By recognizing the recent Honduran elections, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has legitimized that country’s military coup.
Five months ago, reports emerged alleging that Colombian officials had met with representatives of Roberto Micheletti just weeks after the military coup that made Mr. Micheletti the de facto leader of Honduras. Later that week, I wrote in Colombia Reports that the meeting was both unethical and risky for Colombia, which is increasingly finding itself politically isolated from its Latin American neighbors.
This week, Uribe repeated his mistake. The Honduran golpista regime held apparently credible elections, although the country is still in a state of lockdown imposed by the military. Porfirio Lobo, a wealthy landowner and longtime opponent of Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in the June coup, won the majority of the vote. President Uribe was among the first leaders in Latin America to congratulate Mr. Lobo on his victory.
Lobo claims that he will lead a government of national unity. But he has made few rhetorical concessions to those both within and outside Honduras who question the legitimacy of the post-coup elections. "Zelaya is already history," said Lobo, who lost to Zelaya in the 2005 presidential elections. "He is already part of the past." The election, in short, was a victory for the golpistas and Uribe’s recognition merely legitimates the coup.
Admittedly, Uribe’s recognition of the recent election is markedly different from his meeting with the young golpista regime in July. First, whereas Uribe’s government was almost alone in reaching out to Micheletti’s government in July, Colombia is not the only Latin American country to have recognized Mr. Lobo as President. Panama, Peru, Guatemala and Costa Rica (whose President played an important role in negotiations between Zelaya and Micheletti) have all congratulated Lobo on his victory.
Second and most importantly, the United States, which like most governments denounced the June coup, also recognizes Mr. Lobo’s election. On this matter, therefore, Colombia is on the same side as its powerful ally to the north, by far the most important international player in Honduras’s ongoing political crisis.
Third, it can certainly be argued that recognizing the recent Honduran election is very different from legitimating the de facto regime that ousted Mr. Zelaya. After all, Mr. Micheletti has not held on to power. Neither, at least officially, has the military. Instead, Mr. Lobo is leading an entirely new government elected in apparently fraud-free elections.
Further, today as in July, Mr. Zelaya’s own political intentions are questionable. In the months preceding the coup, he became increasingly close to Venezuela’s autocratic President, Hugo Chavez. Worse yet, he had been pushing for changes to his country’s constitution that, according to his critics, were aimed at allowing his re-election.
Nevertheless, President Uribe’s decision to recognize the elections was a mistake for at least two reasons. First, even if the elections had a high turnout and were fair, they set a dangerous precedent for the entire region by sending the message that coups are an acceptable way to effect political change. Ambitious military leaders throughout Latin America will likely be encouraged by the fact that Honduras’s generals were successful in ousting Zelaya and opening the door for a government more in line with their political vision for the country. Indeed, if Latin America’s governments are serious about democratization, they should accept nothing less than the reinstatement of Mr. Zelaya as President.
Second, fraud is not the only measure of the success, much less the fairness, of an election. Simply put, the current political climate in Honduras is not apt for a truly free and fair election. Political freedoms have been severely limited since the coup, and even stricter measures were implemented in the days around the elections. Just a few days before the vote, the de facto government declared an official state of siege and suppressed anti-coup rallies.
Moreover, the fact that President Uribe, like Zelaya, changed his country’s constitution to allow his re-election (and seems to be exploring changing it again to run for a third term) makes his recognition of Mr. Lobo seem hypocritical and politically motivated.
Indeed, whereas Latin American leaders had been unusually united in their rejection of the June coup, democracy has since taken a backseat to politics. On the recent Honduran elections, as on many other issues, the region finds itself divided between left-leaning and right-leaning governments. The list of countries that, in one way or another, refused to recognize Lobo’s election includes Venezuela and Ecuador, as well as more widely respected progressive governments such as Brazil’s, Chile’s and Spain’s.
Unfortunately, the biggest loser in this cycle of polarization is democracy. Political divisions and a growing sense of mistrust in Latin America are not only fueling border tensions and arms races, but they are also eroding the progress achieved during two decades of steady democratization. Mr. Zelaya’s allegedly undemocratic constitutional changes were used to justify a blatantly antidemocratic coup. Similarly, in South America, Hugo Chavez’s aggressive authoritarianism has certainly helped Uribe’s first and second re-election referenda and vice versa.
When a country enters a political crisis such as Honduras’s, its neighbors should not favor any one side, but rather work to protect and strengthen democratic institutions. In this particular case, the international community should accept nothing less than the reversal of the coup, even as a precursor to national elections. Unfortunately, Colombia, the U.S. and other governments who recognized the recent elections have done just the opposite. If the June coup raised fears that Latin America was slipping back into the polarization and instability of the Cold War, these governments’ politically motivated reaction to the recent election has merely exacerbated those worries.
