Honduran President ousted by Supreme Court and Military

[frigidmagi]

Yahoo?

Soldiers ousted the democratically elected president of Honduras on Sunday and Congress named a successor, but the leftist ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced what he called an illegal coup and vowed to stay in power.

The first military takeover of a Central American government in 16 years drew widespread condemnation from governments in Latin America and the world — including the U.S. — and Chavez vowed to overthrow the country's apparent new leader.

President Manuel Zelaya was awakened Sunday by gunfire and detained while still in his pajamas, hours before a constitutional referendum many saw as an attempt by him to stay in power beyond the one-term limit. An air force plane flew him into forced exile in Costa Rica as armored military vehicles with machine guns rolled through the streets of the Honduran capital and soldiers seized the national palace.

"I want to return to my country," Zelaya said in Costa Rica. "I am president of Honduras."

Congress voted to accept what it said was Zelaya's letter of resignation, with even Zelaya's former allies turning against him. Congressional leader Roberto Micheletti was sworn in to serve until Jan. 27 when Zelaya's term ends. Micheletti belongs to Zelaya's Liberal Party, but opposed the president in the referendum.

Zelaya denied resigning and insisted he would serve out his term, even as the Supreme Court backed the military takeover and said it was a defense of democracy.

Micheletti was sworn in at a ceremony inside the Congress building with cheers and chants from fellow legislators of "Honduras! Honduras!"

Outside of Congress, a group of about 150 people opposed to Zelaya's ouster stood well back from police lines and shook their fists, chanting "Out with the bourgeoisie!" and "Traitors!"

Micheletti insisted that he did not arrive at his new post "under the aegis of a coup d'etat."

"I have reached the presidency as the result of an absolutely legal transition process," he said.

He reached out to Zelaya's supporters, saying "Today in Honduras, there are neither victors, nor defeated. The motherland is for all."

He also defended the army, saying "the armed forces have complied with the constitution and the laws."

But he warned against outside interference after Chavez remarked that if Micheletti was appointed president, "We will overthrow him."

"We are going to demand respect from any nation that threatens to trample our sovereignty," Micheletti said.

Zelaya's overthrow came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional referendum that he was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court and the attorney general said it was illegal. The constitution bars changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving more than one term, they said.

Some businesses in the capital, Tegucigalpa, closed earlier this week amid the rising tension, and many speculated there would be a coup. Those who opposed the referendum warned against voting, fearing violence at the polls.

Countries throughout Latin America and the world condemned Zelaya's expulsion. Chavez said Venezuela "is at battle" and put his military on alert.

In Havana, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez vowed to work with allies to push for Zelaya's return to power. He said Cuban Ambassador Juan Carlos Hernandez was held briefly in Tegucigalpa after he and other foreign diplomats tried unsuccessfully to prevent soldiers from taking away Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas.

Chavez said troops in Honduras temporarily detained the Venezuelan and Cuban ambassadors and beat them.

President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Zelaya's arrest should be condemned.

"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter," Obama's statement read.

Coups were common in Central America for four decades reaching back to the 1950s, but Sunday's ouster was the first military power grab in Latin America since a brief, failed 2002 coup against Chavez. It was the first in Central America since military officials forced President Jorge Serrano of Guatemala to step down in 1993 after he tried to dissolve Congress and suspend the constitution.

"We thought that the long night of military dictatorships in Central America was over," said Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who sat beside Zelaya at a news conference.

Zelaya told the Venezuela-based Telesur network that he was awoken by gunshots and the shouts of his security guards, who he said resisted troops for at least 20 minutes. Still in his pajamas, he jumped out of bed and ducked behind an air conditioner to avoid the bullets, he said.

He said eight to 10 soldiers in masks escorted him onto an air force plane that took him to Costa Rica.

Zelaya said he would attend a scheduled meeting of Central American presidents in Nicaragua on Monday and that Chavez, who also plans to attend, would provide transportation.

Zelaya called on Honduran soldiers to back him, urged citizens to take to the streets in peaceful protests, and asked Honduran police to protect demonstrators.

