New Honduran Government Seeks to Prove Legitimacy
Last Updated on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 19:37
In Tegucigalpa, the morning of Monday, June 29 was calm. Shops and businesses were opening as usual, giving little sign of the political upheaval of the previous day.
In the early hours of June 28, members of the Honduran military stormed the Presidential House. President Jose Zelaya was evicted from the premises at gunpoint and flown out of the country. As the population began to wake up, many areas were without electricity. The supply was reportedly switched off to prevent Zelaya´s supporters from broadcasting propaganda. Nationwide bus services were canceled for June 28, in an attempt to stop radicals from taking advantage of the power vacuum.
President Zelaya´s ousting follows weeks of heated criticism from the population. On June 28 Hondurans were due to vote in a referendum on the addition of a ´fourth box´ to November´s election. The fourth box would allow constitutional change. Zelaya´s critics had feared that he would use the fourth box to attempt to hold on to power beyond the end of his term. Under the current constitution, only one Presidential term is permitted.
On June 22 the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that no referendum could be held 180 days before or after an election. Under this ruling, the proposed referendum on June 28 would have been against the law. In a speech on the evening of June 25, the former President showed his contempt for the legislature, telling supporters: “We will not obey the Supreme Court. . . [The court] only causes problems for democracy.”
Zelaya was elected in 2005 in a close race with National Party leader Pepe Lobo, promising to tackle Honduras´s street crime and high poverty rates. During his Presidency, he has sought to break long-standing ties with the U.S.A. and ally himself with the Latin American left. His plans to introduce unspecified constitutional change had provoked fears that he wished to establish a Socialist Dictatorship, following similar moves by the Venezuelan, Bolivian and Colombian leaders in recent years.
Zelaya´s Vice-President, Elvin Santos, resigned late last year in order to stand as a candidate in this November´s elections. No replacement was ever appointed. Zelaya´s successor was immediately named as the Speaker of Congress, Roberto Micheletti.
Micheletti insisted that the transition was “absolutely legal.” He cited Zelaya´s insistence on going ahead with Sunday´s referendum as a clear breach of the law and a threat to the constitution. “The army has complied with the constitution,” he said. Congress has ruled that Micheletti will hold office until January 27, 2010 – the day that the Zelaya Presidency was due to end.
For most of the afternoon of June 28, national television broadcast the swearing-in of the new President. Micheletti has promised that the elections scheduled for November will still take place. Only hours later, Micheletti declared that a curfew would be in force from 9pm to 6am on the nights of June 28 and 29.
In the course of the day, a letter surfaced in which Zelaya said he had officially resigned as the Honduran leader. Zelaya now claims that the letter was forged. The exiled President has urged his followers not to rest until he is peacefully restored. Overnight, following his instructions, a small group of protesters defied the curfew to show their support by chanting and burning tires.
Scenes turned ugly on the afternoon of June 29, as the pro-Zelaya demonstrators demanded the return of the elected leader. Police stepped in to break up the protest, using riot gear and water cannons. The demonstrators appeared badly organized, numbering a couple of hundred at the most. There were reports of two shootings which have proved impossible to verify.
It is too early to tell in which direction Micheletti will steer the country. But, internally at least, things are continuing as normal. Only a few police check-points on routes into the city give any sign of the events that have provoked such ripples internationally.
Zelaya addressed a meeting of the United Nations on June 30, which backed a resolution calling for his reinstatement. The U.N. has “firmly and categorically” urged all countries not to recognize any government in Honduras, except one headed by Zelaya. The resolution echoed statements from Washington and the European Union, which have insisted that Zelaya remains the democratically-elected head of state and urged for his return to office.
The key issue in this debate is the manner in which Zelaya was removed from power. His enforced exile, at gunpoint, and the restrictions placed upon broadcast media in the wake of his removal have left some questioning the validity of the new government.
While the events in Tegucigalpa have generally been peaceful, tension in the Honduran capital remains high. Armed soldiers still guard the Presidential Residence, and there are sporadic patrols by military helicopters. Micheletti has dismissed criticism from abroad that the ousting of Zelaya constitutes a coup. “These were democratic events,” he stated, emphasizing that Zelaya´s decision to go ahead with the planned referendum was in clear breach of the law.