Craig
said:
 |
... Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution and rule of law. This was not a coup. This was an act of the Honduran people to save their Democracy. Honduras stood up to Chavez in the results of this election, who was eyeing Honduras as the next target for his Communist-expansion. His 'Bolivarian Revolution' movement, which is nothing more than heavy-handed takeovers of private institutions and the dissolving of freedoms and democracy. Thankfully, Honduras preserved their Democracy by removing Zelaya and holding a free and open election. Uribe was RIGHT in this matter and should be applauded. |
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
 |
... Awesome article Mr. Mejia. Craig, that is quite wrong, this was the act of the Honduran military, not the people, and it was a Military Coup that took away a democratically elected president. The people are protesting and are still calling for their President Zelaya back. Allowing the Honduran people to vote, in the spirit of democracy, on a referendum is not unconstitutional, just the same as Uribe has pushed for referendums of its constitution. Because of the "Honduran People's" resistance, this was the lowest election turnout in Honduran history. It has been reported that Mr. Lobo does not even represent 1/10th of the whole population of Honduras, which goes to show he is unpopular in Honduras. There were no observers of the elections from many institutions to claim it was "fair and transparent" and their are now reports of fraud and technical errors. The Honduran people are also complaining about the T.S.E. not delivering the transparency of the elections like it promised, just adding more to the fraud claims. Also the political leaders and protesters in the thousands that was imprisoned during the conflict and human rights abuses. Whats interesting to note is the US IRI and NED funding of these political groups and military coup in 2009 alone. This is quite a shame for the history of democracy in Latin America. http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com |
ebogran
said:
|
... Zelaya was not overthrown by the military, but by the Honduran institutions responsible for safeguarding the Honduran democracy,; the Supreme Court and Congress. The military were never in charge of the country. Presidents should remember that that a republic has checks and balances. Zelaya refused to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling on his illegal poll, took over a military base with a mob. Broke the law by having his ballots printed outside the country and if you see the videos he advocated reelection. Crimes punishable by Honduran law. The only person he has to blame is himself. In Honduras, you have to work pretty hard to be able to alienate your political party, the opposition, the churches, the private sector. The election that took place Nov. 29, proves that most hondurans do not agree with his agenda. Zelaya helped the National Party (a conservative) party win the election,he election with the most number of votes in Honduran history, thus movinh Honduras further to the right. Honduras want and demand work, peace of mind and a return to friendly relations with other countries. As a country, Honduras, has proven itself to be able to accommodate change through dialogue and free elections, when Zelaya tried to force change he paid the price. Honduras has consistently avoided the civil wars that have plagued their neighbors. Hondurans pride themselves in their desire for peace, but has proven to the world willing to fight for their beliefs. |
Daniel
said:
|
... No, NotAlvaroUribe, you are wrong. "this was the act of the Honduran military, not the people, and it was a Military Coup " This ouster was supported by congress, which if you haven't noticed is voted on by the people, and the supreme court. Have you heard of checks and balances? Two branches of a democratic government that's based on a constitution. A constitution that was supported by the people and which the branches of governments must follow. Again, you are wrong. "The people are protesting and are still calling for their President Zelaya back." The people? How ambiguous can your statement be? "It has been reported that Mr. Lobo does not even represent 1/10th of the whole population of Honduras, which goes to show he is unpopular in Honduras. " An how poor is your reasoning that 1/10 of the whole population doesn't support Lobo! You are counting children in your calculations! They can't even vote! You are a terrible source of information and poor interpreter of facts. I'll make sure to point this out every time I see your misleading postings. |
tomtom33
said:
|
... "Moreover, the fact that President Uribe, like Zelaya, changed his country’s constitution to allow his re-election ..." You might want to be a little more careful with your wording. Uribe can not and did not change the constitution. |
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
|
... ebogran, Even if (for the sake of argument) Zelaya has made an illegal "ballot" and "poll", it does not make it right for the military to kidnap democratically elected President Zelaya while he was in his Pajamas in the middle of the night, take him to an American military base, fly him on an American Jet (illegally) then exile him to Costa Rica without any form of Judicial procedures. This was not an impeachment, point blank, it was a military coup that later imposed military lock down on the whole country suppressing it's people and the media, even still today after the elections. Most number of votes?..No. To quote Gilberto Rios, political leader of Los Necios in Honduras: "Never in Honduras has abstention been so great. It was over 70 percent, and added to that are 2 percent of invalid ballots and 3 percent of blank ballots. This result is more notable because of the systematic coercion of people to vote by the government and the army…There were neighborhoods where the army, along with Conservatives and Liberal leaders, went directly into the homes to look for the villagers to go and vote–and on Saturday [the day before the election], there were dozens of detainees." "Lobo is the most minority president in the history of Honduras...Under the conditions of coercion we mentioned, he isn’t supported by one in 10 people in Honduras, and in no way represents the people of our country." |
