez has helped the poor in VZ.
Reality: Under every measure, they are MUCH worse off now than before Hugo, and this is during record high oil prices!
Perception: Chavez is at least trying, and cares.
Reality: Same sickness as Fidel. He cares nothing for the people. He only cares to be SEEN as caring for the people.
Morally bankrupt. Corrupt. And every day, he lives in fear because he knows it for himself--and he's always trying to defend himself against this simple truth.
Chavez put the people above their Constitution -- Where they belong
Bless your darling hearts, but how you two desecrators of our Constitution do have such a naive and superficial understanding of democracy.
For the fundamental principle of any true and just society is, "The Constitution derives its just powers by the consent of the governed."
But not so in a dictatorship called Honduras, for there the people did not consent to their constitution when it was created in 1981 by a military regime. And so, the Honduras smoke screen of a Constitution derives its unjust powers by the consent of the government as it can only be changed by members of the government, namely paid actor senators hired by the rich who control government.
"The trigger was Zelaya's desire to seek another term." But Zelaya never said that, and for the next four years it is impossible for him to do that. Dear mind readers that you are, how you do slander an honest mans good name and reputation.
Chávez a power grabing dictator who is doing harm to his people? But not even the media in Venezuela, 70% of which is owned by the rich, rally such fiction against him.
A nationwide poll last week shows that 46% oppose the coup, only 41% approve. Keeping in mind that those who oppose the coup are among the 46% poorest people in Honduras.
"constitutional order broke down before the military acted." Untrue, Honduras never had "constitutional order."
Alabama you have your numbers all wrong. You are quaoting the CID-Gallop poll numbers which were reported incorrectly by the AP. The numbers were 26% against the coup - 41% in favor. The numbers for how many people in favor of removing Mel from office is that 80% of Hondurans wanted him removed. Since Honduras has 70% of the people living below the pverty line you can see by these numbers that this is not a rich/poor thin. As an ex-pat living in Honduras I can assure you that Mel has done NOTHING to help the poor. He raised the minimum wage 60% at one time in order to buy govt employees as for the rest in private sector jobs - they lost thier jobs. I have a friend that has a novelty store that employed 13 workers and he was forced to layoff 7 of them. He sells stuff like a dollar store. The only ones that have supported Mel are the ones that have benifited from his corruptuion.
THE COMMON PEOPLE of HONDURAS DO NOT WANT MEL BACK!
The Constitution of Honduras impeached Zelaya. Consequently, the National Congress, the Public Ministery and the Supreme Court of Honduras impeached Zelaya.
lol - how does a constitution impeach a person? The author of this misinformation writes:
"This dark scenario of an electoral referendum turning into a mechanism to undermine the existing branches of government was not that far-fetched."
"Dark scenario"?!? undermining other branches of government?? No mention that the judiciary and Congress in Honduras are largely the established power elite, hardly ever representing the interests of the majority of Hondurans who are poor - laughable that they support this right-wing coup. The article tries to paint a picture of "so many Hondurans" supporting the coup, and how it's "is supported by virtually all democratic forces in the country", and this is pure misinformation and lies - there's nothing democratic about the democratically elected president being thrown out of the country by the military in his pajamas and the behest of the Congress and courts on trumped-up charges of "possible constitutional reform."
Zelaya was going to have for all intents and purposes a poll on whether to have a future vote on Constitutional reform. The power elite went crazy, but what people with a democratic government are not allowed to change their laws? The US Constitution has had amendments added to it since its inception - some have limited certain government powers, others strengthened the government. But only for the entrenched powers whose positions are threatened could this ever be the "dark scenario" the authors try to conjure up here.
This article is a stain on the Huffington Post
The authors are paranoid that Zelaya enables himself to be Chavez II. Very, very few people in both the US and Central America want another Chavez. To support a coup because of a Chavez II fear is ludicrous, however.
Coupled with a bias for the elites.
Seasandcakes. You have a few facts wrong here. I am speaking as an ex-pat living in Honduras. 80% of Hondurans wanted him removed. The rich and poor. My workers would be considered poor as there are 8 adults living in the same house and a number of children - they do not want Mel back. They dont want a carbon-copy country as Cuba/VZ, In Honduras no matter how poor people are almost every house has a stereo, a tv and most have cell phones - Not the same for Cuba and VZ. You state that he did not break any laws. Please read some of the Honduran constitution (you can find it online in English) especially article 239. States that the the borders or the length of presidential term and cannot be changed and anyone trying to change these shall lose his citizenship. You to compare ammendments to the constitution of the US with rewriting a new constitution. Mel was not trying to introduce amendments to the constitution but rather appoint a constitutional commision to re-write it. 1 person does nohave the right on his own to make that determination (aka Chavez). The ballots were printed ánd delivered here by VZ. I know that you want to comment on what you see a travesity of justice but I ask you to please check your facts from now on before commenting on someting that you have so little knowledge of that affects so many peoples lives.
