The planned plebiscite in Honduras, which was the precipitating event for the military coup that overthrew the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was as follows:
¿Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente? = Sí…….ó………..No.
I am going to pick up now on Steven Taylor’s translation and comments:
Translation:
Do you agree with the installation of a fourth ballot box during the 2009 general elections so that the people can decide on the calling of a national constituent assembly? Yes or no.
In other words: do you want there to be a ballot and a ballot box (Latin American elections often have one ballot per office and one ballot box per ballot) for the purpose of a referendum in November (alongside the presidential and congressional elections) to decide whether or not to call a constituent assembly to reform the constitution.
[...] This is important for a variety of reasons.
1. This language was not about re-election.
2. Even if the plebiscite was allowed to go forward, the answer was “yes,” and the results were allowed to stand, Zelaya would not have been in a position to be re-elected in November.
Steven has more on the theme, including a photo of the ballot,* at PoliBlog.
Perhaps Zelaya was going to find a way to extend his term, unconstitutionally, but I never understood how. Unless he had totally suspended the constitution, which it is doubtful he expected to be able to do, he was not going to get the right to run for immediate reelection in November, when his successor was due to be elected. The constitution has language that makes it impossible to amend for reelection, which would explain the need for a constituent assembly. (A constituent assembly could declare itself the “sovereign voice of the people” and therefore not bound by restrictions in the existing constitution.) However, if the assembly could not be elected, convened, and complete its work before the November election, it would be too late for Zelaya to extend his term.
If the planned vote this past Sunday had been one to call a constituent assembly for this summer, there might have been more urgency to the situation. I would still not see even the slightest justification for the coup, but the urgency to deal with an unconstitutional act by the president would have been, well, urgent. But there was plenty of time for constitutional processes to play out.
And, yes, this was a military coup. It does not matter that there is no military junta, or that the arrest of the president was allegedly approved by other state institutions (Supreme Court and congress). I heard a news item today that the US government has not officially branded the act a military coup, because to do so would force the cutoff of aid. If that is true, shame on the Obama administration. If it is actually governed by a democratic administration, the US must cut off military aid and diplomatic relations until the coup is reversed and the proper constitutional order is restored in Honduras. This must not be allowed to stand, and mere words of condemnation are not enough. The military needs to feel some economic pain for its actions.
Update: See Two Weeks Notice on the question of aid and military coups. Which is, of course, what this coup was, except in the Obama administration’s hairsplitting terminology. How very Clintonian of the US government.
_________
* I had seen the ballot on TV Once (Mexico) last night, but even freezing the frame on my brand new, and unbelievably clear, plasma TV, I could not quite read the entire thing. So I thank Steven for posting it–and also thank Miguel Madeira (who pointed Steven to the source).
I’ve looked unsuccessfully for the text of the Supreme Court ruling, which would be very useful. But like so many other aspects of this crisis, the precise wording and legal justification for actions are not made public.
Seed planted by Greg Weeks — 30 June 2009 @ 16:58
Whether he was removed in a proper manner or not — and whether their concerns were legitimate or not — it happened because none of the other institutions of government were willing to continue tolerating him. Having already resorted to violence, they can only be less willing to tolerate him now. His re-installation can only mean crushing all political actors other than the President. Indeed, his continuing would have meant that. It’s not the text of the referendum that matters, it’s the fact that the President had no authority to call it in the first place, the high-handed disregard for every law or institution limiting his power, and above all, the alliance with Venezuela (who printed and shipped in the ballots). Chavismo is simply the latest outbreak of the anti-institutional and anti-legal populist authoritarianism which has periodically disfigured Mediterranean and Mediterranean-derived cultures since the Greek tyrants.
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 30 June 2009 @ 22:06
The problem with the alleged realist view, as expressed by Aaron, is that when you give a coup recognition after the fact you are also giving future coups encouragement before the fact. Whether Zelaya was a good or bad president, the Honduran constitution does not authorise his removal by armed force or authorise the other branches to ratify his removal by force. The solution was impeachment, not a military coup.
Seed planted by Alan — 30 June 2009 @ 22:40
So we punish Honduras by imposing one man rule?
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 30 June 2009 @ 22:48
Imposing one-man rule, indeed military intervention itself, are not the only alternatives. Alleged realists need to show why their proposals work, not define the most extreme example of contrary policy as if it were the only option.
Seed planted by Alan — 30 June 2009 @ 23:30
The situation is much too far gone for any suggestion of a middle ground to be reasonable. Zelaya can no longer be part of the same government as the Congress and the Supreme Court; therefore, choosing Zelaya is choosing against the existence of any independent institutions, whether you intend to or not.
My proposal is simply to leave Honduras alone. It doesn’t appear they even have a regular procedure for removing a President. They can fix that for themselves after the election, and if it ever comes up again I trust they’ll be sure to dot all the is and cross all the ts so that the international community will give them permission to not be a dictatorship.
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 01 July 2009 @ 00:33
Maybe this will help.
