Well, if the news as reported today holds true, there may have been a breakthrough in negotiations which will lead to the resolution in the crisis between the de facto Honduran government and Manuel Zelaya.
I think this is good news because this has been a very difficult, tense, and stressful period for Honduras. Some kind of resolution to the crisis will help bring things back to normal, with elections coming up rather soon, even too soon (29 November, this year). (See BBC article)
The media has commonly referred to a “coup”, which took place in late June, in which the military, with the explicit order of both the Congress and Courts, removed Zelaya as President and removed him from the country. While he was abroad a political crisis emerged, with most of the regional community demanding that Zelaya be reurned to power. The interim government, led by Micheletti, meanwhile steadfastly refused to reinstate Zelaya.
According to the news, a power sharing government will be formed, to implement the elections in November. Zelaya could return as President temporarily, if approved by first the Supreme Court, then the Congress.
As before I had urged readers to consider whether the events in late June were in fact a coup, now I would like to explicitly criticize the human rights violations after those events, when the current de facto government in Honduras was in power. Civil and political rights were sometimes severely restricted, with authorities not allowing displays of support for Zelaya. Also, sections of the media were restricted or taken over by the authorities. All of these actions were wrong according to human rights standards.
We can only hope that a political agreement and successful elections will restore normalcy and stability in the near future.
In other commentary on the subject:
It seems like the foreign media have somehow focused on Zelaya, and made him into a victim in this scenario. His is the name which people will remember from the news casts, to the detriment of his opponent in this scenario, Micheletti, the interim President. But in fact, it seems that the media, in craving simplicity, made it into a “coup”, glossing over some of the facts.
For example, the Honduran Constitution limits the term of a President to one, an unusual but powerful idea, to prevent the installation of dictocrats, who stay on 15+ years. One may criticize the Constitution as one likes, and say that the one term limit is flawed, but as I understand, that is what it currently says. (See this link, spec. see Article 239) Further, both the courts and the Congress voted Zelaya out of power before the military did anything. Now, one may say, these institutions just represent a certain segment of power, for example the capitalist classes opposed to Zelaya’s shift towards alliance with Chavez and his buddies. But the fact that both organs of government, and apparently in large majority in the Honduran Congress, wanted Zelaya removed, should indicate something (such as that Zelaya was actually wrong?).
The strongest criticism that can be made is that removing Zelaya from the country, and by force, was akin to a coup, or like a coup. But the way the events proceeded up to that point appear to be legal.
It is true some of the actions by the Honduran government after Zelaya’s removal were harmful, and blatant violations of people’s human rights. This does not however, make the events a coup.
The media, again, can not handle complexity or ambiguity, and out and out labeled it as a “coup”. This term has been bandied about and repeated so often in the media that hardly anyone even questions it.
In general I am in favor of limiting the term of heads of the Executive branch of any country’s government. Long periods of rule by one person almost always leads to an imbalance of power favoring the executive branch, limiting the role of the Legislature and Courts. This in turn ends up having negative effects for the people of the country, as criticism becomes muted, the courts are no longer fair, the elected organs of government, the Assembly, becomes sidelined and less consequential. When the body (Assembly, Legislature, Parliament, Congress) people voted for is diminished in relation to the overpowering executive, then the people’s vote itself is devalued as well. With elections for the Executive a near shoe-in for the incumbent, the people of a country really have little choice.
This kind of situation is undemocratic, which means it doesn’t give enough power to the people. And the people, arguably are the ones that matter and should count, especially when poor people’s livelihoods are at stake. Let’s face it, government decisions and policies can have a powerful effect on people’s lives. And if they have little say in who makes up their government, they are at a further disadvantage.
For this reason, limits on the number of terms of Presidents, Prime Ministers in general, is a good policy and one that in general benefits the population of a country.
Which is reason to understand the Honduran government’s hostility to Zelaya when he was making moves to make it possible for him to run again for office, even though the Constitution states that he cannot.
But maybe I’m missing the point in focusing on this technical definition of a coup d’etat. Maybe the real issue is the massive human rights violations committed under the interim Honduran regime.
Just to broaden the debate, I will give links to two articles taking a view different than my own:
Term Limits When Governments Benefit People
Coup D’Etat Murder, Mayhem and Lost Civil Liberties
Anyway, won’t ramble on longer about term limits, let’s just hope that the crisis in Honduras is fruitfully resolved, and people’s lives can go back to normal!
Article 239 of the 1982 Honduras Constitution
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
Well, if the news as reported today holds true, there may have been a breakthrough in negotiations which will lead to the resolution in the crisis between the de facto Honduran government and Manuel Zelaya.
I think this is good news because this has been a very difficult, tense, and stressful period for Honduras. Some kind of resolution to the crisis will help bring things back to normal, with elections coming up rather soon, even too soon (29 November, this year). (See BBC article)
The media has commonly referred to a “coup”, which took place in late June, in which the military, with the explicit order of both the Congress and Courts, removed Zelaya as President and removed him from the country. While he was abroad a political crisis emerged, with most of the regional community demanding that Zelaya be reurned to power. The interim government, led by Micheletti, meanwhile steadfastly refused to reinstate Zelaya.