Did Zelaya ever say he wished another presidential term? He says that was not the intention behind the proposed poll, but his opponents insist that was his motivation. The wording of the non-binding poll says nothing about clearing the way for another term, rather seeks endorsement for a referendum to be held during the election in November to ascertain support for an elected council to review the Honduran Constitution to suggest possible changes. It does not specify any changes, and any recommendations for changes would come from the elected council, which if the referendum was successful would still have to be elected. I'm not sure what is unreasonable about that.
The authors of this article, and a number of posters, insist that Zelaya was seeking a "hyper-presidency"and thus brought the consequences down upon himself - all perfectly legal, they insist, because you cannot be president a second time etc... But I have yet to see anything that would demonstrate that this allegation is anything but that. I have seen no quotes, no excerpts from speeches, no writings, no cabinet minutes, not even an overheard discussion, that would suggest Zelaya was intent on another term. So I have to think there is a good chance this is a red herring meant to divert attentions away from a military backed coup.
Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html (article 42):
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,
Further, Article 239 indicates that anyone who has held the office of chief executive cannot be president or vice president and anyone who proposes reform to that prohibition can be barred from holding public office for ten years:
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.
My educated guess on that provision is that it is aimed move at banning past military dictators from pursuing the office than it is a stricture contra re-election, per se.
Additionally, Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term (amongst other things).
It is pretty clear why the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Zelaya’s plebiscite proposal in the first place. It also means that if the vote had been allowed to happen it would have had no legal standing.
In 1981 the ruling Honduras military created a manifesto for a dictatorship, not a Constitution for a democracy.
Thank you very much but I will tell you that democracy under our constitution works just fine. We DO NOT have a military government but rather a democratically elected government. Mel was removed for violating the constitution by tryingto have it re-written to his liking. Please beproud of the Honduran citizenship for impeaching him before he turned this country into another VZ, Nic,, Bolivia or CUba. I am very proud of what they have done. 80% of Hondurans do not want this crook back.
Alabama John is mistaken with the comment he posted above. It is a Constitution and must be respected regardless of when and who created it. It has never been called a "mainfesto for a dictatorship" by anyone with legal knowledge and it is disrespectful to suggest that it a manifesto of any kind, just as it would be to call the US Constitution a manifesto for dictatorship.
Our founding fathers were against democracy. That is why they formed a republic. We don't need the tyranny of the majority - instead we need liberty and freedom.
"We don't need the tyranny of the majority - instead we need liberty and freedom."
And you think you'll get it through a sham democratic republic, with elitists calling the shots? It sure hasn't worked here in the US, and it quite obviously is having problems in the rest of the world.
The arrogance of the US has been to suggest that--and sometimes force--other nations to adopt our political and economic policies; well, we've recently seen the "chickens come home to roost"
on our grand notions of what economic model works best for the world, and no doubt the same is true for our political model.
The assertion that the US is a functional democratic republic is a very bad joke.
Amen to that.
Finally, some real analysis and insight about the reality in Honduras! Thank you.
However, I do object to one thing you stated: "Ultimately, the tragedy is that the military played a crucial role, siding with the judiciary and legislature over the Executive branch and undermining the military's constitutional role as an apolitical institution. While certain Hondurans avoid labeling this as a coup, the curfew and the arrests of journalists have made the reality of the situation all too clear."
Yes, the military played a crucial role, but the ultimately the military is called to uphold the constitution of a nation-- and that is what they did. That does not mean that they sided with one political party over another--in fact the same party remains in power in the executive branch. Second, check your sources about the journalist being arrested. My direct sources in Honduras tell me that no journalists have been arrested. One of the journalist that was with Zelaya is already on the air again and the other one is hiding in an Embassy. Third, other than the criminals, thugs, and some legitimate night businessses like discos and bars, it seems the majority of the people in Honduras feel that the curfew is excellent because they feel safe; criminal activity has lowered tremendously since the curfews have been imposed. In addition, the curfews have halted the "avionetas" that had been landing daily with drugs and money all over the country (even on the highways).
Surely, your post is sarcastic. The curfew is great? Sounds like you think Fascism is great too.
Wasn't one of the only independent newspaper's office hit with a grenade because they have stated that Zelaya should be reinstated and allowed to defend criminal claims in a court of law?
Also, your comments commending the military demonstrate you lack or ignore Central America's history. Power from guns isn't real power.
Have you ever lived in a third world country with criminals running amok where you can not even safely leave your house without the threat of being robbed, shot, or kidnapped? Your comments are completely out of touch. In this case, the military have provided a welcome sense of security. Under normal circumstances military curfews would be strongly opposed by the population.
The relatively small number of pro-Zelaya protesters have written graffitti all over the capitol city of Tegucigalpa; they write horrible things the people who stood by their constitution and rule of law; they even write death threats to these people.
Might I direct everyone to two articles/news reports from organizations that are currently in Honduras and talking to numerous people who support the return of Zelaya. The support of countless human rights organizations, professors, farmers, indigenous communities, etc for Zelaya is overwhelming, although the media has not really been reporting their side of the story. These are the stories we should be listening to - the voices of the people of Honduras.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/hondurans-pour-into-the-s_b_226336.html
and
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/6/honduran_military_blocks_ousted_president_zelayas
Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I've been a long time fan of Democracy Now, but in this case, they are getting their story line all wrong!!