Imagine that Huey Long was elected President, and then explicitly became an ally of Adolf Hitler (I set it in the past rather than the present because there is currently no power that can even match ours, missing one of the elements of menace in Zelaya’s choice of allies). He unilaterally announces a plebiscite on calling a Constitutional Convention, even though only the states may call such a Convention. The Supreme Court correctly rules that this is unconstitutional, and forbids state election officials to print ballots or do anything else to conduct the vote. So he ships in ballots from Nazi Germany and is planning to use his own supporters to conduct the election. Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have decided that he needs to go (the Republicans never wanted him in the first place, of course), but here it breaks down because America has a defined process for removing a President, and we can’t get around that without escalating the situation even more. We’ll plunge in: somehow it turns out that a large proportion of one of the Houses of Congress all commit a “breach of the peace” on the same day, and enough of the others choose to stay away that a quorum call fails. Congress can no longer act, and the day of the plebiscite arrives. Now what?
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 01 July 2009 @ 13:01
I think the last justification is revealing. This really isn’t about the Honduran constitution, its about Zelaya not being a good client of the United States. If you know anything about the history of Central American, there is a pretty clear pattern this coup falls into.
Seed planted by Ed — 01 July 2009 @ 14:05
For those interested, Steven continues to cover this issue, and well, and with conclusions I pretty much totally agree with. So does Greg. Both blogs have very good discussions ongoing in their comments (including, at last check, 20 comments to a post that Greg initiated in response to my question about US law and the importance of the word, military, in military coup.) And of course, boz.
To stay on topic, most likely I will have nothing more to say about this, as I have had nothing more about Iran, until the next elections or the emergence of some new insights on the constitution, or something like that. (Or news about the republic’s bananas? That would be on-topic, too.)
Seed planted by MSS — 01 July 2009 @ 14:29
Ed;
I’m at a loss as to which “last justification” you’re talking about. Seeing that the United States immediately sided with the former President, your argument is invalid in any case.
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 01 July 2009 @ 16:24
The Honduras issue is a clasic coup de etat.Has no justification you dont
understand latino american military
officers.The assume that is legal to
make politics an participates even when are democratic governments.Also the reason hidden is the fear of a real left wing government in the future.But people specialy poor people has not other option because politic class in L.America thinks that a formal democratic ballotage is a demostration
enough to dont concern to make reform to develop his countries and that poverty is a natural condition
of some relevant proportion of population.
Military plus right conservative politician is a more natural alternative accepted to avoid social reforms.
Seed planted by Jorge gajardo — 01 July 2009 @ 16:31
@7 Short of having your mythical president slaughtering and barbecuing babies on the White House lawn it is hard to imagine a more extreme or less likely scenario. More importantly, it is not a scenario that resembles Honduras in any serious way.
Seed planted by Alan — 02 July 2009 @ 01:20
Alan;
Almost every detail is copied directly from Honduras.
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 02 July 2009 @ 02:08
@Aaron
Um-mm, no. Chavez is many bad things but he is not Hitler. The Zelaya plebiscite, as MSS notes, would not have the effect of calling a constitutional convention. Absent from your scenario is the Supreme Court’s action, arguably as bad as Zelaya’s, of authorising the president’s arrest. Presidential abductions followed by
Gee willikers the president is missing so we can have a new one’ is becoming a disturbingly frequent technique for coup-making.
Rather than contesting the details of the Honduran coup, I am interested in your opinion of the view that once you start endorsing the ‘good’ coup you are encouraging all future coups. The coup-maker rarely believes they are not facing an extreme situation and not acting in the interests of the nation.
I doubt anyone here is calling for military intervention. That does not mean we support diplomatic endorsement of the soft coup or the good coup.
Seed planted by Alan — 02 July 2009 @ 08:23
Except for the fact that this a regretably common practice in the region, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the military all concurring. from Montaner’s piece in Firmas Press
published in El Nuevo Herald;
la institución que sustituyó al boliviano Gonzalo Sánchez de Losada (2003), a los ecuatorianos Abdalá Bucaram (1997), Jamil Mahuad (2000) y Lucio Gutiérrez (2005), y al guatemalteco Jorge Serrano (1993).
“the institution that replaced the Bolivians Gonzalo Sanchez de Quesada, in 2003, the Ecuadorians, Abdala Bucaram in 1997, Jamil Mahuad in 2000, Lucio Gutierrez in 2005, and the Guatemalan Jorge Serrano in 1993″
Now I’ll admit it’s an overusedpractice,
and probably a counterproductive one, it ultimately led to Morales and Correa, and even Colon. But it’s not out of the ordinary
Seed planted by narciso — 02 July 2009 @ 09:44
Alan;
The Holocaust hadn’t happened yet when Long was assassinated, nor had Hitler made any attempts at territorial expansion. He had lead a coup attempt but was let out of prison relatively quickly, went on to become the legitimate leader of the government, and proceeded to destroy democracy through a combination of thug tactics and formally legal steps to consolidate power in his own hands. Notice how the subject of that last sentence could be either Hitler or Chavez; I chose my comparison deliberately and for good reasons.
I find it interesting that you would have chosen this point to quibble on. On the basis of your arguments it shouldn’t matter, but it seems that when Nazis are involved you’re not willing to bite the bullet and demand they stay in power. But neither do you seem willing to admit that there are situations where the result of a future “bad coup” is probably no worse than the current government, and that therefore the mere possibility of making such a coup more likely can hardly count against the definite evil of letting the current government continue.
