Process versus Politics: Conservatives confused about Honduran Coup Posted by The Editors

This post is by NSN intern Luis Vertiz

The recent military coup in Honduras presents another thorny situation for President Obama to deal with. Conservatives at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner, however, have already pounced on him by demanding that he reverse his support for Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s reinstatement to office following the military coup that exiled him to Costa Rica. Here is Mary Anastasia O’Grady from the Wall Street Journal:

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo [Chavez] himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

The problem with this statement is two-fold. One, O’Grady is clearly taking sides in this Honduran crisis – harking back to the Cold War legacy of American interference in the region. While the details of the coup are beginning to emerge, she has already chosen to shower the military’s coup with laudatory language. Clearly, despite Zelaya’s democratic election to office, O’Grady believes it’s more important that Chavez’s brand of Bolivarian socialism be rooted out rather than foster stronger democratic norms. Someone has to remind me again why supporting democratically-elected leaders, no matter their political persuasion, puts American values and interests at risk more than acquiescing to military coups. Latin America has a history of military coups and strongmen, yet the past two decades have shown an impressive dedication to democratic governance. With the region warming up to Obama, despite our history of American interference in Latin American countries, why turn our back on 20-plus years of democratic governance in Latin America now by allowing this intervention? Turning a blind-eye to the abrogation of the rule of law – the foundation of any democracy – will only serve to further weaken democracy and increases the prospects for increased military interference in democratic politics in the region.

The secondary problem with arguments like O’Grady’s is, while there is genuine concern that President Zelaya was blatantly pushing forth constitutional reforms for self-preservation, the loci of her concern was the personal politics of the President Zelaya, rather than the process by which he was removed from office. Process in a democracy matters. No one applauds the authoritarian leanings of Zelaya’s inspiration: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Yet Chavez isn’t the man in charge of Honduras’ politics. News reports suggest President Zelaya was alone in Honduras in pushing for constitutional reforms similar to what Chavez has done in Venezuela. The Honduran Congress, their Supreme Court, the country’s Attorney General and even members of Zelaya’s own party were all against the President’s plans for a referendum. Zelaya was increasingly isolated. It is a shame the military felt it necessary to physically remove him from power. The Washington Examiner’s conservative editorial board wrote: “These [coup] actions were also affirmed by the Honduran Supreme Court. In other words, as was said over and over here after Watergate, ‘the system worked.’” No, the system clearly didn’t work. Democratic governance was not set up to be periodically tamed by military coups.

O’Grady at the Wall Street Journal ironically writes: “The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.” How does O’Grady believe that the independence of Honduran democratic institutions are best served when the military takes power by force? Because the general in charge of the Honduran military felt he needed to compel the President to obey the ruling of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling preventing a referendum on constitutional reform, Honduras clearly has a civil-military relations problem as much as it has a governance problem. Instead of reflexively supporting the military’s coup, why can’t conservatives ask why Honduras’ domestic institutions seemed scared of Zelaya’s referendum, when he had no legal authority to hold one? Why not merely wait until after the illegal vote and then assess the options? Conservatives like O’Grady and the Washington Examiner Editorial Board don’t help Honduran democrats [with a small d] if they enthusiastically latch onto an opportunistic coups.

Comments

[4sure]

The real question is why it took editorials (like O'Grady's) rather than news departments to get accurate news in the U.S. regarding the constitutional succession of the President of Honduras. The facts are not JUST NOW coming out. If news U.S. news outlets had been covering legal procedures in Honduras since last Friday, like I was, rather than 24 hour coverage of Michael Jackson's death, they would have known that his arrest was near, and that it was in accordance with Honduras law and constitutional order.

[Jim]

Having many friends in Honduras the fear was tha Zelaya had prerigged the referendum results and was going to use the "results" to justify a government takeover. Also this was not a coup as the military never took control of the country. The military was always under Judicial and Congressional (Honduran) control. A coup is when the military takes control of the branches of government. This did not take place.