From 10am on June 30, thousands of Hondurans gathered in Tegucigalpa´s Central Park to defend the new government. The protest kicked off with prayers and a passionate rendition of the Honduran national anthem. Elisa Rodriguez from the College of Law explained that the protesters were here to demonstrate their support for the new government and also to inform the international community that Honduras remains a democracy. “The international community needs to understand that we don’t want to reinstate ex-President Zelaya,” she said.
Prudencio Acosta, a reserve in the Armed Forces explained that he was attending the protest because he believed in defending the constitution and the law, something that formed part of his duty in the Armed Forces. “The ex-President thought [the people] were stupid and would tolerate whatever he wanted to do. We respect the law but our ex-President thought he could break it. The Armed Forces wouldn’t let him do so and that is why the military made the decision to exile him.” He stressed repeatedly that Honduras wanted peace. “We want peace and liberty to live and work in Honduras, to carry on with our daily lives.”
At around 1pm, the current President, Roberto Micheletti arrived and spoke to the enormous crowd. He promised in front of God and everybody before him that Honduras would hold its elections on November 29 as previously planned. The President´s speech was followed by another from General Romeo Vásquez, who was greeted with cheers of ‘thanks’ for what the military had done. He said the Armed Forces had only done its duty, which was to uphold the constitution. Both speeches were televised live on state television.
Across Latin America, government leaders are also refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new government. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has threatened military action following reports that the Venezuelan Ambassador to Honduras, Armando Laguna, was attacked by “hooded military agents” and left at a roadside. Mr Laguna´s Cuban and Nicaraguan counterparts, as well as Honduran Foreign Relations Minister Patricia Rodas were also beaten, according to reports. Speaking after an emergency meeting with Mr Zelaya and other Latin American leaders (Nicaragua´s Daniel Ortega and Ecuador´s Rafael Correa) Chavez stated that should reports of violence against his ambassador be true, it would be the de factor beginning of a war. The Venezuelan military has apparently been placed on stand-by, but with the attention of the United Nations focused on the region, it seems unlikely that this is any more than an empty threat. When questioned about Hugo Chavez’s threat to send in military troops, Mr Acosta answered: “We are men, we will defend the constitution.”
º In the U.S.A., the Wall Street Journal for June 29 reported that President Obama is “deeply concerned” by events in Honduras, and has called upon Micheletti to “respect the rule of law.” Additionally, the European Union has urged a return to “normality.”
The firm line taken by Washington could prove to have far-reaching consequences. Honduras, a nation where 70 per cent of the population is poor, reportedly relies on $200 million of U.S. development aid annually. The World Bank has already put subsidies to Honduras on hold.
Zelaya is tentatively scheduled to return to Honduras on Thursday, July 2, accompanied by members of the Organization of American States. Government officials here vow to arrest Zelaya upon arrival.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
News Categories
Latest Press Releases
-
Volunteers Needed to Teach at Jungle School in La Ceiba
...
Readmore... -
Hondurans Charged in Miami With Cocaine Trafficking
...
Readmore... -
Physicians in Georgia Raise Funds for Medical Mission to Guaimaca
...
Readmore... -
Radio Reporter Israel Zelaya Killed Near San Pedro Sula
...
Readmore... -
Honduran Teachers Continue Strike
...
Readmore...










As expected, the biased American press has intentionally ignored and misrepresented this story and your fight is now being portrayed an just another crazy coup in Central America.
Even as America celebrated its Independence from tyranny this weekend, the US policy turned its back on the Honduran people in their fight against the Chavez and the tyranny of the OAS.
What America hears in the press is a distorted story - that Micheletti broke the law in an attempt overthrow the democratic process.
Precious time has been lost. Micheletti must address the American people directly, with haste.
1. If Zelaya was allowed to proceed with his vote, what makes you think the outcome would be legitimate when Zelaya has foreign socialist military on Honduran soil on behalf of his support?
2. If Congress and or the Supreme Court do not have the authority's to direct the Military if the President breaks the law, what is their purpose? Oh yeah silly me, thats a dictatorship.