About 100 supporters congregated in front of locked gates outside the national palace, where they hurled rocks at soldiers and shouted "Traitors! Traitors!" They hung a Honduran flag.

"They kidnapped him like cowards," screamed Melissa Gaitan. Tears streamed down the face of the 21-year-old, who works at the government television station. "We have to rally the people to defend our president."

Many union and farm groups supported Zelaya's push for the referendum — which he said was aimed at changing policies that have excluded the nearly three-quarters of Hondurans who live in poverty.

The vote did not take place on the referendum, which asked whether another vote should be held on convoking an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

The article uses the word Coup but I frankly disagree. The Honduran President was illegally (the nation Supreme Court had ruled the vote illegal) holding a vote to attempt to intimidate the Congress into rewriting the Constitution of Honduras so he could run for another term (Hey just like Chavez!).

Given that the President's own political party has sided against him I would say this was legal and the President of Honduras was out of bounds here.

I am bluntly disappointed in my President and Government for not siding with the rule of Constitutional Law in Honduras.

[Derek Thunder]

I disagree actually. It sounds more to me that the constitution of Honduras was itself a flawed document that had a defective amendment/revision process. Additionally, this would not have renewed the president's term had it passed; It would have only allowed him to run for re-election. Consider also that Zelaya's term was not set to expire until 2010.

Additionally, considering the amount of human suffering a military coup tends to cause, I'm thinking it was a gross overreaction on the part of reactionary elements in the armed forces. There are/were numerous legal avenues to correct this issue without the forced removal of the head of state.

Obama is correct in condemning the removal of a duly-elected leader.

[frigidmagi]

It sounds more to me that the constitution of Honduras was itself a flawed document that had a defective amendment/revision process.

Parts of the Honduran Constitution are not open to amendment. One part is the term limit of the President which is singular. This makes perfect sense when you consider the history of the region and how often Presidents end up in office for "life." No one President is irreplaceable and I fail to see how having a term limit hardwired in is a flaw.

Additionally, this would not have renewed the president's term had it passed; It would have only allowed him to run for re-election.

Correct, in direct violation of the Constitution. I remind you sir, in a Constitutional Republic such as Honduras or the United States, the Constitution is sovereign not the whims of the people or the President. Futhermore the Supreme Court of the nation had already ruled such a vote to be Unconstitutional. You yourself rightly criticized our former President for ignoring our Supreme Court, why should the President of Honduras be allowed to ignore his for his own gain?

Additionally, considering the amount of human suffering a military coup tends to cause, I'm thinking it was a gross overreaction on the part of reactionary elements in the armed forces.

Expect there was no fighting, which is what causes the human suffering. Also you seem to misunderstand the nature of this "coup." The President was arrested in accordance to orders from the Supreme Court of the land and the President's own party in Congress voted in support of his removal. In short, this is one man and his supporters in the populace against the entire government.

There are/were numerous legal avenues to correct this issue without the forced removal of the head of state.

He had already ignored legal decisions, this was the legal avenue. It was Constitutional, unlike the President's actions, carried out peacefully by the proper authorities of such an event and under the law of the nation in question. Zelaya hasn't even been robbed of liberty or wealthy, merely ejected from office and given that his continued presence could cause uproar been told to remain out of the nation he has troubled with his unconstitutional attempt to extend his power.

Obama is correct in condemning the removal of a duly-elected leader.

The fact that a man is duly elected gives him no sacredness or shield. The law must come first or nations dissolve into nothing more then mob run anarchy. I completely and totally disagree with you and must urge you to study the situation futher.

[Derek Thunder]

Parts of the Honduran Constitution are not open to amendment. One part is the term limit of the President which is singular. This makes perfect sense when you consider the history of the region and how often Presidents end up in office for "life." No one President is irreplaceable and I fail to see how having a term limit hardwired in is a flaw.

I don't think a constitution can be considered legitimately democratic if certain parts of it cannot be modified. Say a similar condition was attached to the 3/5ths clause of the constitution?

You yourself rightly criticized our former President for ignoring our Supreme Court, why should the President of Honduras be allowed to ignore his for his own gain?

