RSS
Home
More on the Honduran constitutional crisis
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Flag of Honduras
In the latest bizarre turn in the Honduran coup and its aftermath, negotiators for de facto President Roberto Micheletti have offered to ousted former President Manuel Zelaya that the legislature of the country decide whether he should be given the presidency again.
So now the Honduran junta is apparently agreeing to Zelaya's demand of just last week.
Why would Micheletti's negotiators cave in? What leverage does Zelaya have? Andrew E. Mathis
Well, as I wrote in the above-linked Examiner.com article, he has none, and as the AP story linked to above that points out, he'll likely lose on such a referendum, if it goes to the legislature.
So what's really confusing is that the Micheletti junta is offering a third option to Zelaya — Micheletti will step down, and a third party will serve as president of the country until Zelaya's originally elected term expires. That would be in about three months.
It's actually rather clever, when you back away from it for a second. The junta has called for a presidential election on November 29 of this year. If Zelaya accepts this option of a third party taking over the presidency, then the election doesn't come until probably early February.
In this way, the junta still gets rid of Zelaya, since he can't run for president again. The constitution of Honduras makes that rather clear: It was the cause of Zelaya's ouster to begin with.
Zelaya has rejected a similar offer of a third-party interim president in the past, so whether he'll accept this offer is doubtful, but let's suppose that he does. Then a third party takes control of the country.
Well, who decides on this third party? In theory, it would have to be someone upon whom both Zelaya and Micheletti would agree. Likely, the legislature would have to agree upon this person as well. That's usually how things work in a democracy with checks and balances.
So where would that leave Zelaya and the coup leaders, both of whom violated the constitution — Zelaya by trying to amend it by referendum, and the coup leaders by deporting Zelaya back in June?
It's hard to say. Likely neither would face justice for their crimes against the country's constitution, and that sets a bad precedent in a region that has few long-lasting, functional democracies.
The really confusing thing about this whole sad situation, from the standpoint of someone who respects the constitution of his own country, is that President Obama, himself a constitutional lawyer, is not only pressing that Zelaya be allowed to return to Honduras (which he did, in September), but also that he be reinstated forthwith. Otherwise, the Obama administration says, it will not recognize the outcome of the polling called for on November 29.
I posed this scenario some time ago, but it bears repeating. Suppose what happened in Honduras happened here? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a president popular with the people, but who faced a hostile Congress and Supreme Court, suggested that a popular referendum be held to amend the Constitution to revoke the Twenty-second Amendment — the one that limited the term of the President of the United States to two full terms or ten years, if s/he entered in the middle of a previous president's term.
What would we do? The Congress would move for impeachment, most likely. And, despite the failings of the Honduran constitution to provide for impeachment proceedings when the president violates the constitution, Zelaya's removal from office is de facto impeachment.
What irks the United States and other nations pressing for Zelaya being able to return to the presidency, I suppose, is that it was the military that was used to force him out.
I've used the terms "coup" and "junta" to describe the situation in Honduras since it began. This has angered many people who view what happened there as being, in the words of some of them, "completely legal."
Perhaps it was legal. The supreme court ordered his arrest, after all. They would be the same body to judge whether this de facto impeachment was lawful. (The same supreme court, by the way, would have to hold the coup leaders culpable for deporting Zelaya.) But would such a ruling by Honduras's highest court appease the Obama administration?
Probably not, and that's because they can't see the situation beyond the military ousting the democratically elected leader of a nation in the Western Hemisphere. It brings up unpleasant memories for both the left wing and the right. For the left, it's reminiscent of Chile, except the Zelaya didn't "commit suicide" like Salvador Allende was said to have done. For the right, it's a reminder of what happened to Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.
Whether it reminds the Obama administration of Augusto Pinochet or Fidel Castro is beside the point, however. Rather, the point is that a man violated the constitution of the country he was elected to lead. That, in our American system, warrants removal from office. All other considerations are secondary.
Earlier today, I wrote about double standards and how they're dangerous. In this case, a double standard is being imposed on Honduras by the same country who impeached Andrew Johnson and would have impeached Richard Nixon if he hadn't resigned first. The Secretary of State of all people should realize that. Don't forget who her husband is.
Related Articles:
Comments