3. When Obama does the same as Zelaya will you support his right to bring the vote to the people?..If you think that this will never happen, remeber he has already said "So we need to break away from the ‘essential constraints’ the Founding Fathers placed in the constitution, and stop interpreting it as a charter of ‘negative liberties’ which set out the limits beyond which government cannot go. And we should bring about ‘redistributive change.’". ehem ie socialism
4. Learn what a Republic is!
I used to visit Venezuela and was in Caracas during Christmas holiday in 1990 when the communist Hugo Chavez and his coup cronies tried to assassinate the democratically elected President of Venezuela and overthrow the constitution. Chavez did not give a crap about democracy then nor now. 18 years later you can see what Venezuela is going thru now.
We are now suffering under the oppression of a similar stupidity in the USA the same man who now wishes to help Hugo Chavez overthrow your constitution.
Be brave.
Emilio Martínez, Bolivia
Would the United States have accepted foreign sympathizers of Richard Nixon
who would want to reinstall him as president?
Perhaps those who rush to qualify the recent political events in Honduras as a coup d’État should remember the case of Richard Nixon, who was removed from his office after the American Congress initiated a process brought on by the Watergate scandal.
For those who don’t know or don’t recall the episode, let me summarize it. On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested after secretly entering the Democratic National Committee offices to steal documents and bug phones.
A later investigation proved that those “plumbers,” as they became known, were part of a political espionage team linked to President Nixon, who was seeking strategic information against his opponents during an electoral campaign, That investigation opened the way to a process against the American President called impeachment, a word that means an impediment or political obstruction, even though its original meaning is to flush, to redden. This figure of speech in Anglo-Saxon law was born in the 14th century when the English Parliament accused the King of squandering public money and shamed him, causing him to redden.
A head of State challenged by impeachment must face a vote of Congress that can cause him to lose his office.
In U.S. history, three presidents have submitted to this process: Andrew Johnson (1868), the mentioned Richard Nixon (1972) and Bill Clinton (1998-1999), the latter for his scandalous affair with his young secretary Monica Lewinski. Johnson and Clinton were acquitted, but not Nixon - who chose to resign before his imminent deposal by Congress.
The present day situation in Honduras
In Honduras something similar happened. The impeachment process against ex-President José Manuel Zelaya started a week before he was deposed, soon after he triggered an institutional crisis by repeatedly violating the Constitution and challenging judicial decisions issued by the Congress of that Central-American nation.
Zelaya was already moving toward despotism in 2008 as his relation with Hugo Chaves became closer. He began to execute the methodology of a gradual coup d’État that had already been exported by the Venezuela president to several Latin American republics. This system included persecution of the free media and implementation of an illegal procedure to change the Constitution in order to keep himself in power.
The fuse that set off the crisis was Zelaya’s plan to hold a popular referendum last Sunday, June 28, that called for a vote on the dissolving of Congress and the installation of a Constituent Assembly to allow for his presidential reelection.
Even though the Supreme Electoral Court of Honduras considered the referendum unconstitutional, Zelaya ordered the Army to distribute 15,000 ballot-boxes for the referendum. This order was not obeyed by the military since it violated the sentence of the due authority.
Next, José Manuel Zelaya dismissed the military Commander, General Romeo Vasquez. In response, the Supreme Court commanded Vasquez to be reinstated in his functions and the ballot-boxes to be kept inside the military headquarters. Zelaya counter-ordered his sympathizers to invade the headquarters, take the ballot-boxes and set them up for the referendum.
A multi-party commission named by Congress to investigate the President concluded that Zelaya had violated Honduran law. That commission asked Congress to declare him unfit to govern and begin a legal process of impeachment.
It is necessary to stress that the juridical basis for such an impeachment is in the Honduran Constitution, which establishes in article 239:
“Any citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch cannot be President or Vice-President again. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those who support such violation directly or indirectly, must immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
One sees, therefore, that the Honduran Congress took action to prevent a coup d’État by Zelaya against the democratic institution of the country. It voted unanimously to depose José Manuel Zelaya and named as the new head of country the president of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, to whom this responsibility normally would fall according to the Constitution. That congressional decision was duly supported by the Supreme Court. This is how Congress carried out the legal impeachment of Zelaya.
Adding to the tense political picture was the fact that, authorized by Zelaya, Venezuelan and Nicaraguan military forces were present in Honduras posted close to the Congress. This means that when the Honduras military took action, they were also proceeding in defense of their sovereignty.