I'm certainly not saying he should ignore it, but why then couldn't the president be detained by civilian authorities rather than being expelled from the country by the military?

Might I add,

Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

This is how I tend to see this. A president suggests holding a non-binding referendum on whether a constitutional revision is necessary at a later point. In both cases, the decision would be made by the voters. This president is then swiftly ejected from office by his government and expelled from the country by force. Honestly? This seems like a democratically elected official being railroaded because of a suggestion that revising the Constitution re: term limits might be something worth taking to the populace.

Anyway, I'm exceptionally inarticulate when it comes to politics, so I'll post this from Foreign Policy magazine.

The old demons that have given Latin America a tragic political history are dormant but hardly dead. On Sunday, Honduras's president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted by the military, capping weeks of tension brought about by the president's ill-conceived attempt to engineer his own reelection. As U.S. founding father John Adams might have put it, Zelaya chose to have a government of men and not of laws.

Zelaya's fatal mistake was in organizing a de facto referendum to test the idea of allowing him a second term. Honduras's Constitution explicitly forbids holding referendums -- let alone an unsanctioned "popular consultation" -- to amend it and, more specifically, to modify the presidential term. Unsurprisingly, the president's idea met with resistance from Congress, nearly all political parties (including his own), the press, the business community, electoral authorities, and, crucially, the Supreme Court, which deemed the whole endeavor illegal.

Last week, when Zelaya ordered the armed forces to distribute the electoral material to carry out what he called an "opinion poll," the military commander refused to comply and was summarily dismissed (he was later reinstated by the Supreme Court). The president then cited the troubling history of military intervention in Honduran politics, a past that the country -- under more prudent governments -- had made great strides in leaving behind in the past two decades. He neglected to mention that the order he had issued was illegal.

Then Zelaya -- a late convert to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian doctrine -- introduced an ideological rationale for his ambition: creating a "participatory" democracy in Honduras and subverting the country's dominant oligarchy (of which he is the quintessential product). Chávez and Fidel Castro, in an ironic turn of events given the two men's history, sternly denounced the danger of a military takeover in Honduras.

There was, of course, nothing ideological about Zelaya's plan. He never bothered to explain what kind of constitution he wanted, other than one that allowed his own reelection. In that respect, Zelaya is less a disciple of Chávez than of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, another unsavory character bereft of any ideal other than staying in power by hook or by crook.

Now the Honduran military has responded in kind: An illegal referendum has met an illegal military intervention, with the avowed intention of protecting the Constitution. Zelaya's civilian opponents, meanwhile, are celebrating. For the past week, the Honduran Congress has waxed lyrical about the armed forces as the guarantors of the Constitution, a disturbing notion for Latin Americans. At the very least, we are witnessing in Honduras the return of the unfortunate role of the military as the ultimate referee in political conflicts among civilian leaders, a huge step back in the region's consolidation of democracy.

That's why Zelaya, though he bears by far the greater responsibility for this crisis, must be reinstated in his position as the legitimate president of Honduras. The Organization of American States, the neighboring countries, and the U.S. government (which is still enormously influential in Honduras) should demand no less. They should also call upon all political actors in Honduras to take a deep breath and do what mature democracies do: allow the law to deal with those who try to step outside it. If Zelaya must be prosecuted for his harebrained attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution, then let the courts proceed as rigorously as possible. And the same applies to the coup perpetrators. If Honduras is to have a decent future, its politicians and soldiers, in equal measure, must learn that the road to democracy and development runs through the rule of law.

Dark clouds are gathering again over Central America, and the United States would do well to pay attention. The current crisis in Honduras, the governance problems in Guatemala, and the ongoing destruction of democracy in Nicaragua form an ominous trend. U.S. President Barack Obama now has the opportunity to show both friends and foes in the Western Hemisphere that the United States has finally decided to side unequivocally with democracy -- and that the rule of law matters in Tegucigalpa as much as it does in Washington.

Kevin Casas-Zamora is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was vice president and minister of planning of Costa Rica from 2006 to 2007.