It is too easy to judge the events in Honduras as a repeat of the military coups that lie scattered throughout Latin American history. It is also too easy to view the crisis as one of the left vs. the right. If one is to understand what is truly happening in Honduras, one needs a new framework of reference, a more sophisticated, multi-dimensional one.
More than a week after the arrest and exile of ex-president Zelaya, most of the world community is intent on dismissing the unanimous ruling of Honduras’ Supreme Court. Stuck with the view of Honduras as a one-dimensional, outdated caricature of a “banana republic” that bends willingly to outside pressure, international organizations are insisting on Mr. Zelaya’s return to power. Such a move would be tremendous setback to democracy.
Please, your p.ro.ga.nda doesn't sway anyone; if there are c/ue/ess comments here on this issue, yours is surely among them.
Zelaya was the first to start a coup by virtually ignoring the Constitution and the other powers. Luckily enough, the other branches of government realized that and supported the army. However, the army should have conducted this in a different way, following an official request from the Congress or the Supreme Court, which never happened.
Pure absurdity that very few believe.
Of course. You know better than the Honduran Congress and Supreme court, right?
That arrogance was the cornerstone of 19th century American foreign policy to the Americas. Keep it up!
This is so sad - to believe the OAS could be against democracy. They are defending it!!! Can you imagine your president being oustered because he does not satisfy a ruling class in the country? Socialism? Communism? He hello - this had been a popular consult. The actual President Zelaya wanted maybe clear his path for a second term. But is it good to have just one possible term? This country is packed with social and economical conflicts - impossible to resolve them within four years. We should change the constitution - including methods to expall a president if the chamber, the parliament is not agreeding to his policy. The honduran constitution does include such methods and terms. We should reform the constitution - and Mel at least was willing to do so.. I vote for an elected president - not for an installed by militarys and the rich upper class of this country. They are the desease in this country..
The new president was not installed by the military but rather he was installed'' by the constitution as he was next in succession. Are you saying reform the constitution or throwing it away and re-write it. Mel did not propose amendments he proposed re-writing it so that the power would fall in the hands of the executive branch. The same change that Chavez made in VZ.
The OAS has a Socialist President as a leader. Insulza is part of the Socialist Party of Chile. The OAS has been manipulated by the ALBA and Grupo Rio and no longer stands for democracy.
Reelection and changing the Articulos Petrios is AGAINST the Honduran Constitution. You should go to la UNAH and ask them to lend you a copy. Also research Carta de Fidel para Hugo Chavez so that you can see that you have fallen directly in the Zelaya- Chavez-Castro trap, just as you were brainwashed to do by Canal 8.
It is plausible that Zelaya had selfish ambitions of becoming president for life. So from that standpoint this article touches on something. In the end, however, the authors seem confused to me -- admit coup, admit institutional weakness, blame OAS, blame Zelaya, BUT assume Rule of Law exists in Honduras? Que? Think a little deeper my friend.
"Hyper-presidentialism" -- is that intellectual-wannabe speak? I never heard that term before. Usurping of power is nothing new, and there doesn't need to be a new academic definition for an age-old problem. And the title "Is the OAS against Democracy?" Give me a break.
Dear SayWhatYouWill,
I cordially invite you to spend just one week in Venezuela so that you understand the meaning of "Hyper-presidentialism".
Ohhh, okay. Now I know what it means. Thanks.
You can twist it all you want, it's still a coup, and again with major support from the USA.
Major support from the USA? You are not twisting things, you are inventing.
The jury is out on this aspect [as far as I know], but raaf is certainly making a pausible assertion, given the history of US policies towards Latin America.
A coup d'etat by the military with the backing of the 20 or so families that own Honduras ... that's what we have now.
No less.
And BTW: Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela.
Hyper-predensialism ... what kind of BS is that?
If you were vaguely acquainted with political science, you'd know what that is. And Chavez has destroyed Venezuelan democracy from within. Democracy is much more than just voting.
Please, sell your BS to lesser minds; but hey, if you insist on sticking with that comment, post or link to an explanation--or does spouting falsehoods in defense of nonsense suit you best?
Perhaps you were referrring to HYPER-PRESIDENTIALISM?
I suppose you realize that this is a term used almost exclusively by rightwingers/NeoCons in describing any regime they feel threatens their darling neoliberal economic policies?
I would challenge you to link to ANY source that YOU judege to be a politically neutral academic source that uses this term; I'd be very interested to see what you come up with, as I also feel sure that such would be very revealing....
I take it you have never been to Latin America. Perhaps a trip to this part of the world might open your mind to what WE (i'm a Venezuelan, living in Venezuela) have to live with.
Just today because Chavez cannot take criticism to well, the government has decided to close 86 AM 154 FM Radio Stations.
So much for democracy!
The only media Chavez has closed down are those used by the rich to create their military coup. Still 70% of media in Venezuela is owned by the rich, and generating propaganda day and night to glorify the rich.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