As expected, this democratic counter-coup against Zelaya caused a hysterical reaction in Hugo Chavez and his allies of ‘21st century Socialism.’ They called for an emergency meeting in their ALBA group - Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America - a new version of the Warsaw Pact. There they offered harbor to their deposed disciple and threatened to invade Honduras to reinstall him in power.
At this meeting, where Presidents Raul Castro (Cuba) and Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) were present, statements were issued in favor of what those “moral authorities” consider to be democracy in Honduras, that is to say, only under Zelaya’s rule. Consequently, they condemned the decision of the Honduran Congress as a “coup d’État.”
Another quick reaction responding to the alarm sounded by Chavez came from the Secretary General of the American Organization of States (OAS) José Miguel Insulza, who everyone knows owes his position to the diplomatic maneuverings of Hugo Chavez.
What is lamentable is that, in addition to these expected moves of Chavez’ chess pieces, came the unexpected reaction of Barack Obama’s administration and European governments, who expressed incomprehension over the situation in Honduras. Perhaps this is due to manipulation of information or confusion about the present day situation of Latin American governments which is quite different from past epochs.
I conclude with my initial question: Would the United States have accepted the orders of foreign sympathizers of Richard Nixon who would demand that he be reinstated as president?
Zelaya was both right and wrong about his comment on the court. The courts have destroyed our form of government here in the United States from what the Framers of the Constitution gave us. No chief executive is required to violate their oath of office in upholding the Constitution even if the court says he must. In Zelaya's case he was the one in violation and chose to ignore a correct opinion of the court. However, it goes back to then what happens. The courts should never be allowed to dictate to the military what should be done or that their orders should be carried out even if they follow the Constitution. This sets up a dangerous precedent. What happens next time when the court is wrong. The military should never be allowed to make the change, period, even if the other two branches approve of it.
Many comments I have read here speak of the Constitution being followed in Zeyla's removal, but it wasn't. You can't violate it to correct a violation otherwise you do exactly what you say you are protecting against.
Lo de Honduras:Para que tanto ejercicio intelectual fuè un golpe de estado clasico y yo he vivid alguno y tengo esa experiencia.
Es penoso que practicas que se consideraban extinguidas persistan aunque sea un ejemplo aislado.M
Sobre las definiciones de democracia ,puden haber distintas denominacione pero el sentido es univoco.
Està en los postulados de la revolucion francesa y en la Constitucion americana ,en todas las del mundo y probablemente en la de Honduras.
Libertad cierto pero bien entendida y no slo eso igualdad y fraternidad.
Libertad como palabra es hueca si la sociedad donde dice asentarse permite ciudadanos de primera clase.
los que pueden viajar al extranjero en vacaciones,los que pueden educar a sus hijos en colegios privados,que pueden comprar todo lo que la tecnologia hahecho para el hombre una mejor calidad de vida incluyendo un auto y las psibilidades aumentadas de acceder al poder,economico politico, o social.
Las de segunda clase,la mayoria de los hondureños,con una educacion precaria o sin ninguna,subsitiendo malamente con US uno o dos al dia.Discriminado y sin poder real que deposita cada 5 años en politicos que mantienen el statu quo.
Si los escritores del blog son ciudadanos americanos como lo son saben que es una democracia.
El manido argumento del marxismo detras de todo movimiento social.No han aprendido nada desde MacKarty
y otros fundamentalistas ultraconservadores que tanto daño hicieron a la sociedad americana.
Lo de Chavez y todos lo que han surgido es fruto del descontento popular y no de una conjura internacional,No son menos democraticosque la mayoria de los paises latinos.Al menos han sido generados en eleciones y no expulsados de laOEA menos de la ONU.
Es penoso que una practica que se consideraba especie estinguida se produzca.habrà que pasarla a la categoria de especies no deseables en peligro de extincion.
Al menos Obama compatriota creo de los autores del blog ha rechazado el golpe,no asi su embajador en Honduras.No se si la CIA detras de tanto golpe en America latina le cueste hacerlo.
