I have noted many times that what happened in Honduras was a military coup, notwithstanding that there is no military junta governing the country in the aftermath. At PoliBlog, a commenter asks what is the political science definition of a military junta, and why doesn’t the current Honduran situation meet a dictionary definition of “the rule of a military or political group after taking power by force.”
Good question. My response is that my very specific understanding of a junta is that it is a governing council of active-duty military officers, who assume the role of the executive and usually also the legislative branch.
Sometimes there is a civilian-military junta, as after the Salvadoran coup of 1979. But that means still that there is an executive council that consists at least in part of military officers.
So, while I have argued all along that this event in Honduras was a military coup, I do not think the current de-facto governing situation qualifies as a military junta. There is a single executive official who is actually the constitutional civilian successor to the president–what makes it illegal is that the military, rather than the constitutional process–overthrew, by force, the rightful president. And, of course, the legislature still functions, at least formally.
So Honduras has had a military coup, but does not have a military junta. At least for now.
Or is my definition too narrow?
And I suppose another relevant question is how do you pronounce “junta” in English?
Like a Yorkshireperson pronouncing “hunter”, I’d've thought (“hoooontah”), but apparently until a century or two ago Spaniards pronounced J as “zh”, as Portuguese still does, and not as “kh”), so maybe more like the Italian “giunta”, which means a regional-govt executive/ cabinet and lacks the same sinister dictatorial overtones.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 09 July 2009 @ 18:23
A “junta” is just a committee or council. So a “military junta” is a committee or council of military officers. There are also “junta escolar” (something like a PTA) or a “junta vecinal” (a neighborhood association).
I agree w/ Matt. There was a military coup (golpe militar) in Honduras. But the military then gave way to a civilian authority. What we saw in Honduras is an old-school military act as “poder moderador” (as Linz would say). It (the Honduran military) isn’t governing directly, but it chose who would, and when.
Seed planted by mcentellas — 09 July 2009 @ 19:41
In a certain sense the military is already sovereign in Honduras. There is not a lot to prevent alleged president Micheletti waking one morning to find himself in El Salvador in his pyjamas. It is useful to distinguish direct military rule, a junta, from a military-backed regime, but we need to bear in mind that in large part it is a distinction without a difference.
Consider the analogous case of Fiji where the pre-coup ceremonial president remains in office, but has lost all support except the military and the alleged prime minister, who is commander of the armed forces, claims that he is a civilian interim prime minister because he is backed by the president.
Seed planted by Alan — 10 July 2009 @ 01:06
The Fiji case may not be a junta, but it is evidently direct military rule when the commander of the armed forces is the PM! Nothing analogous there in Honduras, where the president is a civilian, and the constitutional successor.
Of course, it may not matter, for the reasons Alan states in his first paragraph. The distinction is important only if it matters for some outcome; however, I suspect it does matter. If elections are suspended or held under unfair conditions, then the distinction will narrow. Until such time, “de-facto military-imposed and -backed interim civilian administration” seems about right (if rather wordier than “junta”!).
Seed planted by MSS — 10 July 2009 @ 14:43
Fiji is an object listen for the soft coup hypothesis.
Every coup leader (including those, like Bainimarama the alleged current PM, who have conducted 2 coups) has claimed their main object was to prevent further coups. Because they have all received the endorsement of the ceremonial president, who under Fiji’s constitution is always a high chief because the president is elected by the Great Council of Chiefs, they have invariably claimed they were legitimate rulers because they held the civil office of prime minister and had been appointed by the president.
The Honduran semi-junta will almost certainly proceed with elections on the constitutional schedule. They will also almost certainly rig the elections and even should the presidency fall to the opposition the next president will spend a lot of time looking out from the palace to see what is happening in the barracks.
The current Fijian semi-junta is weaker than usual because, unlike previous coups, Bainimarama has managed to alienate the chiefs as well as the rest of the civil society. Like parliament and the supreme court, the great council has been suspended.
Honduras will be really lucky to avoid something like the coup culture in Fiji.
Seed planted by Alan — 10 July 2009 @ 20:36
Juntas are so 1970s? Who’d have thunk. But it is perhaps in line with the decline in military coups: No ready-made model of military government available?
Concerning the pronunciation, it is usually “yoonta” in Danish, even if the “j” in, say, José or Jaime is pronounced as “hrosé” and “hraime”. So junta has been domesticated which is bit strange, given that Denmark hasn’t had anything like a junta since the middle ages.
Seed planted by Jacob Christensen — 12 July 2009 @ 20:20
Perfectly innocent words like “Committee” and “Ministry” can acquire ominous historical (Robespierre) or literary (Orwell) overtones.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 12 July 2009 @ 21:02