Daniel
said:
|
... "Even if (for the sake of argument) Zelaya has made an illegal "ballot" and "poll"" Doesn't Article 239 of the Honduran constitution specifically prohibit "the president from attempting to amend restrictions on succession, and states that whoever does so will cease "immediately" in his or her functions" And did not both Congress and the courts deemed the planned referendum unlawful? Sounds pretty illegal to me for MORE than "just the sake of argument." |
gringomedellin
said:
|
... I disagree with the writers conclusions, but regards it is about Honduras not Colombia which is what Colombia Reports is about. |
Bluebird
said:
|
... Wouldn't you LOVE to have heard the phone call between Chavez and Zelaya after his attempted takeover of Honduras faied??? (Zela speaking to Chavez,)........Chavez you stupid cabron, I should NEVER have listened to you and your stupid scheme to take over Honduras!!!! (Chavez speaking to Zelaya)........ I don't understand comrade..........I used the same scheme to take over Venezuela and it worked perfectly! |
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
|
... No, I'm only going along for the sake of argument to state my point against the method of "taking away power" from President Zelaya without proper impeachment and judicial procedures. Article 239 doesn't apply if it is only a public opinion poll. The following points are made by RAJ of "HondurasCoup2009": Article 239 was raised as a possible foundation for the coup days after the coup itself, not as part of the original argument made by Congress. President Zelaya was not proposing modifying the constitution to allow re-election. No evidence of any kind supports this claim, which is the product of the paranoia of his opponents. Honduran legal scholars are unanimous that Article 239 does not apply, and that it could not come into effect "automatically" or immediately without violating due process (everyone has the right to be presumed innocent, and a right to due process). Article 239 needs to be interpreted in the context of the rights and guaranties that the Constitution establishes, among which are the right of liberty (articles 61 and 69), the right to defend oneself (article 82), the presumption of innocence (article 89) and due process (articles 92 and 94). The Article 239 proposal has been so thoroughly debunked. http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/ |
NotAlvaroUribe
said:
|
... And I bring up Alberto Valiente Thoresen's insightful statement on the Illegal referendum argument: "..this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras...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". "..Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution.." |
Albeiror24
said:
 |
... Few international followers of the Honduran case have sat down to study carefully what happens in Honduras, looking the facts from the external and aligning with the expected barking of Chávez and his associated. It is very curious that the army took Zelaya out of the country, while the Congress took the political power. It is a very strain coup d'etat. Legally, the only criminal action to be condemned is that Zelaya was expelled from his own country. But we should study carefully the Honduran legislation and I suspect that it contemplates the suspension of the President of the Republic if it is proven that he has done something unconstitutional. In this case, maybe we are not in front to a coup d'etat, but a legal and sovereign action of Honduras, while Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador only are showing their real intentions of direct intervention. Colombians are excellent in legislation. Chávez is an expert in alteration. Zelaya was following Chavez ambitions. The Honduran Congress committed to avoid it. It is also untrue that most Honduran people were with Zelaya. To end, in this case, Obama showed that he does not know Latin America and he will have surprises soon from his southern neighborhood while he try to show up his Peace Novel Prize in the Far East. |
lrodri
said:
|
... There is a huge misunderstanding of the author regarding the definition or conceptualization of what a military coup is, therefore, the whole article lacks of any credibility. |
Daniel
said:
|
... "Article 239 doesn't apply if it is only a public opinion poll. " "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or a designated person. 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." "President Zelaya was not proposing modifying the constitution to allow re-election. No evidence of any kind supports this claim, which is the product of the paranoia of his opponents." His opponents: TWO BRANCHES OF THE HONDURAN GOVERNMENT! Both branches deem the balloting ILLEGAL. He CONTINUED to press with his balloting in plain defiance of HONDURAN LAW. A lot of the constitution is based on paranoia. IT WAS MEANT TO. Oh, and your constant references to the "elites" makes your paranoia glaring. You're just as "stained" as the opponents of Zelaya. But go ahead and ignore these simple facts. |
El Cid
said:
|
... If Article 239 had been so important to this action, you'd think that either the Electoral Tribunal or the Supreme Court would have cited it. |
Daniel
said:
|
... "If Article 239 had been so important to this action, you'd think that either the Electoral Tribunal or the Supreme Court would have cited it." If Zelaya did not go ahead and try to ILLEGALLY push through the ballot then you can be sure this article would have been put into effect. He was removed from office because he was imminently violating the law. If you have the CHANCE you arrest someone that has already pulled a gun with intent to shoot, not wait for due process AFTER he's already shot. |
