The big news out of Latin America today is the coup in Honduras. Soldiers stormed into the house of President Mel Zelaya in the early morning hours and rousted him from his bed at gunpoint. Zelaya was forced to leave the country; he’s now in Costa Rica.
Coups were relatively common in Latin America over the first eight decades of the 20th Century, but there were many signs that the region had turned a corner. Peaceful transitions of power, through the ballot box and legal channels, became the rule rather than the exception. Let’s hope this latest event is just an isolated incident–one step back but not symbolic of a regressive trend. We condemn this coup in no uncertain terms.
-NF
Advertisement
Forgive my ignorance, but the articles i’ve read (and knowing nothing about anything, including Honduran political structures) suggest that the military was acting under orders from the Supreme Court, and the actions were ratified, somewhat, by the legislature. Is it a coup, or the president being held accountable to the rule of law/a checks and balances sort of thing? And where’s the line? If it is a coup, who has seized power? The Supreme Court? The legislature? The military, simply using the others as a front?
We’re all removed from the situation and good news is hard to come by–so I think all statements should be taken with a grain of salt. But be that as it may, this looks like a pretty classic coup. For a good overview of the situation, I recommend this piece in the Latin American Herald Tribune. President Zelaya was pushing a constitutional referendum that would allow him to seek reelection. The Honduran Supreme Court held the referendum illegal and enjoined the military from assisting with the balloting (a duty it normally performs). But Zelaya persisted, and that was the last straw. At least a faction of the military decided to take matters into its own hands. On top of seizing Zelaya, the military forged a resignation letter in his name. Zelaya’s current term is set to expire in January. All said and done, I think we can call this a coup without any reservations.
Now, I would argue that there are some circumstances when it is just, even morally imperative, to depose a democratically elected leader by force. If a man like Hitler gets elected, well, all bets are off. But the situation in Honduras is a far cry from that. If Zelaya was defying the Supreme Court’s ruling (with which Congress agreed) some action may have been necessary, but not this. This was a lawless power-grab.
Joe, my apologies. I looked into the matter further, and you are right that the Supreme Court ordered the President’s arrest. Does this change my decision to label it a coup and condemn it as such? I admit it gives me some pause, but in the end I stand by my conclusion. Here’s why: If the President was violating the law by pushing the referendum, that’s a problem. But it’s a problem that can be solved far short of ouster. The Supreme Court first ordered the military to refrain from assisting in the ballot process, and this military was obviously sympathetic to the Court’s position. If the referendum was illegal, shut it down; don’t arrest the President. Let him serve out his term and, if the Constitution permits it, impose sanctions later. Would it be acceptable for the U.S. Supreme Court to order the military to arrest Obama if he sought to amend the Constitution to run for a third term? Of course not. Granted, we should resist the temptation to see everything through U.S. eyes, norms, and procedures. But we should also resist moral relativism. Circumstantial evidence that this was a bogus move: Chavez and Obama agree on that.
Yes, this is a coup–by force. That is the crux of the matter; that is what must be condemned. All the complexities need to be studied, but we must not let complexities keep us from denouncing an act that fails to honor due process. The key is to support a system of law and due process. Zelaya was not given due process; so even if we were to determine that he somehow transgressed the will of the people or broke constitutional law in the Honduran system (not to suggest that this is the case, but to imagine it for the sake of argument here) this would not be justification for the coup action. It would be justification for using the legal system and the congressional process and so on to call his presidency into question and so on. So, the original statement by the SALP blog author remains valid: the coup must be condemned. The questions posed by the fist commentator are good questions, but not the basis for the “paralysis of analysis” or for hesitating to denounce a lawless/militarized action such as this coup.
I had just finished watching Anastasia when i heard about the coup, so my mind was thinking of violent overthrows and family massacres. Knowing nothing about the legitimacy of the country’s internal structures, i have nothing to add to that. But i do want to summarize my thoughts and those of the other commenters by asking this question: What is objectionable about the “coup”?
1) The fact that it was against the executive? When a Detroit judge threw then-mayor into jail, no one accused him of a coup. (Granted, the analogy from country head executive to local executive is imperfect, at best). I don’t think one branch exercising this sort of power is necessarily or inherently improper. We wouldn’t do it in the US – probably – but we’ve developed some very specific norms in that regard. Things like executive immunity. If one nation opts to get rid of this immunity, i’m not convinced it’s error. Especially if the branch did not retain the power for itself but gave it up at the first available opportunity – say after a special election.
2. The fact that it was forceful? I think not. Simply using force (and a minimal amount, at that, it seems like) in and of itself does not cause me concern. After all, that’s why we pay for cops, jails, and such. If we subscribe to the idea that no man is above the law, and the law can be enforced through a reasonable amount of force, then applying that force to a president does not strike me as more troublesome than against another person.
3. The fact that it was without adequate procedural protections? By what standard can we determine what sort of process a president is due? Should we require a formal impeachment trial like the US, or another safeguard we extend to those charged with criminal crimes? But even criminal defendants may be detained pending trial. Is the concern that a neutral arbiter didn’t make the decision? Or is the concern that it all happened so fast without much discussion?
4. Ultimately, i think the objectionable thing about this coup must be based on a sense that it was improper as a matter of Honduran law and/or common sense. And, as i said at the beginning, i have no idea what the answer is to this one.
But you’ve made me interested. I will be following this story closely.
Joe, you say “common sense” might tell us this was wrong. But then you imply that you can’t rely on that. Why not? You have common sense, just like everyone else. I think Dajiang may be on to something when he warns of the “paralysis of analysis.”
One minor factual quibble. Honduran law restricts presidents to a single term. The concern was that Zelaya would change the constitution to seek re-election for a second term, not a third term.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8126896.stm
Nick, thanks for starting this interesting discussion.
In today’s New York Times I stumbled over
an editorial by Álvaro Vargas Llosa who pointed out one curious aspect of the coup. That is that one of the most direct beneficaries of the coup is Hugo Chavez, whom Zelaya reportedly admired and who spearheaded the international condemnation of the coup. The author speculates that by advocating on behalf of Zelaya, Chavez has gained the high moral ground that will help him to advance his agenda in the region in the future. I thought that was a suave move by Chavez.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30Vargasllosa.html?ref=opinion
This, from what I can glean so far:
1) Zelaya’s only legal option for initiating an assembly would be if he wanted to write a new constitution. It would be illegal for him to attempt a modification of current constitution through the method he chose. Amendment versus re-write.
2) The process congress & courts used to stop what they saw as an illegal actions by Zelaya, is questionable, and perhaps illegal itself.
3) What, exactly, was Zelaya’s intent for forming an assembly? What constitutional reforms did he have in mind that could not have happened with amendments?
–