More on Honduras

Apologists for the coup in Honduras stress that the ousted president wanted to hold an illegal referendum. What they don't explain is that the referendum was legal when president Zelaya called it.

Only after the vote was already scheduled did the Honduran Congress pass a law banning referendums within so many days of an election:

The Honduran Congress passed a new law on Tuesday, after an unusual late-night legislative session. The measure, called the Ley Especial que Regula el Referéndum y el Plebiscito, establishes specific restrictions on the power of the executive to call for national referendums by prohibiting plebiscites and referendums 180 days before or after a national election.

Prior to Tuesday’s development, President Zelaya had scheduled a vote for June 28 on whether to convene a constituent assembly to re-write the Honduran Constitution. Plans for the referendum provoked widespread criticism throughout Honduras, and were declared illegal by the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman, but President Zelaya vowed to press forward with the vote. [Americas Quarterly]

As you might expect, this kind of post hoc meddling by Congress sparked legal controversy--but the Honduran supreme court upheld the law and Zelaya refused to call off the vote. 

In so doing, he probably overstepped his authority--though that's impossible to say without reading the legal arguments of both sides. I've yet to hear the administration's justification. We shouldn't just assume that the separation of powers in the Honduran system is directly analogous to our own.

Besides which, it was a non-binding referendum. Even if the military had allowed the referendum to proceed, the vote would have had all the legal weight of a public opinion poll.

I find it amusing that wingnuts only recognize the perils of executive power when other world leaders try to fashion themselves as Unitary Executives.

Comments

[ballgame]

Can you clarify the timeline a little, Lindsay? When the article says the legislature passed a law on Tuesday, is that Tuesday June 23? Otherwise, if it was Tuesday June 29, wouldn't that be after the coup had taken place?

[Lorna]

Only problem is that The president is not allowed to develop a referendum to open up the constitutional process. Only a certain majority of the congress can do that.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Tuesday June 23.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

But it was a non-binding referendum, Lorna. I'm not an attorney, much less an attorney licensed to practice in Honduras, but I seriously doubt that the constitution forbids a non-binding referendum on whether to convene a constituent assembly.

[Alon Levy]

The US Constitution forbids such referenda, to my knowledge.

[parse]

I'm confused by the timeline as well. The story you link to says Prior to Tuesday’s development, President Zelaya had scheduled a vote for June 28 on whether to convene a constituent assembly to re-write the Honduran Constitution. Plans for the referendum provoked widespread criticism throughout Honduras, and were declared illegal by the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman, but President Zelaya vowed to press forward with the vote.

To me, that reads that four things took place before Tuesday's vote expressly prohibiting the referendum
1) Zelaya called for a referendum
2) The referendum was criticized widely
3) The Supreme Court et al declared the referendum illegal
4) Zelaya vowed to hold the referendum anyway

If this is the case, the Supreme Court's ruling wasn't based on the law passed to prohibit the referendum, and the referendum was already illegal when Zelaya called it.

You evidently understand the American Quarterly post to imply that the Supreme Court ruling came after the legislation was passed, but I can't find any source that gives the date of the decision. Do you know if there's anything that shows the timeline with dates for each event?

[Daniel]

Non-binding referendum. Sort of like an imaginary referendum. Just consider the "coup" a non-binding or imaginary coup. Point is, Zelaya gets his ass kicked if he comes back any time soon.

Who the hell was this Zeleya to call a referendum anyway? Notwithstanding Zelaya's presidential status, who was he to think up, just out of thin air, the idea of holding a referendum, non-binding or not, on altering the constitution? Is that the way things are done in constitutional democracies? If Zelaya could call up a referendum, why couldn't any Honduran legislator or man in the street, for that matter, call one up also? Does the president have some special, extra-constitutional privilege to make it up as he goes along? The fact that the referendum was non-binding is irrelevant. Everybody knows what his sinister game was.

Face it, the man is a clown. A buffoon. And he has made a fool of Clinton and Obama by getting them to back his return.

[JohnL]

Daniel, it doesn't matter if you think that Zelaya did something illegal or you don't like him. It also doesn't matter if he's unpopular in Honduras. There are legal ways to deal with this and if you believe in democracy, that's what needs to be done (there is nothing in their constitution that allows the army to arrest the president and force him out of the country). The only correct response to a military coup is to denounce it. Once Zelaya is reinstated, the country has the right to try him if he really did something illegal.
Since the new government has suspended several constitutional rights, I'm hard pressed to see why you support this.

[El Cid]

The former Defense Minister (up until 24 June) Angel Edmundo Orellana Mercado, possessing a Honduran doctorate of law, a former public prosecutor, a former magistrate on appellate court level, and occupying high national positions of Honduran government for the past couple of decades, writes a letter to the Honduran Congress shredding their arguments of legality and accusing them of 'perpetrating' an un-Constitutional Coup d'Etat.

In the process he also ridicules the court decisions supposedly illegalizing Zelaya's poll / referendum. It's worth a read.

The liberal representative and ex national prosecutor, Edmundo Orellana Mercado, stated in a letter released yesterday that the removal [from power] of the deposed President Manuel Zelaya Rosales constituted a coup d'etat, and the same terms were echoed by the parliamentarians Carolina Echeverria and Elvia Argentina Valle.

