Pandora's Ballot Box
At last we have a comprehensive account of the events in Honduras. Alberto Vallente Thorensen's Why Zelaya's Action Were Legal, published today in Counterpunch, provides a step by step analysis of the coup d' etat and its standing viz a viz the Honduran constitution.
The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.
According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: "it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory", and that "reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum."
Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.
Thorensen goes on to note that the constitution is silent on the subject of "conformation of a Constituent Assembly" so there's no illegality there applicable to the president.
Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office.
The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya's term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya's term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.
There you go...President Mel couldn't have been trying to extend his terms, as so many seem to believe. No Chavesque conspiraciy here.
Thorensen also has the kicker: If the charges against Zelaya had any merit,
they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress.
Isn't it obvious that because there were existing legal remedies other than kidnapping a president in his pajamas and sending him into exile that the coup is not on the up and up? And why the news blackout? The "everything was proper and legal" agument makes no sense whatsoever.
Thanks for the link Neo. The whole situation smelled fishy from the start. Now what?
July 2, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome, miguelito. Now it's wait. The OAS has a 72 hour deadline for the Hondurans to reinstate President Mel, and it will expire end of business Friday. Zelaya had intended to return Thursday, but agreed to wait it out per OAS. If the coup party doesn't comply, OAS will revoke it's membership. That's serious, since it will disqualify Honduras from a lot of trade agreements and so forth. Petrocaribe will shut off the oil and gas valves, and a host of other repercussions will follow. Of course the poor folks are going to get hit hardest, which is really tragic.
July 2, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Standard Operating Procedure...
July 2, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
sadly true
July 2, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
At last we have a comprehensive account of the events in Honduras.
--------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think we have anything near to a comprehensive account. We have several conflicting versions none of which tell the whole story. The only thing I think I can say for sure about the events is that whatever happened, arresting a president and shipping him out of the country was wrong. Clearly there were legal means, for example impeachment, to deal with any illegality that might have occurred.
There may be good reasons to defend the constitutionality of Zeleya's referendum but from what I've read the Honduran Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and the congress agreed. I disagree with the reasoning that led to the Supreme Court appointing Bush president but I wouldn't have wanted Clinton to use his power to disobey it. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in favor of the Cherokee Nation in 1832 and was not in favor of President Jackson disobeying it, reportedly saying, "The Supreme court has made its decision, Now let them enforce it."
I simply require much more information then supplied in this article and others I've read to justify Zeleya disobeying a Supreme Court ruling, especially in the manner he disobeyed. There is much more going on here and I don't think the full story is getting here yet.
July 2, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you making assumptions that the lack of information doesn't support? (I can't believe I just wrote that sentence.)
"The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office."
Since Zelaya was not trying to extend his term (which Thorensen argues convincingly) he did not disobey their ruling.
Of course you are correct that there's more going on here, but it seems obvious by implication. The ruling elites did not want the question of a constitutional assembly to go forward to the voters, even though it is perfectly legal under Honduran law. Illegally kidnapping and deporting Mel stopped it.
My prediction is that the question will eventually be asked, and the Hondurans will vote for a new constitution.
July 2, 2009 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I found on public citizen's trade site the other day:
Now, over the weekend, fair trader Manuel Zelaya (president of Honduras) was ousted in the region's first military coup since the Cold War. Opposition to CAFTA ran high in Honduras, but local elites signed the deal anyway. This led to a groundswell of support for a president that kept getting more and more progressive, most recently signing onto the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas, an alternative to NAFTA-style FTAs. The country's elites wanted to block these changes, so pushed a coup.
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/06/ftas-destabilization.html
July 2, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice source, GC - It hadn't dawned on me to look at economic sites for information morsels. I didn't know about the CAFTA opposition-I wonder what's behind that. But yes, the trade issue really does seem to be the back-story.
July 2, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this kind of post: reasoned, backed by evidence, an accurate summary of outside sources and links to them so readers can follow to get more information. Thanks for doing a model job.
Thanks to to the comment folks who are interesting and on topic. (except for me) :-)
July 2, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, garsh....thanks for the encouragement - this is my very first blog (oh, I think a had a couple in Paleotpm days - big flops.)
But I have a question for you - if President Mel returns in triumph over the weekend, will Honduras then become known as a "Pajama Republic?"
July 2, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
With or without feet and an escape hatch in the rear, below the belt line? Maybe he'll start a blog in his jammies, to the disgust of Bay Buchanan. I hope so, she needs more disgust.
Actually I'm getting weird visions of President Mel, maybe from watching too many episodes of Alice.
July 2, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would be the perfect abode for cheney and rummy.
Hell, its all okay. Everything is fine.
A lot like our own Supreme Court in 2000
July 2, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, election 2000. The Honduran press is doing stories about the great rallies supporting the coupsters. But leaking out on twitter and other "underground" sources is that these rallies are composed of government workers and employees of coup supporters who were asked to go show their support. While the military elites trained at the School of the Americas, the politicos obviously earned their wings on the streets of Miami in 2000.
July 2, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly"
- What's missing in this brilliant analysis is an answer to a simple question:
What was the purpose of setting up the National Constituent Assembly?
Anyone?
July 2, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously to draft a new constitution, Lalo. That was in the article - that's what constituent assemblies do.