According to the news, a power sharing government will be formed, to implement the elections in November. Zelaya could return as President temporarily, if approved by first the Supreme Court, then the Congress.
As before I had urged readers to consider whether the events in late June were in fact a coup, now I would like to explicitly criticize the human rights violations after those events, when the current de facto government in Honduras was in power. Civil and political rights were sometimes severely restricted, with authorities not allowing displays of support for Zelaya. Also, sections of the media were restricted or taken over by the authorities. All of these actions were wrong according to human rights standards.
We can only hope that a political agreement and successful elections will restore normalcy and stability in the near future.
In other commentary on the subject:
It seems like the foreign media have somehow focused on Zelaya, and made him into a victim in this scenario. His is the name which people will remember from the news casts, to the detriment of his opponent in this scenario, Micheletti, the interim President. But in fact, it seems that the media, in craving simplicity, made it into a “coup”, glossing over some of the facts.
For example, the Honduran Constitution limits the term of a President to one, an unusual but powerful idea, to prevent the installation of dictocrats, who stay on 15+ years. One may criticize the Constitution as one likes, and say that the one term limit is flawed, but as I understand, that is what it currently says. (See this link, spec. see Article 239) Further, both the courts and the Congress voted Zelaya out of power before the military did anything. Now, one may say, these institutions just represent a certain segment of power, for example the capitalist classes opposed to Zelaya’s shift towards alliance with Chavez and his buddies. But the fact that both organs of government, and apparently in large majority in the Honduran Congress, wanted Zelaya removed, should indicate something (such as that Zelaya was actually wrong?).
The strongest criticism that can be made is that removing Zelaya from the country, and by force, was akin to a coup, or like a coup. But the way the events proceeded up to that point appear to be legal.
It is true some of the actions by the Honduran government after Zelaya’s removal were harmful, and blatant violations of people’s human rights. This does not however, make the events a coup.
The media, again, can not handle complexity or ambiguity, and out and out labeled it as a “coup”. This term has been bandied about and repeated so often in the media that hardly anyone even questions it.
In general I am in favor of limiting the term of heads of the Executive branch of any country’s government. Long periods of rule by one person almost always leads to an imbalance of power favoring the executive branch, limiting the role of the Legislature and Courts. This in turn ends up having negative effects for the people of the country, as criticism becomes muted, the courts are no longer fair, the elected organs of government, the Assembly, becomes sidelined and less consequential. When the body (Assembly, Legislature, Parliament, Congress) people voted for is diminished in relation to the overpowering executive, then the people’s vote itself is devalued as well. With elections for the Executive a near shoe-in for the incumbent, the people of a country really have little choice.
This kind of situation is undemocratic, which means it doesn’t give enough power to the people. And the people, arguably are the ones that matter and should count, especially when poor people’s livelihoods are at stake. Let’s face it, government decisions and policies can have a powerful effect on people’s lives. And if they have little say in who makes up their government, they are at a further disadvantage.
For this reason, limits on the number of terms of Presidents, Prime Ministers in general, is a good policy and one that in general benefits the population of a country.
Which is reason to understand the Honduran government’s hostility to Zelaya when he was making moves to make it possible for him to run again for office, even though the Constitution states that he cannot.
But maybe I’m missing the point in focusing on this technical definition of a coup d’etat. Maybe the real issue is the massive human rights violations committed under the interim Honduran regime.
Just to broaden the debate, I will give links to two articles taking a view different than my own:
Term Limits When Governments Benefit People
Coup D’Etat Murder, Mayhem and Lost Civil Liberties
Anyway, won’t ramble on longer about term limits, let’s just hope that the crisis in Honduras is fruitfully resolved, and people’s lives can go back to normal!
Article 239 of the 1982 Honduras Constitution
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
Posted in Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Country commentaries, Democracy and Elections, Government, Honduras, Issues, Media, Poverty | Tags: 2009, 2009 Honduran crisis, ambiguity, ambiguous, Article 239, Article 239 Honduras Constitution, balance of power, balance of powers, bi-racial, biracial, constitution, coup, coup d'etat, crisis, democracy, democracy people, dictator, dictatorship, executive branch, executive power, executive term limits, Honduran political crisis, Honduras, Honduras constitution, Honduras constitutional crisis, Honduras coup, Honduras dictator, Honduras human rights violation, Honduras people, Honduras political crisis, human rights, imbalance of power, labeling, Manuel Zelaya, Media, media ambiguity, media complexity, media coverage Honduras, Obama, Obama bi-racial, Obama biracial, Obama mixed, Obama mixed parentage, people power, people's power, political crisis, political labeling, politics, politics Central America, President, President term limits, Prime Minister term limits, Roberto Micheletti, social democracy, term limits, undemocratic