In a letter to Congress, Orellana Mercado -- whom the legislators consider a hero because he resigned his position as Defense Minister in order to not participate in the Fourth Urn [the poll / referendum] -- assured that the removal of Zelaya had violated thee Constitution of the Repulic and perpetrated a coup d'etat.

He explained that he resigned so as to not disobey the judicial order that, in an absurd ruling [presumably Edmundo Orellana's view, I'm guessing] ordered that the poll / referendum known as the Fourth Urn not be carried out even though the practice in general was not declared illegal, but instead they declared the suspension of the balloting in an incidental ruling and in a clarification, that outrageously resulted in a new ruling, that included all future ballots similar to the poll / referendum.

A doctorate in Administrative Law and practitioner in this branch of the law, Orellana added that since communications were released between the Defense Ministry which recommended not doing the poll / referendum and that this brought about his resignation, he however insisted that none of this authorized the Congress to destitute a President of the Republic.

Orellana says that the actions of the Congress dramatically contradicted the Constitution of the Republic because in the first place they read a resignation [an alleged letter from Zelaya widely denounced as fraudulent], when it's utterly obvious that Zelaya Rosales was violently removed from his home and expelled involuntarily to Costa Rica.

In the second place, [the Congress] adopted a legislative degree by which they destituted the President of the Republic [of his position & authority], alleging supposed criminal acts that, if accurate, should be qualified and judged by the competent courts [Tribunals], not by the Legislative Branch, in respect to basic principles of the division of powers.

"The destitution of the President was adopted without the Constitution of the Republic recognizing the National Congress as having any such authority to take a decision of this nature," which is to say that "my position is that they violated the Constitution of the Republic and perpetrated a Coup d'Etat."

He finished by recalling that he resigned the Defense Ministry because he would have intended to disobey a court order and thus endanger the Rule of Law, which was a simple threat, but the acts of the Legislators described [above] constituted the execution of a violation of the Constitution of the Republic that "entered into an unarguable Coup d'Etat, which is to say, we now confront a fait accompli."

[John]

What's obvious is that the rule of law is ignored. Congress passes a law. Was it ever ratified by the head of state? Someone has to sign a law before it takes effect. A President is accused of crimes. Was he ever given the opportunity to defend himself? He has said that no one had even told him what his crime was. The press asked the acting "President" what law had been violated and all he could say was that he had "full confidence in the court". Surely if something so significant as a President being deposed has happened his replacement should be able to simply state what law had been violated. It is said that a President has broken a law. Since when is this a matter for the army? In most countries this would be a matter for the Attorney General and lawyers, not the army.

[Brasileiro]

Pathetic... So u abhor the unitary executive in the usa but swallows it a pride if in Honduras.... That's hypocritical and soooooo typical of snotty liberals from advanced countries all so happy to lick some third world dictator boots... U can't have the cake and eat it.... You are either againnst zelaya or pro Cheney

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Brasileiro, I wouldn't have supported a military coup to remove Dick Cheney. Maybe it's just as snotty liberal thing, but I can entertain two thoughts at once: a) Dick Cheney was democratically elected and therefore entitled to be VP; b) His theory of executive power was a bogus interpretation of the American constitution and a terrible setback for the country.

The architects of the coup are trying to set themselves up as defenders of democracy instead of military dictators. So, they're trying to paint Zelaya as an out-of-control autocrat who needed to be stopped. There are times when revolution is justified, but the abuses have to be so severe and so entrenched that no other solution is available.

Whatever Zelaya might have done wrong, if anything, it's nothing close to a justification for seizing power by military force. The only evidence the architects of the coup can point to is some stupid pissing match about whether to ask the people how they feel about the possibility of a constituent assembly that might change the constitution.

[Clilffyworld]

Please read the the related article titled " Obama Manifesto" at http://www.cliffyworld.com

[squashed]

Plus dick cheney could have been removed by regular oversight mechanism had senate had guts investigating and impeaching darth cheney.

The usual problem with latin america, etc. The legal mechanism is very immature, a lot of thing has no mechanism or the law doesn't say who should resolve a conflict. (constitutional crisis is common.)

Incidentally, ever wonder how easy/hard it is to do coup/regime change in the US? That thought amuses me.

For some reason, I think it isn't as hard as people think it would be.

[Marc Brodeuer]

Why were all the ballots printed and imported from Venezuela if so many Hondurans wanted this? Why does he need to extend his power so badly? Why can't he be happy with the current status quo (ie 1 term)? Why does every politician want to stay in power forever? Really, the only thing that even remotely resembles democracy on this planet is practiced in Switzerland. Quick, tell me the name of ANY president of Switzerland ever? Exactly.....the power is KEPT from the politicians for a reason in that country. The rest of the world could learn something from them.

[Alon Levy]

Marc, I'm not sure that the last country in the free world to give women the right to vote is a very good model for democracy.

[parse]

The architects of the coup are trying to set themselves up as defenders of democracy instead of military dictators.

