Honduras: Democratically elected president overthrown

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BrownEyedBoy

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
3,511
Location
San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Today our president was overthrown, taken out of his home by force in the wee hours of the morning and thrown into exile in Costa Rica.

The coup perpetrated against Zelaya was a slap in the face to all those who want to believe in a democracy and in anything resembling constitutional order. Not only did they produce a resignation letter that was made to appear to have been signed and created by Zelaya but they didn't even use it as a basis for the impeachment rendering the very move pointless.

Granted, Zelaya had some obscure and unknown plans laid out in the country's future but they should've followed due process in order to take him out of the presidency. What ocurred today was a violation to all our laws and our constitutional system and all those who were behind it deserve to be punished.

The majority of the upper class, which are the ones who have internet access, have stormed online media claiming happiness over this infamous act of high treason but the other part of the country still believes that our democracy was made a fool on this sad sad day for Honduras democracy.
 
I'd be curious as to what you thought of this:

Zelaya, a leftist elected in 2005, suddenly found himself pitted against the other branches of government and military leaders over the issue of the referendum.

The referendum at the center of the storm asks voters to place a measure on November's ballot that would allow the formation of a constitutional assembly that could modify the nation's charter to allow the president to run for another term.

Zelaya, whose four-year term ends in January 2010, cannot run for re-election.

The Hondurans Supreme Court had ruled the referendum illegal, and Congress and the top military brass agreed, but Zelaya remained steadfast.

I guess I was intrigued by what looks like the President appearing to "subvert" democracy and the separation of powers himself before being deposed? I'd be interested in your take on the situation.
 
I'd be curious as to what you thought of this:



I guess I was intrigued by what looks like the President appearing to "subvert" democracy and the separation of powers himself before being deposed? I'd be interested in your take on the situation.

The fact that Zelaya had been left alone and had been supported by practically no one in the government made me start listening to the guy although not support him wholeheartedly. You see, our government is a deeply corrupt one where legislators create laws to benefit their personal enterprises. Zelaya denounced many of these things which is why he was left alone by many of our politicians. The problem was his close relationship with Chavez made you kind of wonder what his true intentions were. But the new government is the same corrupt government we've always had and the reason they overthrew him was because they were defending their own personal economical interests.
 
Granted, Zelaya had some obscure and unknown plans laid out in the country's future but they should've followed due process in order to take him out of the presidency.
What would "due process" have looked like in this case? (Other than "Not a coup"--that much I get. :wink: ) Because, at least as I understand it, your Constitution isn't very clear at all on what, in fact, the proper procedure for "taking out" a sitting president is.

Also, concerning those "obscure and unknown plans": what exactly is the basis of the claim that Zelaya's referendum was intended to bring about revision of the Constitutional provisions on term limits? I've read a little bit about the referendum--the 'Cuarta Urna' thing and all that--and I still haven't seen a clear explanation of what the 'proof' for that claim is.
 
Last edited:
To me it sounds like the people with money and power did not want this guy to institute any leftist reforms.

That is exactly what happened. I'll elaborate on this tomorrow. But, yeah, that is exactly what happened. These are also the same people who control the country's energy supply through a dodgy contract with the corrupt government. These are also the same people who cut the power all through sunday morning.
 
Also, concerning those "obscure and unknown plans": what exactly is the basis of the claim that Zelaya's referendum was intended to bring about revision of the Constitutional provisions on term limits? I've read a little bit about the referendum--the 'Cuarta Urna' thing and all that--and I still haven't seen a clear explanation of what the 'proof' for that claim is.

I think this is the part of the constitution that's being fought over:

http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2.html

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.


El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

Online translation:

I ARTICULATE 239.- The citizen that have performed the ownership of the Executive Power will not be able to be a President or Appointed.

The one that break this disposition or propose their reform, as well as those that support the direct or indirectly, they will cease immediately in the performance of their respective charges, and they will remain disqualified by ten years for the exercise of every civil service.
 
Thing is, purpleoscar, they never followedt the actual process that would impeach him. They took the man out of his home at 3 am in the morning by force and took him to Costa Rica. He wasn't the most loved man in the country. I never supported him. But that foolish foolish coup d'etat made a mediocre politician an international democratic figure. That is what I condemn and will never ever condone.
 
I think this is the part of the constitution that's being fought over:
I know that; I'm asking what the evidence that Zelaya actually did this was. The wording of his referendum said nothing about term limits, and if he himself ever publically stated that was its purpose, I've seen no report of that either. Of course this doesn't prove that wasn't his goal (or one of his goals) but you'd think, given the consequences here, that some hard evidence must have existed.

