The Honduran Presidency
Jun. 30th, 2009 06:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienaut The more I think about it (and I do think about it because I'm a political science nerd like that) the more I think the recent ousting of the president of Honduras is NOT a condemnable coup d'etat but exactly what was supposed to happen.
This entry shall assume you know nothing about it, so no excuses for not following along (:
Recently the president of Honduras decided he wanted to hold a referendum on changing the constitution to allow him to run for a another term. Problem is, not only does their constitution say he can't serve another term, it says he can't CHANGE that clause either. So their Supreme Court told him he couldn't do that .. but he ignored them.
The president then asked the military to give him the elections materials (because apparently they keep it) and the military refused, as his planned referendum was unconstitutional. He then fired the head of the military ... and the Supreme Court reinstated him.
The president then proceeded to where the elections materials were kept with the national police and his supporters and took custody of it.
...and the next morning the Supreme Court authorized the military to arrest and deport him. They did so and the congress (which also condemned his unconstitutional ambitions btw, even his own party) supported it. They then followed the normal line of succession and the head of his party in congress was sworn in.
So here's my take on it. The military is tasked with protecting the constitution. The Court is tasked with determining what is right. No one disputes he was trying to violate the constitution, and so the military defended it by removing him. (I'm not an expert on Honduran politics but what I've read says there was no "viable" means to impeach him, I'm not sure what that means but I'm taking it at face value).
Yet Obama and many other heads of state are condemning this as a evil coup d'etat. I think it's the checks and balances of separation of powers acting exactly like they should. It's like people agree with checks and balances in principal, but when it comes down to it they think the executive is always right and the other branches have no right to interfere (granted the military is not a branch, but in this case they appear to have acted only in a manner expressly authorized by the congress and judiciary)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 02:15 pm (UTC)He said pretty much the same thing you did.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 04:14 pm (UTC)See also the one I just posted about bananas over at
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 06:23 pm (UTC)Since it happened I've just been watching this domino effect with the media and governments falling all over each other to condemn the coup, because what, someone else did first, and really loudly? It's ridiculous. I was incredibly disappointed at Obama's response. We've faced far more complicated situations; there's a diplomatic way to say that while we favor impeachment procedures when possible, the coup appears totally legitimate. Either way, he's got to know that Zelaya hates us and always will. So I don't know who he's trying to pander to.
--
no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 12:58 am (UTC)But has since been attacked at The Standard {a leftwing blog}
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/justifying-the-unjustifiable/
Its a pity the police were unable to carry out their function and left it to the military since the military operating within the state is a much more sub-optimal situation.
Police failure also seems to be a key factor with the situation in Fiji. Which, again, New Zealaad and Australia have had a ham-fisted response to, condeming it out right for reasons of Human rights and Political procedure. Which is a bit hypercrital since we are happy to trade with the likes of Iran, UAE, Kuwait and China without passing any kind of judgement all of whom score much lower than Fiji by these measures.
Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-01 04:17 am (UTC)I recall the Fijian coup in that it happened, but I didn't actually follow it closely (or if I did I ahve since forgotten all the details).
Re: Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-01 07:02 am (UTC)LOL!! I think he alsohampered by the fact that he is pretty much _required_ to contradict the other guy.
Fiji, or more precisly, the Fijian military was left in the extremely uneviable position of having crushed a coup in 2000 only to find that half the people responsible for planning and carrying out the coup were being put into high ranking positions in the new government and were using those positions to carry out their old agenda. This included:
-Pardoning rest of those people who had been involved in 2000.
-Funding parallel military and police units that were loyal to them
-Furthur entrenching privilages of Ethinc Fijians over Indian Fijis
To make matters worse:
-The police were making no attempt to stop them
-Indian Fijian {who are all ready thoroughly discriminated against} make up about 42% of the population
-No one in the international community was taking any interest taking any kind of action.
-Numerous members of the military had been recieving death threats and I think even an attempt or two.
So yeah, sucks to be the Fijian military.
Re: Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-01 07:19 am (UTC)One of them stated "p.s. and that a military coup in a democratic society is never excusable." .. which frankly I don't agree with. Heads of state can be EVERY bit as corrupt as any other element of government, and often the ONLY people in a position to counter them is the military. Granted the military can of course also be corrupt, but the military is also just as likely as anyone else to be upright. After all a lot of very rule oriented patriotic people join the military.
I think the idea that military enforcement of who is the head of state is always bad is totally pigheaded and as I mentioned in my entry flies in the face of the idea of checks and balances.
Re: Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-01 08:48 pm (UTC)Other than the Clauswitzian arguement that policy should always dicate military action and therefore the military should always be suserviant to policy makers I don't see any viability in their absolutist standpoint. I think it just boils down to anti-military discrimination, the belief that the military can never be a force for good.
Re: Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-01 09:11 pm (UTC)Re: Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-02 04:22 am (UTC)This came up today: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/07/on-the-honduran-coup-and-whether-any-coups-are-justified/
Re: Right & Left
Date: 2009-07-02 05:35 am (UTC)And included some relevant details I wasn't aware of, such as that there was a specific arrest warrant with specific charges issued against him, and that the military does normally serve in a police-type role for things like this.
As to this thesis that it was still unjustifiably overkill.. I dunno. Yes it definitely sure would have been nice if they could have wrapped it up more legitimately, but being as he seemed hellbent on his constitution plans, to the point of of physically overrunning an army base with his supporters, I could see them being legitimately concerned that he himself would be sending browncoats to people's doors who opposed him soon if they didn't do something.