[Tony]

iT IS SAD THAT OUR CNN AND OTHER NEWS MEDIA WOULD JUMP THE GUN TO RUN SENSATIONALIST NEWS INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL FACTS OF WHY THE PRESIDENTES DESTITUTION WAS TAKING PLACE "THE EASY AN EYE BROW RAISING" WORD "CUP" WELL IN THAT COUNTRY THEY DO NOT HAVE FBI TO PROCEED AND MAKE AN ARREST FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE LAWS BY A HIGH RANKING OFFICIAL "THE ARMY HAS TO DO IT" THUS, CNN DID NOT MAKE PUBLIC THAT MR ZELAYA HINMSELF LEAD A PARADE OF TUGS LAST FRIDAY 26TH TO KNOCK DOWN THE GATES OF AN AIRFORCE BASE THAT WAS GUARDING THE PLANE THAT LANDED FROM VENEZUELA WITH A PREPRINTED NEW CONSTITUTION AND ALL THE PREPRINTED VALOTS FOR HIS "SO CALLED referendum"
IT IS ALSO "SHAMED" ON OUR PRESIDENT AND MRS CLINTON TO STAND BEHIND ZELAYA, WHEN THE US. EMBASSADOR IN HONDURAS IS INFORMED OF EVERY MAJOR EVENT THAT MAY TAKE PLACE IN THE COUNTRY, THAT CAN LEAD TO A CONFLICT. THE EMBASSADOR NEW OF ALL THE SHANANIGANS OF MR ZELAYA AND THE ROMANCE THAT HE HAD WITH CASTRO AND HUGO CHAVEZ.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD WAKE UP AND WEIGHT THAT CHAVEZ WILL BE THE CASTRO THAT KENNEDY HAD IN THE 60'S

[runescape gold]

Who are you people? A public referendum on an additional presidential term for Zalaya was about to begin when him was arrested and sent out of the country. This democratic process was thwarted by a coup (yes,it's a coup, and you can call it anything else you’d like) but it was like a coup, an illegal takeover of power, the Honduran Supreme Court notwithstanding.
runescape money

[Jay C]

Mr. Vertiz, it's far from evident that conservatives are "confused" about the Honduras coup - many, if not most (of those blogging, anyway) of them seem to be gleefully cheering it on - uncritically swallowing the military's line about Pres. Zelaya's Heinous Awful Dictatorialness; and practically slavering at the thought this might be seen as a slap to Hugo Chavez - who they seem to view as a combination of Che Guevara and Pol Pot - and a blow to the Heinous Awful March of Teh Eeevul Socialism in Central America.

Not a lot of thoughtfulness, nor consideration of the larger implications for democratic trends in the region, but not much confusion, either....

[Abe]

Call it what you may but the arrest of Mel Zelaya was not to stop a public referendum instead it was to prevent a fraud from being perpetuated on the Honduran people. The Venezuelan ballot boxes came pre-stuffed with ballots in favor of the president. With the opposition boycotting the voting the results would have been a lanslide for Mel. Another thing that was against any democratic process was that there were no controls set up at the at the voting places. Any person could vote and many times and they could move from one voting site to the other. If it was a coup then it was the most peaceful and civilized coup ever in Latin America. Good going Catrachos.

[MM]

This case can not be classed as a "coup d'état," since it does not comply with two fundamental characteristics of this political phenomenon: seizure of power by the military and the breakdown of rule of law.

The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law that was being consistently violated by the President of the Executive, ignoring the provisions of the Judiciary and the Legislature (checks and balances).

After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the Constitution is still in force since in complete respect the succession of power established by the Magna Carta, a new constitutional president was appointed.

The international press, international agencies and governments around the world, still have not understood the context and substance of this case and are condemning what happened in Honduras, as their analysis is based on concepts pertaining to the old paradigm of coups d'état during the Cold War. The international community, public and private, has not yet had the time or the elements, to realize that Honduras broke a pattern and that it is a completely sui generis case.

The lesson Honduras gave the world is clear: even if a President has been elected democratically and legitimately he has no right to disobey the Constitution and laws of the Republic.

The people are no longer willing to tolerate such abuse of power by the constitutional President, often considered untouchable by the very fact of having been elected by the people.

Honduras’ message is simple: the popular vote does not include a license to commit crime, and any effort to govern for the common good should be within the framework of the law.

[chi hair tools]

Yes, you can lessen the stretch mark with the right product, but it will involve a lot of trial and error. However, you will want to stick with it chi flat irons once you find a product or procedure that truly works in reducing marks on your body. Anyway, trying and taking preventive action and chi flat iron care is the best thing you can do now. In so doing, you can ensure you will not gain another stretch mark. Take vitamins that chi hair straightener your body needs regularly and apply lotion and such to your skin in order to keep it soft and healthy. Certainly, getting a beautiful skin is very possible for you as long as you take the right steps. Good luck!

[true religion jeans]

Your article is very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.

[supra shoes]

Cool website, like what I have read. Will definitely be back to read again.