The Path Not Taken

By Marco Cáceres
Now that Porfirio Lobo has assumed the presidency of Honduras and Manuel Zelaya has left for the Dominican Republic, the debate about whether or not Mr. Zelaya should be reinstated is a moot one. We have entered the post-Zelaya period. The primary order of business will now be to unite the country by finding ways for people of different political opinions on the political crisis of the past year to talk to and engage with each in ways that are civil, respectful, and forgiving. Yet probably for many years to come, the question of whether or not Mr. Zelaya deserved to be overthrown will continue to be a source of intense debate. It is a legitimate debate, and intelligent people will disagree. There is no position that is entirely correct, because it largely depends on assumptions, interpretations, and perspectives. Truth is seldom absolute. It is most often relative. And I think this is certainly true for the downfall of Manuel Zelaya.

The debate about whether there is sufficient justification for the Supreme Court to have ordered the removal from power of President Zelaya, and for almost every institution within Honduran society -- including Congress, the Armed Forces, the Attorney General, the Human Rights Commissioner, the business sector, and the Church -- to have backed the decision, will be a breath of fresh air and a welcomed relief from the stale and dead end argument of whether it was a golpe or not a golpe. After all, the point is not so much whether or not it was a golpe, but rather whether it was a good golpe or a bad golpe. Bear with me.

It's kind of like, say... war. Most people in the world -- apart from extreme pacifists who are willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their loved ones before raising a stick to hurt anyone -- believe that there are "just wars" and "unjust wars". Most people will believe, for example, that World War II was a just war. Far fewer people will believe Vietnam was a just war. Although in principle, probably most of us oppose war, many of us would be willing to break with that principle in certain scenarios. The same logic should apply to a golpe, given that a golpe is far less destructive and hideous than any war.

The tricky part for those debating in support of Mr. Zelaya's ousting is that a strong part their justification lies in their assumptions, interpretations, and perceptions of what Mr. Zelaya was in the process of doing and intended to do in the future. While there is material evidence to show (... according to the Supreme Court and others) that Mr. Zelaya had broken certain key articles of the Constitution, and thus had automatically forfeited his presidency, the more popular arguments for getting rid of Mr. Zelaya tend to focus more on his "intentions" to change the Constitution, set up a National Constituent Assembly, perhaps dissolve the Congress, establish a socialist government allied with Hugo Chávez, and remain in power indefinitely.

Making a case for overthrowing Mr. Zelaya based on what he planned to do is tough. It's kind of like a judge convicting and imprisoning someone based on circumstantial evidence. You cannot know for certain what is in a person's mind. You can only speculate, and that is not enough to condemn someone. That is the problem that the US faced in Iraq. The Bush administration launched an invasion of Iraq based on what it believed Saddam Hussein had in his arsenal and what it believed were his intentions. This same analogy applies to the ousting of Mr. Zelaya.

Still, I think making this kind of a case is not impossible. There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence of what Mr. Zelaya was up to. And you just got a nagging feeling that the potential price to Honduras of standing around waiting for Mr. Zelaya to dictate events without regard for all the other institutions of government was simply too high. In other words, this felt like the right time to break with principle.

We will never know for sure whether Mr. Zelaya deserved to be evicted from the Presidential House at gunpoint on June 28, 2009. However, if you've been watching what has been going on in Venezuela during the past few years, and particularly the past week, you will get an idea of where Honduras was likely headed. The socialist dictatorship that Mr. Chávez has put in place is destroying one of the wealthiest and most educated societies in Latin America, not to mention one of the most oil-rich countries in the world.

In Venezuela, everything from North American hotels to French supermarket chains are being nationalized. Banks are under constant threat of take-over. The national currency has been devalued by 50 percent. Television stations have been shut down, and schools and universities are being required to indoctrinate students with the political views of the ruling socialist party. Tens of thousands of people are protesting and rioting in the streets, and students have been killed in confrontations with security forces. Now Mr. Chávez is looking to distract Venezuelans by attempting to provoke a war with neighboring Colombia.

The natural warmth and increasingly close political ties between Mr. Chávez and Mr. Zelaya during 2008 and the first half of 2009 were evident for all to see. Mr. Zelaya made no secret of his admiration for Mr. Chávez and his Bolivarian socialist revolution in Venezuela. Mr. Zelaya proudly declared himself a leftist, much in the same way as Mr. Chávez recently came out and shed his socialist affiliation and boldly declared himself to be a full-fledged Marxist.

Mr. Zelaya was well on his way to being indoctrinated and instructed on how to emulate the Venezuelan model. Then, the school year was abruptly shortened. Some will say that this was a good thing. Others will disagree. I say... keep watching what's going on in Venezuela, and see if that is the path you envisioned for Honduras. (1/29/10) (photo of Venezuelan student and riot police courtesy Internet)