Honduras: A Coup provoked

Honduras is not a country with which the average Caribbean person is familiar. Therefore, recent events there have not been a major talking point except among government representatives. Yet, there are important lessons for the Caribbean arising from what has been described as a Coup d’état in that country.{{more}}

As has been widely reported, the President, Manual Zelaya, was taken by the army from his Presidential Palace and flown to Costa Rica in the dead of night. He was replaced by a provisional President Roberto Micheletti , the former congressional leader.

Zelaya’s supporters outside of Honduras wasted no time in condemning his ouster. Leading the demands for his government to be reinstated and even, at one time, threatening military intervention was Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, who had recently recruited Honduras to membership of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), which he initiated.

In the event, Zelaya’s removal has been condemned by the member governments of the Organization of American States (OAS), including the governments of the Caribbean and the United States of America, on the basis that no government should be removed by unconstitutional means. And, that principle, of course, is correct as far as it goes.

But, in the case of Honduras,there is more to the issue than meets the eye. Mr Zelaya is not without blame for his own removal, and it may very well be that, within the confines of the Honduras Constitution, there was no Coup at all. Indeed, it is being argued that he was removed from the Presidency in keeping with the Constitution and the law because he usurped the law in an attempt to keep himself in office.

In 1982, Honduras amended its Constitution to introduce a four-year term limit on the Presidency. The Constitution also made it unconstitutional to try to alter the provision. This worked well until Mr Zelaya became President in 2006 by a slim majority. He is required to relinquish the Presidency in January, but sought to alter the Constitution to extend his term. A challenge submitted to the Supreme Court found that he could not do so. Despite this, Zelaya ordered General Romeo Vasquez to have the military provide logistical support for a referendum anyway. Vasquez declined on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling and Zelaya promptly fired him. But the Court reinstated him. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal then ordered the seizure of all ballot boxes and election-related materials. According to the Spanish daily El País, the ballot boxes had been flown in from Venezuela by the Chavez government. The Congress, on the strength of the Supreme Court decision, then decided that Mr Zelaya had violated the Constitution and should be removed. In other words, they impeached him. The member governments of the OAS seem to have regarded this process as a Coup d’état. Hence, calls have been made for Zelaya’s reinstatement as President.

As Larry Binns, the Director of the Council for Hemispheric Affairs based in Washington, has pointed out: “By presenting his government as under attack by rightist, anti-constitutional elements intent on overthrowing his presidency, Zelaya has managed to present himself as an emblem of democracy and legitimacy”. He is far from it. Critics believe him to be a populist demagogue akin to Mr Chavez. Indeed, his line up of friends – Chavez himself and Evo Morales, the Bolivian President – reveal leaders who have also amended their countries’ constitutions to extend their term in office amid considerable opposition.

There was an order for Zelaya’s detention, but instead of enforcing it, the provisional Honduran government chose to take him out of the country. They have argued that, in doing so, they avoided confrontation that would have ensued, probably causing the loss of many lives as opposing factions clashed. Mr Zelaya had earlier shown himself not above leading his supporters in a march on the place where ballot boxes were ordered sequestered by the Court.

The question to be asked in the Caribbean is: Could a Caribbean leader ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court and proceed to try to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution, then fire the head of the military for refusing to ignore the Court’s ruling? This is pretty heavy-handed stuff that smacks of authoritarianism and a disregard for the rule of law simply to perpetuate a leader in office.

If there is a need for Constitutional change, particularly of an entrenched clause in the Constitution, a great deal of consultation and debate is absolutely necessary. Mr Zelaya paid little heed to the sensitivities of the Honduran Congress and sections of the people represented by political parties and other groups. In trampling on their rights and flouting the Constitution and the law, he set the scene for retaliation.

Within the OAS, the effort to condemn Zelaya’s removal and to call for his reinstatement appears to have been led by the Venezuelan government with the help of other governments that have aligned themselves closely with Hugo Chavez. These include Nicaragua,

Bolivia and Argentina, all members of ALBA. Other governments appear to have gone along with this call simply on the basis of Mr Zelaya’s removal from the country.

As this commentary is being written, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, is scheduled to mediate talks between Zelaya and Honduras’ appointed President Roberto Micheletti. No one can predict the outcome of these talks; they will depend on the willingness of the contenders to put Honduras before their own political ambitions, however skillful Mr Arias may be as a mediator.

Elections for a new President are due in November. Elements of a solution to the crisis could be agreement that Zelaya will return to Honduras to finish his term as President which will end in January, but there will be no referendum to amend the Constitution now. The country will then choose their new President from a fresh list of candidates.

This would meet both the importance of upholding constitutionally-elected governments, and disapproving of those leaders who would tamper with the Constitution for their political gain.

Honduras cannot afford the social and economic disruption that would flow from prolonged civil strife and hemispheric isolation. Seventy percent of its more than 7 million people already live in poverty. The Caribbean should strongly support Mr Arias’ efforts.
Sir Ronald Saunders is a business consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.
(responses to:  ronaldsanders29@msn.com)