[Cavalier]

It is not just that the referendum is unconstitutional. It is also that the military is in charge of handling ballots for elections in Honduras, due to the corruption of the police. The Supreme Court ordered the military not to participate in the balloting, and the head of the military announced that it would not. Zelaya then illegally sacked him, and tried to lead his supporters onto army bases to seize control of the ballots and distribute them without any particular oversight from anyone.

It is patently, painfully obvious that Zelaya is another two-bit Chavez ripoff, a would-be President for Life, using the same populist tactics that Chavez did to force through his perpetual re-election and dismemberment of opposition. That is the threat the referendum posed to Honduras and why the military, with the unanimous backing of the legislature and judiciary, moved to send him out of the country. His Chavista allies in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador do not give a flip about constitutional process (and frankly neither does Lula in Brazil or Fernandez in Argentina) only about the political outcome. If he had rigged the referendum and used his paramilitary supporters to intimidate the country into re-electing him by ramming through a constitutional amendment, those same leaders would be demanding that foreign interference be avoided. That does not make the military or the political establishment of Honduras saints, and the country could probably use a significant overhaul in governance, but a dime-store Chavez, who is already a less literate Mussolini, is not exactly an improvement.

[frigidmagi]

I don't think a constitution can be considered legitimately democratic if certain parts of it cannot be modified.

It's not suppose to be Derek. The role of a constitution is to limit democracy. To prevent mob rule or a cult of personality from tearing apart the structure of the Republic. Our own Constitution places rather draconian limits on what our democratic organs may or may not do.

Say a similar condition was attached to the 3/5ths clause of the constitution?

This is actually a bad example Derek as even if the 3/5ths clause only refered to slaves (or all other persons), when slavery was outlawed the 3/5ths would have still remained meaningless as Free Blacks were counted as full persons already. Perhaps you prefer to chose something else?

I'm certainly not saying he should ignore it, but why then couldn't the president be detained by civilian authorities rather than being expelled from the country by the military?

In this case because the cops are A: corrupt B: ineffective C: The President has street supporters who would make jailing him a risky thing.

Also in Honduras the military has greater roles in the domestic affairs of the state. As Cavalier pointed out they're in charge of keeping the ballot boxes for crying out loud.

This is how I tend to see this. A president suggests holding a non-binding referendum on whether a constitutional revision is necessary at a later point. In both cases, the decision would be made by the voters.

Expect he didn't suggest it. He was going to hold it. Illegally. Over the orders of the correct civil body that determines these things and it wasn't the voters call to make.

Honestly? This seems like a democratically elected official being railroaded because of a suggestion that revising the Constitution re: term limits might be something worth taking to the populace.

Honestly? I think you may be seeing what you want to see. Because I see an elected offical, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, being tossed out for breaking that oath in order to grab more power for himself.

Let me point a few parts of your source:

The old demons that have given Latin America a tragic political history are dormant but hardly dead. On Sunday, Honduras's president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted by the military, capping weeks of tension brought about by the president's ill-conceived attempt to engineer his own reelection. As U.S. founding father John Adams might have put it, Zelaya chose to have a government of men and not of laws.

Zelaya's fatal mistake was in organizing a de facto referendum to test the idea of allowing him a second term. Honduras's Constitution explicitly forbids holding referendums -- let alone an unsanctioned "popular consultation" -- to amend it and, more specifically, to modify the presidential term. Unsurprisingly, the president's idea met with resistance from Congress, nearly all political parties (including his own), the press, the business community, electoral authorities, and, crucially, the Supreme Court, which deemed the whole endeavor illegal.

Last week, when Zelaya ordered the armed forces to distribute the electoral material to carry out what he called an "opinion poll," the military commander refused to comply and was summarily dismissed (he was later reinstated by the Supreme Court). The president then cited the troubling history of military intervention in Honduran politics, a past that the country -- under more prudent governments -- had made great strides in leaving behind in the past two decades. He neglected to mention that the order he had issued was illegal.