Seems to me a bad idea for the constitution of a democracy to have such stringent punishments for merely advocating a revision of term limits (apparently any Honduran can lose their citizenship for doing so, not just the President). I assume this is meant to guard against dictatorship, but going that far pretty much guarantees that no one who actually intends to revise term limits will admit to it--and also that anyone who opposes a constitutional assembly, for whatever reason, will be tempted to level allegations of "They just want to extend term limits" at its proposers, so as to shut it down.
 
Last edited:
I know that; I'm asking what the evidence that Zelaya actually did this was .

Evidence is a funny thing.

Zelaya says he just thought it might be a good idea to get a little survey of what the citizens think.


and his enemies say 'his intent' was to change the constitution.
They rush to a judgment, and claim they are acting within the law.
The parties behind the coup, point to the Judges for legitimacy.
 
If they had had evidence they would simply followd through the judicial system, which was the right thing to do. But they bypassed the whole thing and did what they thought best for their little money making maching called Honduras.
 
Thing is, purpleoscar, they never followedt the actual process that would impeach him. They took the man out of his home at 3 am in the morning by force and took him to Costa Rica. He wasn't the most loved man in the country. I never supported him. But that foolish foolish coup d'etat made a mediocre politician an international democratic figure. That is what I condemn and will never ever condone.

Yes and that's probably the point that Chavez and his supporters want. I'm not for military dictatorship but there's definately left-wing special interests involved. It's possible to elect people who want to stay and stay and stay and copy the successful moves of Chavez. It's possible to have corruption on both sides.

What's your opinion on this article?:

O'Grady: Honduras Defends Its Democracy - WSJ.com

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

Is there any validity to this?
 
purpleoscar, this is a deeply corrupt government that has turned on itself. There will be a lot of finger-pointing going onin the next few days and don't be surprised, everyone here was involved. What happened today was one side of the government overthew the other side. First time ever it happens and it just had to be my country. Zelaya was corrupt but so are the people who overthrew him except that with this coup they managed to give Zelaya the moral and legal high ground which he did not have before.
 
Is there any validity to this?

Zelaya is a leftist

of course the Wall Street Journal is going to take the conservative, pro-multi-national business arguments and frame it that way.

It seems to me that if Zelaya had his vote and the people, by a good majority supported changing the constitution, then the legislative body would have been backed into a corner and required to proceed and do it the correct way,
as called for in the constitution or risk being voted out of office.

The coup was a preventive strike,
because they did not want to know the will of the people.
 
UN backs ousted Honduran leader

By WILL WEISSERT and FREDDY CUEVAS, Associated Press Writers Will Weissert And Freddy Cuevas, Associated Press Writers – 38 mins ago

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – The U.N. General Assembly demanded the immediate restoration of Honduras' ousted president on Tuesday, but the man who replaced him said Manuel Zelaya could be arrested if he returns home.

The U.N. vote by acclamation added to an avalanche of international denunciations of the coup that removed Zelaya on Sunday, an action that raised fears of more of the military overthrows that have scarred Latin American history.

The world body called on all 192 U.N. member states to avoid recognizing any government in Honduras other than Zelaya's.

Zelaya then thanked the assembly for the "historic" resolution that expresses "the indignation" of people worldwide.

The Organization of American States planned an emergency meeting in Washington hours later to reinforce the pressure to reinstate Zelaya, whose foes claim he was plotting with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to change the Honduran constitution in hopes of extending his rule.

The United States, which had privately expressed concerns to Zelaya about changing the constitution, has stood behind him since masked soldiers sent him, still wearing pajamas, into exile.

President Barack Obama said Zelaya remains "the democratically elected president."

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama said Monday.


this coup, like the failed one against Chavez

will likely have the same effect, take a marginal leader, that was not that popular

and boost his popularity as a victim, of foreign imperialism and an oligarchy power grab.



If they had let Zelaya go on, there is a good chance the people may have rejected his plans as a self-serving power grab.
 
[The Supreme Court] also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.
Why would they even make such an offer? If a sitting US president had committed acts likely to result in his impeachment and removal from office, do you think he'd be given an offer of "safe passage out of the country" in "exchange" for resigning as an alternative? At best, this sounds like their half-assed dodge around the risk of provoking a second constitutional crisis resulting from the fact that Honduras' Constitution establishes no procedure for legally removing a sitting president.
 
Last edited:
Why would they even make such an offer? If a sitting US president had committed acts likely to result in his impeachment and removal from office, do you think he'd be given an offer of "safe passage out of the country" in "exchange" for resigning as an alternative? At best, this sounds like their half-assed dodge around the risk of provoking a second constitutional crisis resulting from the fact that Honduras' Constitution establishes no procedure for legally removing a sitting president.