En fin una inteligencia promedio podria facilmente deducir donde està el sentido de un blog pero como este pero hay mas de 200 millones de ellos en el mundo
ESO DEMUESTRA QUE LA OPINION PUBLICA TIENE RAZON
LA CENSURA ES LA FORMA MAS EXCECRABLE DE QUE NO SE CONOZCA LA VERDAD PERO ESO ES TAN IMPOSIBLE COMO ENCERRAR EN UNA CARCEL LOS PENSAMIENTOS O MATAR EL ESPIRITU HUMANO.
HICE 2 COMENTARIOS QUE CURIOSAMENTE FUERON BORRADOS
PERO TODO EL MUNDO SABE QUIENES ESTAN DETRAS DE LOS QUE APOYAN EL GROTESCO GOLPE DE ESTADO EN HONDURAS
POCO INTELIGENTE PORQUE AL FINAL SE VAN A LEER ENTRE .
SI MISMOS COMO EN EL TIEMPO DEL TERCER REICH.
AL MENOS LOS COLUMNISTAS PODIAN ESCRIBIR EN ESPAÑOL AVER SI LOS LEE ALGUIEN
It also includes 7 articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles deal with the form of government, the extent of our borders, the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions -one to reelect presidents and another one to change the article that states who can’t run for president- and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
In these 28 years Honduras has found legal ways to deal with its own problems. Each and every successful country around the world lived similar trial and error processes until they were able to find legal vehicles that adapt to their reality. France had 13 Constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958 which has passed 22 constitutional revisions. The USA had one before this one which has been amended 27 times since 1789 and the British –pragmatic as they are- in 900 years have change it so many times that they have never taken the time to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.
Having explained that, under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this last Sunday? Soldiers arrested and took out of the country a Honduran citizen that, the day before, through his actions had stripped himself of the presidency of Honduras.
These are the hard facts. Last Friday Mister Zelaya, with his cabinet, issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly” (Presidential Decree PCM-020). The decree was published on Saturday on the official newspaper. With this event, Mister Zelaya triggered a constitutional protection that automatically removed him from office.
The key legal elements for that constitutional protection to be triggered are the following ones. Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. In Honduras, you have 365 articles that can be changed by Congress. When Zelaya published that decree to regulate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly he acted against the unchangeable articles of the constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
How is that kind of intent sanctioned in our Constitution? With the immediate removal of those involved in the action as stated in article 239 of the Constitution which reads: “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.” Notice that the rule speaks about intent and that it also says immediately –as in instant, as in no trial required, as in no impeachment needed.
This immediate sanction might sound draconian, but every country knows its own enemies and it is the black letter of our supreme law. Requiring no previous trial might be crazy, but in Latin America a President is no ordinary citizen, it is the most powerful figure of the land and historically the figure has been above the law. To prevent that officer from using its power to stay in office Honduras has constitutional rules such as the mentioned one.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here, no one will be above the law.
We Americans would be wise to take careful note how this event plays out in Honduras.
I for one say stay your ground Honduran friends. You will go down on the correct side of history.
Vive Honduras.
in the back. Honduran's did what is right. They
stood up for their constitution.
In the coming years they will be proud of their stand.
Do not back down.
With all due respect to "gatitanegra", the slow, deliberate process outlined here is a constitutional process meant to be followed in a constitutionally sound and stable environment. Zelaya had clearly made himself a danger to peace and stability in the country, first, by attempting to foment unrest against the constitutional government among those involved in various unrelated social issues and then attempting to hijack the military by firing its legally bound leader.
There is irony in a comment made by "A US Reader" that "Micheletti may have averted a dictatorship but did not properly follow the constitutional process." It cannot be denied that, in this case, pursuing a slow, deliberate procedure in first gear while a renegade's revolutionary incitements took off in overdrive might have been the real threat to democracy in Honduras.
In law, there is a justification for assault, and that is self-defense. Can Zelaya really claim protection by the very constitution he was assailing? Of course he can, and he has. But this is the ploy of a disingenuous man in the mold of Hugo Chavez.
I am a US citizen living in Honduras. I am appalled by the reaction of so much of the world on Zelaya's behalf. The former president is a charismatic, intelligent and sneaky man. He has fooled those outside of Honduras as he did so many inside. I am ashamed of the president of the US and his partner in idiocy, Hillary Clinton. HONDURAS, please do not think that either speaks for all Americans. There are those with wisdom among us.