Who are the architects of the coup? You seem comfortable drawing very strong conclusions based on incomplete reports of what happened. I asked earlier if you could point to a source that reports whether the Supreme Court ruling came prior to or after the legislature's explicit law against the referendum.

What if it is the case that:
1) Zelaya called for a referendum
2) The Supreme Court ruled the referendum as illegal and ordered the military not to participate
3) Zelaya fired the head of the military for respecting the ruling of the court
4) The Court demanded the military chief be re-instated, but Zelaya refused
5) The legislature passed a law specifically prohibiting the referendum, but Zelaya moved forward with preparations for it anyway
6) The Supreme Court ordered the military to detain the president
7) The legislature voted to remove the president from power
8) Zelaya was replaced by the successor mandated by the constitution

Do you know whether this is what happened or not? (Most of those incidents are reported by the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian.)Do you know how much of this conforms with the Honduran constitution? Do you know what mechanism apart from the coup exists in Honduras to remove a president who defies both the Supreme Court and the legislature?

I'm not defending the coup; I'm confessing ignorance of many relevant factors that might allow me to usefully pass judgement on what's happened. I'm wondering what you know that I don't that gives you the confidence to opine so forcefully on the events.

[Daniel]

According to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:

"No citizen who 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."

Zelaya was lawfully removed.

Don't you get it. They are sick of caudillos, maximo liders, presidents for life, "the one", etc...

Why can't fool gringos and gringas keep their nose out of other people's business?

[Alon Levy]

Parse, for me the main issue is not the legality of Zelaya's removal, but the fact that the military government is suspending freedom of speech and of the press and firing on protesters.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

The survey question didn't even mention term limits, Daniel. So, the idea that Zelaya was justifiably removed for pushing the vote is absurd. Even if a majority of voters had agreed with the proposal, they would have been saying, "Yes, we like the idea of having a future election on whether to convene a constituent assembly to reform the constitution. The question didn't even specify any particular changes to the constitution.

Besides, the vote had no legal force. It wouldn't have abolished term limits or changed a single comma in the constitution. It was just a survey. Zelaya's term ends in early 2010. So, it's highly unlikely that the changes would take effect during his term anyway. The claim that the military saved Honduras from incipient autocracy is just propaganda.

If you want to talk about unconstitutional, check Article 2 of the Honduran constitution which designates military coups as treason: "Article 2, which states that sovereignty originates in the people, also includes a provision new to the 1982 constitution that labels the supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurping of power as "crimes of treason against the fatherland." This provision can be considered an added constitutional protection of representative democracy in a country in which the military has a history of usurping power from elected civilian governments."

[parse]

Parse, for me the main issue is not the legality of Zelaya's removal, but the fact that the military government is suspending freedom of speech and of the press and firing on protesters.

Where are you finding the best reports of what's happening in Honduras now?

[parse]

This provision can be considered an added constitutional protection of representative democracy in a country in which the military has a history of usurping power from elected civilian governments.

Lindsey, how much difference would it make to you if the army was also responding to orders from the elected civilian government--the legislative branch, rather than the exectuive,--as well as the Supreme Court? And do you know whether or not that's the case?

And do have you confirmed whether the Supreme Court ruling preceeded the legislature's action or not?

[Alon Levy]

I don't think any one place is the best. The problem is that some of the most courageous channels, like Telesur, would have no problem with a coup if it were orchestrated by a Chavista military against a popular neoliberal president.

But what I said about civil liberty suspensions was reported in the Miami Herald and on Al Jazeera.

[Alon Levy]

Another paper that's reporting about the illegality of the coup leaders, albeit less directly, is the Torygraph, which says,

The Sunday Telegraph has seen the Supreme Court order to the military to arrest Mr Zelaya, and there is no mention of exile. But a senior strategist for the new government said the former president was ejected to avoid further conflict and the risk of bloodshed. “Due process is a fine principle and works in America and Britain, but this is Honduras,” he said.

[Kathy]

I have read that Zelaya changed from a binding referendum to a non binding referendum, after the ruling by the Court.

I have also read that on the evening of the 27th, is a public speech, with the UA Ambassador present, (he didn't stay for all of it) Zelaya affirmed that even if the ref passed, He, Zelaya would not run for a second term, it would onlt apply to presidents elected after any change in the constitution.

I also read that the constitution protects this king of input from "the people."

I also read that the US Ambassador sheltered Zelaya's son, to make sure if anything went wrong with the "bloodless" coup, the child would be safe.

This is being covered by Taiwan press, starting before the coup, on June 25, President Ma delayed his visit, and remained in Panama, he said he didn't know if Zelaya would be in Honduras.

Algeezera is reporting in video that the so called government is hunting for other government ministers, for traeson, because the supported holding the poll.

Therefore, here are my current questions...

Where is the Vice President?

Has the US ever been involved in preventing or cancelling elections or polls from going forward before? (answer, yes, Vietnam)

If Honduras claims to be a democracy, and there is widespread opposition to the ref, then why not hold it, count all the negative votes, and announce the people oppose the ref?

Definitions of junta, coup, and kangaroo court all describe what went down in Honduras. I recomend, without hesitation, a review of those definitions.