Exactly, this just gave the world a public view of the incompetence of our leaders in Honduras.
 
Of course, Zelaya meant to do that as well, despite contradicting assumptions, which were really just conjectures or assumptions by dominant conservatives. Elections should carry on in November and hopefully it will be Zelaya who will pass on the presidency in January.
 
Of course, Zelaya meant to do that as well, despite contradicting assumptions, which were really just conjectures or assumptions by dominant conservatives. Elections should carry on in November and hopefully it will be Zelaya who will pass on the presidency in January.

If his policies are so important he should get someone else from the same party to run to avoid more conflict, unless his party disagrees with him.
 
They're from the same party. Like the US, Honduras has an entrenched two-party system, where it's virtually impossible for third parties to have any impact. Unfortunately, BOTH their major parties are much more pervasively corrupt and cronyist than ours.
 
They're from the same party. Like the US, Honduras has an entrenched two-party system, where it's virtually impossible for third parties to have any impact. Unfortunately, BOTH their major parties are much more pervasively corrupt and cronyist than ours.


Exactly. Micheletti was kissing Zelaya's ass the last three years AND wanted to run for president. He actually approved the law that allowed Zelaya to carry out this poll in exchange for being allowed to run for president. At the time, Micheletti was president of Congress and the Constitution had a law that forbade him from running for president. He changed this law to be able to run for president only to lose miserably. And now he finally got his wish. But he was kissing Zelaya's ass all through the last three years.
 
Honduras Coup: With Zelaya Ousted, Both Sides Protest - TIME

Great article.

This is what's going on here:

he protesters with sun-scorched faces and hardened hands cry out about the misery of the Honduran poor. And they chant the name otf the one man they say has helped them: President Manuel Zelaya, whom they fondly call "Mel." One hundred yards away, marchers in neat white T shirts and designer sunglasses calmly sing the country's national anthem. They accuse Zelaya of being a polarizing class warrior.
 
U.S. Misread Scale of Honduran Rift

By William Booth and Juan Forero
Washington Post, July 5



TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, July 4 -- Although the U.S. government knew for months that Honduras was on the brink of political chaos, officials say they underestimated how fearful the Honduran elite and the military were of ousted President Manuel Zelaya and his ally President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

Rumors were buzzing in the capital that the fight between Zelaya and his conservative opponents had reached the boiling point, but diplomatic officials said the Obama administration and its embassy were surprised when Honduran soldiers burst into the presidential palace last Sunday and removed Zelaya from power. U.S. diplomats had been trying to broker a compromise and were speaking to both sides hours before the coup. For decades, Washington has trained the Honduran military, and senior U.S. officials say they did not think that the Honduran military would carry out a coup. The overthrow, and the new Honduran government's vow to remain in power despite international condemnation, is President Obama's first test in a region that had grown distant from the United States. The crisis also pits Obama's nuanced approach to diplomacy against that of an often bellicose rival, Chávez, who has taken center stage in the showdown by threatening to overthrow the government that took over from Zelaya.

The new Honduran leaders said Saturday that they will not yield to demands made by the Organization of American States to allow Zelaya to return to power. The caretaker president, Roberto Micheletti, threatened that Zelaya will be arrested if he returns Sunday as promised alongside Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and other Latin American leaders.

The Catholic Church appealed for calm. Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez went on the airwaves to beg Zelaya to "give us room for a peaceful resolution" and warned that, if Zelaya comes back Sunday, there could be "a bloodbath."

When Zelaya, 56, a wealthy rancher whose family made its fortune from timber, was elected president in 2005, he was a middle-of-the-road populist from one of Honduras's two major parties. But as his presidency progressed, Zelaya veered to the left and was in constant conflict with business groups, lawmakers from his own party, the news media and the army. "Over the last year, Zelaya's positions moved to the left. He pushed social programs and more attention for the poor who have no work," said Giuseppe Magno, the outgoing Italian ambassador. "This switch was not in line with the program he was voted in on. He was too close to Ortega and Chávez, a position the middle and upper classes did not appreciate."

But Zelaya saw it differently, often telling crowds that Honduras needed a fundamental shift to deal with poverty so grinding that 40% of the population lives on $2 a day or less. Honduras is, in fact, the third-poorest country in the hemisphere, and many residents continue to resent the often painful past involvement of the United States.

In announcing his country's affiliation with a Chávez-led alliance, Zelaya told crowds that it was designed to "make Hondurans a free people." He said that in joining the pact, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, Honduras did "not have to ask permission of any imperialists." Zelaya increasingly spoke of the two nations of Honduras, one hopelessly poor, the other wealthy and uncaring. He began to argue for "people power," a kind of direct popular democracy. When he toured the countryside, he staged rallies to ask the people what they wanted, and promised new bridges and clinics on the spot, giving away 100 Venezuelan tractors to farmers and speaking against an unnamed oligarchy he called the enemy of the people.

Zelaya angered the business community when he raised the minimum monthly wage for Hondurans by 60%. Many companies responded by firing workers. Other businesses ignored the decree.

When U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens arrived last year, Zelaya postponed the ceremony allowing the newly arrived diplomat to present his credentials. He fought with his Congress, insisting that lawmakers accept his nominees to the Supreme Court. He refused to sign the budget and he stalled on dozens of bills approved by the Congress. All along, Zelaya grew closer to Latin America's leftist leaders, especially Chávez. He traveled frequently to Venezuela, where he stood beside Chávez as he gave fiery speeches railing against capitalists.

But Adolfo Facussé, a business leader who had been friends with Zelaya, said the president at first explained his alliance with Venezuela in pragmatic, economic terms. "He said a year ago that he was interested in ALBA," said Facussé, speaking of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, which included Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua. "I said it's mostly an anti-American enterprise, and he said that's not what interests me. There is assistance being offered." Facussé said that he invited Venezuelan Embassy officials to meet with Honduran industrialists, adding that it became clear to him and other businessmen that Honduras could benefit from Venezuela's largess, including the sale of fuel on preferential terms, a line of credit from Caracas and outright gifts, such as tractors. "I reviewed the deal, and I thought it was good," Facussé said of Zelaya's plan to bring Honduras closer to Chávez and his cheap fuel.

European diplomats who know Zelaya and how he operates described him as a populist nationalist, not an leftist ideologue. Those familiar with the growing crisis said concern about Chávez by political opponents was driven by an outsize fear that Venezuela had diabolical designs on Honduras--and would have implanted Chávez's economic system and style of governance had Zelaya been allowed to carry out his referendum. "It was the same scheme Chávez had in Venezuela," said Benjamin Bogran, the new minister of industry and commerce. "Chávez considers Honduras to be inside his orbit." Elizabeth Zuñiga, a member of Congress and leader of the Nationalist Party, said: "Little by little, step by step, he was looking at the South Americans for help and guidance. They were his new best friends." Zuñiga, who supports the ouster, said, "What I believe we were seeing was the evolution of a democratic dictatorship."

Armando Sarmiento, a member of the ousted Zelaya cabinet, who is in hiding, said the fear of Chávez and his influence on Zelaya lead to the coup. "The right wing believes the myth that President Zelaya was going to seek an extra term. But this was not true." Sarmiento pointed out that Zelaya wanted to help the country's poor, not nationalize industries or create a socialist economy. "President Zelaya had very strong arguments with these people, what the president called the oligarchy, the media, the special interests. There were campaigns of hatred against the president."

Doris Gutiérrez, a member of Congress who opposes the coup, said: "The sector here that supports the move against Zelaya has never been so open, so brazen, so upfront before. The situation is going to become more dangerous."

Analysts familiar with Zelaya's cabinet said he was influenced by a small group of close aides. They included Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas, viewed as an ally of Ortega's Sandinista government in Nicaragua and daughter of a popular progressive politician who fled the country after a military coup in 1963. Others included Milton Jiménez, a former foreign minister who analysts said had the most influence on Zelaya; Enrique Flores Lanza, Zelaya's minister of the presidency and considered the most radical of his aides; and Aristides Mejía, Zelaya's vice president. "They were the political nucleus, the ideologues of Manuel Zelaya," said Jorge Yllescas, an economist who is a member of Civic Union, a coalition of 60 groups opposed to Zelaya. "They were the ones who really had the ideological line. When Mel got to the presidency, he was liberal, but within a year he had a different tendency from his own ideology."

But the same diplomats are puzzled about exactly what Zelaya was after in his attempt to rewrite the constitution. The boiling point came when Zelaya began to push for a national survey, a kind of nonbinding referendum for a constitutional assembly that could led to a new law that allowed a president to serve more than one term. But Honduras's lengthy, sometimes contradictory document contains language that makes a person a traitor for even suggesting such a change.

As Zelaya pressed ahead with his plan to hold the vote last Sunday, the day of the coup, the leader of the Honduran military, Gen. Romeo Vásquez, balked, because the Supreme Court told him that the referendum was illegal. Zelaya tried to fire Vásquez, which further riled the military. "Look, we're democratic and here we respect the ideologies of other countries," said Gabriela Nuñez, the new finance minister. "But we do not want to change our system of government."
 
Back
Top Bottom