I’m aware that no one here is calling for military intervention, but MSS is calling for economic pressure to force Honduras to surrender its civil society and submit to a U.S.-backed dictatorship.
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 02 July 2009 @ 11:51
Long was assassinated in September 1935. Dachau opened in 1933, the year of the Reichstag fire, the Enabling Bill and the formation of the Gestapo. Versailles was denounced and rearmament began in 1934. Jews, Rom, Communists and homosexuals were already being subjected to the concentration camps. The Nuremberg Laws were proclaimed 5 days after the Long assassination.
It would not have taken a genius to recognise where the regime was going. Moreover I simply do not see your point. Even with Long’s obvious failings it is drawing as long a bow to make him a Nazi Manchurian candidate as it is to make Zelaya a 21st century Quisling. The project of military conquest was plain to read in the speeches of every leader of the regime. I am not aware of Chavez announcing any territorial demands in Central America or the urgent need to exterminate entire peoples.
Neither do I understand your insinuation that I apparently oppose Nazis but not others. It is neither true nor relevant.
All this intensely counterfactual stuff aside, do you disagree that endorsing a coup encourages future coups?
Seed planted by Alan — 02 July 2009 @ 13:20
I do not think I need to translate this lede from today’s article in El País.
Seed planted by Alan — 02 July 2009 @ 13:50
The systematic extermination of European Jewry wasn’t happening yet. If you know enough of the history to rattle off the dates on which the pieces of infrastructure that would later be used in the Holocaust were started, you know that.
Neither do I understand your insinuation that I apparently oppose Nazis but not others. It is neither true nor relevant.
It’s every bit as clear that Chavez has been destroying his country’s democracy as it was that Hitler did. Chavez is a little slower, that’s all. You seem to think that he’s nevertheless completely different and not at all comparable because he’s less blatantly a warmonger and not in favor of genocide. Which is an attitude that can only make sense if you think that “merely” destroying a republic (which was the only point of comparison I ever made, one which is eerily precise) isn’t that bad.
I happen to think it is. Even if the person doing it were the most genuinely humanitarian person ever, he should be removed, by a regular process if possible, by violence otherwise.
That’s my answer to your question. If Honduras still had an impeachment process, it would never have happened this way nor should it have. But when there is no such process (a horrible design flaw because it produces exactly this outcome) or when the President in question uses force to prevent its use, even if the force in question is formally legal, then I’m perfectly comfortable encouraging a coup. Only don’t make the mistake of leaving him alive.
Seed planted by Aaron Armitage — 02 July 2009 @ 16:00
Aaron
The extermination of European Jewry began shortly after Hitler’s assumption of power. In 1935 the regime was already active against German Jewry. precisely because it had not commenced military conquests, it had no capacity to reach victims beyond Germany’s. If however, your argument requires you to establish a moral equivalence between Hitler and Chavez then I guess you have to equate Chavez’ ineffectual tin-pot authoritarianism with actual fascism and actual genocide.
The systematic extermination of European Jewry was not your original focus, Your original claim was ‘The Holocaust hadn’t happened yet when Long was assassinated, nor had Hitler made any attempts at territorial expansion.’ Neither claim was actually true. The Holocaust was in its initial stages, all of allegedly non-Aryan descent were excluded from office within months of Hitler taking office. Dachau had its first prisoners by March 1933. Nor do you address the fact that Hitler and other Nazi ideologues made clear their attitude to the various groups and peoples they would seek to exterminate long before they ever came to power. The territorial demands had been in the mouths of various Nazi ideologues since the beginning of the NSDAP an the rearmament they had already started in 1934 was explicitly devoted to that end. Your claims about Long and your scenario therefore fail.
Your claim that your scenario resembles Honduras also fails. Your contention of moral equivalence requires something more than identifying destruction of a republic as equivalent to Hitler’s crimes. It is absolutely not the case that we know Zelaya intended such things or had the capacity to carry them out. Zelaya’s plebiscite would, as noted by MSS, have been an ineffectual tactic to remain in power beyond the end of his term.
While it is by no means clear that the constitution of Honduras permits presidential removals it is equally unclear that it therefore permits presidential disappearances.
That is why governments as conservative as those in France, Germany, Colombia and Mexico, and the OAS as a whole, have demanded that Honduras be returned to constitutional rule and that Zelaya be returned to office. Meanwhile the congress has started suspending various constitutional liberties.
And you are yet to address my actual point, that endorsing good coups or soft coups, whatever they may be, contributes to more coups.
Seed planted by Alan — 02 July 2009 @ 17:17
I am going to close this thread down now. I do not wish to debate the comparison between Zelaya and Hitler, or Chavez and the Shoah. I do, however, very much appreciate Alan and Ed for having called Aaron on the preposterousness of his claims.
If Aaron wishes to respond, he is invited to do so on his own blog, and I would be happy to include a link to any such post here in this comment thread, for any who wish to continue the debate.
Seed planted by MSS — 03 July 2009 @ 16:16