Now if you're asking what articles people want changed, and why - I don't know.
July 2, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right... And of course the person who was interested in drafting the new constitution was none other than the president himself.
July 2, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's nonsense - reread Thorensen's piece. Contemplate the time-line. The poll asked if voters wanted to have a ballot on creating an Constituent Assembly on the November 9 election, in which Zelaya won't even be a candidate. On November 9 the voters would then vote yay or nay on the Assembly, and if it passed the assembly would be organized and implemented long after Zelaya's successor was in office. The Assembly would then offer suggested changes to the constitution, which be voted again on down the line, after Zelaya is long gone.
You haven't got a case here, my friend.
July 2, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't you see that it's not necessary for Zelaya to be elected more than one time IN A ROW?
Why can't you see that as long as he could run the second time ANYTIME that's all he needs?
I have a case here, my friend, you're not willing to see it.
July 2, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, if you wish.
And what do you think of Uribe actually trying to change the Colombian constitution so he can shoot for a third term? Has he became a Chavista?
July 2, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Chavez invented a method of staying in power indefinitely, it's called referendum by a populist.
In my opinion, any president who is trying to change existing term limits so that he can run repeatedly believes he's the only one who knows how to solve all the problems.
That's how every single dictator started off, in the history of the world.
Any attempt to change term limits should get any normal person, any democratic country, alarmed, suspicious and alert.
I agree that even with the Supreme Court ruling, Congressional action and all that, the Honduran military was perhaps a bit over the top. On the other hand, Honduras has a very dark chapter in their history that involves US, puppet regimes, etc - so I only applaud their effort to make sure that doesn't return.
July 2, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears, based on fragmentary and conflicting evidence, that Zelaya was attempting a power grab in the mode of a Chavez, and that the appropriate response would have been impeachment rather than military arrest.
As of this morning, the U.S. had still refrained from describing the events as a "coup", because that designation requires the withholding of substantial financial assistance needed by the Honduran economy. Instead, we are trying to arrange some type of compromise.
Compromise may be in the air. Zelaya has already renounced any intention to seek another term, and the OAS nations are softening their tone. Perhaps all will settle on an arrangement that allows Zelaya to serve out the remaining months of his existing term, even possibly without returning to Honduras, while an interim government then finalizes plans for the next election. Permitting him to return to Honduras as President is also possible, but less likely. Stay tuned.
July 2, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, I thought you were correct about the US not calling it a coup. I had read somewhere that Clinton was not using the term, for the reason you stated.
However, out of curiosity I visited www.state.gov. There a briefing from yesterday here:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125564.htm
-------------------------
QUESTION: Thanks very much for doing the call. Two things: One, can you give us a – earlier this week, Secretary Clinton gave us to understand that you were holding off on a determination on whether it was indeed a military coup. And there was the inference that this was to open up diplomatic space to reach a negotiated outcome. Is that still your stance, even though I know that you are – that the Legal Adviser’s Office has begun the process of determining whether it was a military coup and, therefore, whether the aid cutoff is triggered?
And secondly, beyond calling for the restoration of – you know, beyond calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, do you believe that any political solution that may be achieved must also address the misgivings of those Hondurans about the referendum that he had planned to hold on the possibility of allowing Honduran presidents to serve more than one four-year term?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In regard to the first question, both the President and the Secretary have described events in Honduras as a coup, which they certainly were once the current claimant to the presidency swore – was sworn in before the congress after the forcible removal of the legal and constitutional president, Mel Zelaya.
In regard to assistance, obviously, we’re evaluating the impact of these actions on our assistance programs. The focus of our assistance programs is the well-being of the Honduran people. That remains our focus as we conduct this evaluation. But it’s important to note at this moment that we are working with our partners in the OAS, through the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to try to fashion a resolution of this interruption of democratic and constitutional order. And therefore, we have determined that we will wait until the Secretary General has finished his diplomatic initiatives and reports back to the General Assembly on July 6th before we take any further action in relationship to assistance.
What was your second question again?
QUESTION: The second question was whether you thought that – I mean, the Administration, I think, has been fairly clear in calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, and please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted that. And the question is: Do you think a political solution needs to also address the concerns about – the concerns in many parts of the political elite about the referendum he planned to hold?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, there are two different things here. In regard to the illegal detention and expulsion of President Zelaya, this was an act which was unconstitutional and illegal and cannot be tolerated. And in the resolutions that we have associated ourselves with, or co-sponsored in the UN, we have called for the unconditional return of President Zelaya. In other words, concerns or doubts about the wisdom of his actions relating to his proposed non-binding referendum have – are independent of the unconstitutional act taken against him.
In that regard, obviously, as the Secretary General attempts to fashion diplomatic initiatives and outreach to those people who undertook the coup, there will be political discussions in which, obviously, the concerns that led them to take action against the president will be raised. And it would be reasonable to assume that the continuing viability of democratic government in Honduras would have to take those into account in some fashion.
------------------------
So it looks like we're both wrong on that point.
July 2, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Supreme Court Justice Rosalinda Cruz said in an interview yesterday that the military acted under judicial orders when it deposed Zelaya, rejecting the view of President Barack Obama and other leaders that he was toppled in a coup. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCgN8Fgqu2B0
July 2, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
still peddling crap
July 3, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink