The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Coup d'what? Honduran Leadership Crisis
Knuckle Dragger
Explosive Ovine DisposalRegistered User regular
Explosive Ovine DisposalRegistered User regular
So, early this morning, President Zelaya of Honduras woke up to find his home surrounded by soldiers. Before he could get dressed, he had been detained, thrown on a plane and shipped to Costa Rica. Since then, everyone and their brother has come out condemning this military coup, calling for a restoration of leadership, and, in the case of Venezuela, making not so veiled threats at the remainder of the government. As more information comes out, however, it seems like the situation may not actually have been a coup, but an act in accordance with the Constitution, enacted not only by the military, but also the legislative and judicial branches of government.
Everything seems to focus around a referendum that was to be held today. It was a non-binding vote to decide whether they should pursue constitutional reform to remove presidential term limits, allowing Zelaya to run for a second term. The legislature passed a law forbidding referenda during the 180 days prior to an election. In addition, the Supreme Court rules the referendum illegal. Zelaya ordered the military to proceed with distributing the ballots (which is one of their duties during elections), and the head of the military refused. Zelaya sacked him, but the Supreme Court ordered him reinstated the same day, which Zelaya refused to do.
The final acts before everything went to hell started when the elections board attempted to stop the referendum by ordering all ballots and other elections material be turned in. In response, protestors went to the base where the material was being held and demanded the ballots be given to them, which they were. Finally, the Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office and, apparently, the country.
So the question comes down to whether this was a military coup or the legitimate removal of a lawless executive. The argument for this not being a coup is the Honduran Constitution, which seems to be quite rabid about the single term limit of the presidency. I am not fluent in Spanish, so I will leave the original text with my interperetation, so that someone with better knowledge can tell me if I am reading things right. The most central articles in this situation involve how the constitution may be changed:
From what I gather, the article states certain articles of the constitution may not be changed, including article 373 (stipulating that changes to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote of the National Congress), 374, itself, and any articles related to the structure of the government, the presidential term or presidential re-election (not quite certain on the last one, but it is my best fit considering how harshly those articles are worded).
Next is one of the articles regarding the executive office:
I believe this says that nobody who has already served as executive can be president or "Designado" (Maybe VP or party nominee for president?). Furthermore, it says that anyone who violates or attempts to reform this article will immediately cease to hold their office and face a 10 year political ban. Again, my Spanish is beyond rusty, but if this says what I think it does, then it looks like the Supreme Court basically ruled that under the Constitution, Zelaya had ceased to be president when he continued to push for the vote, even though it was a non-binding referendum.
Finally, there is this one, which I find somewhat disturbing, but may explain why Zelaya was exiled:
The gist of this seems to be that someone can lose their citizenship for, among other things, encouraging or supporting the continued governance or re-election of a president. That may also be why it was the Supreme Court that ordered his removal (it says something about section 5 requiring a court order).
So I gues the question comes now, was this a coup or did every government in the West just jump on Honduras for following their own Constitution?
Everything seems to focus around a referendum that was to be held today. It was a non-binding vote to decide whether they should pursue constitutional reform to remove presidential term limits, allowing Zelaya to run for a second term. The legislature passed a law forbidding referenda during the 180 days prior to an election. In addition, the Supreme Court rules the referendum illegal. Zelaya ordered the military to proceed with distributing the ballots (which is one of their duties during elections), and the head of the military refused. Zelaya sacked him, but the Supreme Court ordered him reinstated the same day, which Zelaya refused to do.
The final acts before everything went to hell started when the elections board attempted to stop the referendum by ordering all ballots and other elections material be turned in. In response, protestors went to the base where the material was being held and demanded the ballots be given to them, which they were. Finally, the Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office and, apparently, the country.
So the question comes down to whether this was a military coup or the legitimate removal of a lawless executive. The argument for this not being a coup is the Honduran Constitution, which seems to be quite rabid about the single term limit of the presidency. I am not fluent in Spanish, so I will leave the original text with my interperetation, so that someone with better knowledge can tell me if I am reading things right. The most central articles in this situation involve how the constitution may be changed:
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artÃculo anterior, el presente artÃculo, los artÃculos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al perÃodo presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier tÃtulo y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el perÃodo subsiguiente.
From what I gather, the article states certain articles of the constitution may not be changed, including article 373 (stipulating that changes to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote of the National Congress), 374, itself, and any articles related to the structure of the government, the presidential term or presidential re-election (not quite certain on the last one, but it is my best fit considering how harshly those articles are worded).
Next is one of the articles regarding the executive office:
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, asà 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.
I believe this says that nobody who has already served as executive can be president or "Designado" (Maybe VP or party nominee for president?). Furthermore, it says that anyone who violates or attempts to reform this article will immediately cease to hold their office and face a 10 year political ban. Again, my Spanish is beyond rusty, but if this says what I think it does, then it looks like the Supreme Court basically ruled that under the Constitution, Zelaya had ceased to be president when he continued to push for the vote, even though it was a non-binding referendum.
Finally, there is this one, which I find somewhat disturbing, but may explain why Zelaya was exiled:
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
1. Por prestar servicios en tiempo de guerra a enemigos de Honduras o de sus aliados;
2. Por prestar ayuda en contra del Estado de Honduras, a un extranjero o a un gobierno extranjero en cualquier reclamación diplomática o ante un tribunal internacional;
3. Por desempeñar en el paÃs, sin licencia del Congreso Nacional, empleo de nación extranjera, del ramo militar o de carácter polÃtico;
4. Por coartar la libertad de sufragio, adulterar documentos electorales o emplear medios fraudulentos para burlar la voluntad popular;
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,
6. Por residir los hondureños naturalizados, por más de dos años consecutivos, en el extranjero sin previa autorización del Poder Ejecutivo.
En los casos a que se refieren los numerales 1) y 2), la declaración de la pérdida de la ciudadanÃa la hará el Congreso Nacional mediante expediente circunstanciado que se forme al efecto. Para los casos de los numerales 3) y 6), dicha declaración la hará el Poder Ejecutivo mediante acuerdo gubernativo; y para los casos de los incisos 4) y 5) también por acuerdo gubernativo, previa sentencia condenatoria dictada por los tribunales competentes.
The gist of this seems to be that someone can lose their citizenship for, among other things, encouraging or supporting the continued governance or re-election of a president. That may also be why it was the Supreme Court that ordered his removal (it says something about section 5 requiring a court order).
So I gues the question comes now, was this a coup or did every government in the West just jump on Honduras for following their own Constitution?
Knuckle Dragger on
0
Posts
2. The Honduran Military performed a legal action, it's really their form of impeachment
3. It's not a coup unless the military takes control of the government, which they probably won't do.
Otherwise, why send the President to Costa Rica? If it was a power grab they could just shoot him.
Typically "just shooting him" is bad form though.
If that's an actual quote, that's Bush league stupid.
*Unless that coup were CIA orchestrated, that is.
To be fair, the MSM seems to be going with the line that Zelaya messed up but should have been removed in a way that didn't involve tanks in the streets.
I'm quite amused that the US is now apparently backing a socialist president against other more conservative wings of government. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Anyway, on Obama:
So they're siding with the OAS over Honduras, or something. The only direct quote from Obama I can find is the usual "must follow constitution" vagueness - non-meaningful in this case since both sides maintain that they're doing just that - and a commitment towards non-interference:
In any case, I don't like the idea of a constitution that cannot be changed, and I really don't like the idea of the army seizing ballots to prevent an election.
Your summaries were accurate. Did you want something more word for word?
The constitution can be changed. Some things were made unchangeable for a very good reason - they tend to get changed for very nefarious reasons such as the establishment of a dictatorship a la Venezuela.
The army seizing ballots is in line with their role as administrators of the electoral process in the country.
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
Article 42 - The condition of citzenship is lost:
1. Por prestar servicios en tiempo de guerra a enemigos de Honduras o de sus aliados;
1. Lending service in a time of war to enemies of Honduras or its allies
2. Por prestar ayuda en contra del Estado de Honduras, a un extranjero o a un gobierno extranjero en cualquier reclamación diplomática o ante un tribunal internacional;
For giving help against the state of Honduras, to a foregiener, or a foreign government for because of any diplomatic complaint/demand or to any international tribunal
3. Por desempeñar en el paÃs, sin licencia del Congreso Nacional, empleo de nación extranjera, del ramo militar o de carácter polÃtico;
For practicing in the country, without a liscence, the role of an employee of a foreign government, a member of a branch of the military, or a political office
4. Por coartar la libertad de sufragio, adulterar documentos electorales o emplear medios fraudulentos para burlar la voluntad popular;
For limiting voting rights, adultering (unlawfully changing) any electoral document, or using fradulent methods to avoiding the will of the people
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,
For inciting, provoking, or supporting the continument or reelection of the president of the republic and
6. Por residir los hondureños naturalizados, por más de dos años consecutivos, en el extranjero sin previa autorización del Poder Ejecutivo.
If a naturlized honduran resides, for more than 2 consecutive years, abroad with out prior authorization of the executive power
En los casos a que se refieren los numerales 1) y 2), la declaración de la pérdida de la ciudadanÃa la hará el Congreso Nacional mediante expediente circunstanciado que se forme al efecto. Para los casos de los numerales 3) y 6), dicha declaración la hará el Poder Ejecutivo mediante acuerdo gubernativo; y para los casos de los incisos 4) y 5) también por acuerdo gubernativo, previa sentencia condenatoria dictada por los tribunales competentes.
In cases that refer to numbers 1 and 2, the declaration of the loss of citizenship will be made by the national congres through expediant action(?) that is formed as it happens.. For the cases of 3 and 6, the said declaration will be made by the executive power by way of government agreement, and for the cases 4 and 5, they too will be made by governmental agreement, the prior legal sentence will be dictated by the competent tribunales.
I translated (most of) it word for word and...some of it was just hard to understand..though, even if it had been written in english, i still probably wouldn't have understood it all, legal terms and what not.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Constitutions must be mutable. There is no way that the people who pen the document now know what the country in the future will need. There is no part of the US Constitution that cannot be amended, and that is a feature, not a bug. The fact that the Honduran military wrote in immutable sections to the constitution in 82 is pretty telling about how they wanted to retain power.
And how is Venezuela a dictatorship? I've never figured out the logic of that one. Especially when you compare the conduct of the Chavez government to that of the abortive Bush-supported coup in 2002.
Fuck. There's only one place the army belongs with regards to the ballot box, and that is as fucking far away as possible.
The more I read about this, the more I'm getting the sense that the elites (who make up the courts, the Assembly, and the military brass) got afraid of what the people would say in this referendum (which wasn't about term limits, but about moving to convene a new constitutional convention.) For example, the law that was violated that prevents referenda from being held 180 days prior to an election? It was passed about a week ago. See the problem there? There are also reports of blackouts and curfews being used to control the populace in Honduras as well, which is a sign that the courts and the military may not really be reflecting popular sentiment.
Edit: BBC on the curfew. This does NOT pass the smell test whatsoever.
Actually, the section about states not losing their representation in the Senate without their permission is actually mutable - an amendment can create rules for doing so, and it would automatically supersede that section (through a legal doctrine called implicit repeal.) Secondly, the one segment that was immutable was only rendered such for a short period of time in order to hold the ratification of the Constitution together, mainly thanks to the "peculiar institution" of the South. But the immutability was only temporary (and it's important to note that one of the two clauses rendered temporarily immutable was in fact later amended by the 16th Amendment,) compared to the permanent immutability in the Honduran constitution.
Okay, let me make this even clearer.
The military of ANY nation should not be involved in the elections of that nation. Period. The fact that the Honduran constitution seemingly gives the military this role means that it is fucked up.
Edit: Also, when one of the first actions of an interem leader is to institute curfews, that's not a good sign.
The military of any developing nation is always involved in elections, even if it doesn't have any formal role, merely by the implicit possibility of it making itself an informal role. Thailand proved as much; there was little forewarning of military intervention, and it was widely thought that Thailand was stably democratic. That the Honduran military at least claims to be listening (and therefore subordinate to) to the Honduran Supreme Court is a good sign, really.
This is how the third world rolls; it sucks, but that's how it is. Developing nations often have entrenched problems, and entrenched problems encourage a widespread belief that the best way to fix the system is to knock it over first. So all third world nations, however old their democracy, have to keep looking over their shoulder at the people holding all those weapons. If that general gives that order, will his soldiers listen to him? etc. A confidence that they won't is pretty much limited to the first world.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Actually, that's not true. In some cases, Guardian Coups don't involve military takeovers at all. Instead, the military unseats elected (or "elected") officials and replaces them with other civilian leadership without taking power themselves. I'm not saying this is the case in Honduras, just being an IR geek.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Given that their Services Sector employs a higher percentage of the labor force than does Agriculture, I don't know if "banana republic" really works anymore. I mean it conveys a certain, and perhaps appropriate, amount of disarray, but the term carries with it a certain connotation regarding the state's economy which doesn't hold true anymore.
The military staged a coup not to put themselves in place, but to allegedly enforce the wishes of the judiciary and legislature. So there's the expectation of democracy, at least - so it's moved beyond the stage of small groups of military and business leaders repeatedly putting new dictators in place. So, no longer a banana republic.
This is an important step, because it's pretty much as far down the road on democracy as it's possible for such a nation to go. Being able to be confident that the military won't obey when a general orders them to stage a coup for some plausible reason, and that the country is rich enough to survive a couple of bad presidencies, are pretty much first world luxuries. Pointing and saying "banana republic!" is... not useful.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They're apparently installing the head of the legislature as president now
I have to disagree here. Shouldn't a stable democracy be marked by the fact that the executive (or whoever) cannot take over the state unlawfully? For that to be the case, at the end of the line, there needs to be a path to remove politicians from power by force.
Consider if Honduras' story had played out in the US. Bush tries to run a for a third term using some type of referendum as political cover. Congress makes a law forbidding the referendum. The case goes to the Supreme Court, which sides with Congress calling shenanigans on a third term. At this point, Bush-backed protesters acquire the referendum ballots and try to run with it anyway.
Wouldn't it be our military's job to remove him from power at that point?
See, when you have a definition of "banana republic" that includes virtually all developing nations, one might say your definition is a little too broad.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Also, you're overlooking that section in general. What if the US Constitution was amended to strike Article Five altogether, forbidding any future amendments? Should that portion be mutable?
If yes then your universal prohibition on restricting mutability fails.
If no then your universal prohibition on restricting mutability fails.
Either the military or law enforcement yes. This is why if the facts are as presented in the OP I think this does not qualify as a coup but rather the prevention of a coup.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Be that as it may, in this case it looks like the military was properly enforcing the constitution, under direction from the Supreme Court. Allowing the vote to take place, and leaving the President in power, would have been the coup.
Um no. You feel that the head of your country is committing crimes, you impeach him. You don't force him out of the country in the dead of night. And you also don't force out and beat up the ambassadors of countries you think might be sympathetic to the guy you're forcing out.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This is like arguing if unicorns exist. The fact of the matter is that in 2005, there was quite a bit of chatter in the right wing about a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. (They eventually came to their senses when it dawned on them that it would mean that Bill could run again.) Furthermore, we actually have laws that prevent what the Assembly did - once we get within a certain amount of time before an election, any laws passed that alter rules of the election are inapplicable for the upcoming election.
Furthermore, if Congress feels that the President isn't obeying the law, then it's their duty to draw up articles of impeachment against him, and actually impeach and remove him from office. Neither the SCOTUS nor Congress has the power to depose a president that they don't like. So no, it's not the military's job to remove the President from power - ever.