Then Zelaya -- a late convert to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian doctrine -- introduced an ideological rationale for his ambition: creating a "participatory" democracy in Honduras and subverting the country's dominant oligarchy (of which he is the quintessential product). Chávez and Fidel Castro, in an ironic turn of events given the two men's history, sternly denounced the danger of a military takeover in Honduras.

There was, of course, nothing ideological about Zelaya's plan. He never bothered to explain what kind of constitution he wanted, other than one that allowed his own reelection. In that respect, Zelaya is less a disciple of Chávez than of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, another unsavory character bereft of any ideal other than staying in power by hook or by crook.

Now the Honduran military has responded in kind: An illegal referendum has met an illegal military intervention, with the avowed intention of protecting the Constitution. Zelaya's civilian opponents, meanwhile, are celebrating. For the past week, the Honduran Congress has waxed lyrical about the armed forces as the guarantors of the Constitution, a disturbing notion for Latin Americans. At the very least, we are witnessing in Honduras the return of the unfortunate role of the military as the ultimate referee in political conflicts among civilian leaders, a huge step back in the region's consolidation of democracy.

That's why Zelaya, though he bears by far the greater responsibility for this crisis, must be reinstated in his position as the legitimate president of Honduras. The Organization of American States, the neighboring countries, and the U.S. government (which is still enormously influential in Honduras) should demand no less. They should also call upon all political actors in Honduras to take a deep breath and do what mature democracies do: allow the law to deal with those who try to step outside it. If Zelaya must be prosecuted for his harebrained attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution, then let the courts proceed as rigorously as possible. And the same applies to the coup perpetrators. If Honduras is to have a decent future, its politicians and soldiers, in equal measure, must learn that the road to democracy and development runs through the rule of law.

Dark clouds are gathering again over Central America, and the United States would do well to pay attention. The current crisis in Honduras, the governance problems in Guatemala, and the ongoing destruction of democracy in Nicaragua form an ominous trend. U.S. President Barack Obama now has the opportunity to show both friends and foes in the Western Hemisphere that the United States has finally decided to side unequivocally with democracy -- and that the rule of law matters in Tegucigalpa as much as it does in Washington.

Kevin Casas-Zamora is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was vice president and minister of planning of Costa Rica from 2006 to 2007.

In other words he is guilty of ignoring the Supreme Court, breaking his oath, giving illegal orders tot he military and attempting to subvert the Constitution solely for greater personal power.

No. He should not be reinstated because he has shown he cannot be trusted with power.

Yes. The Congress and the Supreme Court had a right to remove him for Breaking the Law. Something people in this own nation have loudly wished their own Congress and Supreme Court would do a President breaking the law.

[Derek Thunder]

This is actually a bad example Derek as even if the 3/5ths clause only refered to slaves (or all other persons), when slavery was outlawed the 3/5ths would have still remained meaningless as Free Blacks were counted as full persons already. Perhaps you prefer to chose something else?

The 3/5ths clause was an example of how a constitution can be a flawed document not above revision. If you like, here's another example:

"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

*This amendment is not subject to revision or repeal. The suggestion or attempt to modify this amendment shall be met, upon pain of death, with exile to the desolate frozen wastes of Canada."

At any rate though, that's not the core issue. The issue is this - The president's actions were deemed unconstitutional, but where was the trial? The impeachment proceedings? Were legal avenues pursued to remove the president from office? It seems like there was adequate time to convene impeachment hearings or begin a legal process for removal. According to the Wikipedia summary at least, it appears the President was removed from the country by the military on the morning of the 28th; only later in the day did the Supreme Court announce that they had ordered the removal of the president which seems to me somewhat post-hoc.

[Steve]

I think the key was that there was no time for the niceties of the legal process. The illegal referendum was about to be held and Zelaya was meddling with the military and encouraging supporters to hand out referendum ballots seized from the military bases.

They were trying to do it quick and cleanly. Maybe not so clean given people in this world automatically get nervous when they hear about the military arresting an elected leader and exiling him, but Honduras may have not had the luxury of doing things in a way that the world would find more acceptable.

That said, I don't think Obama had a choice but to condemn what happened. Again, the world gets antsy when it hears about elected heads of state being toppled by the military, even if it's justifiable.