Supreme Court backed coup in Honduras.

mike65

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Obama?

No don't be silly. Hugo Chávez of course, a man not unfamilair with attempting to change a constitution to suit his personal needs. Sending a gunboat sort of goes against all he supposedly stands for.

Nodin

Oul Hugo forgot that its the movement that should be important, not the man...

Anyhoo....

nesf

If the army turn back over power immediately to the former President's party, then fair play to them for safeguarding their constitution.

Nehaxak

There is way too much American influence in Honduras, both in business and politics. It stifles (at least it did when I worked there and on Roatan for a short time in 1999/2000) local ability to progress themselves and their own business and self worth.

In all my short time in Honduras, there was not a cop to be seen on the streets anywhere, justice was dealt with via the gun (everyone seemed to have them) and policing was done via the military - when and if you ever saw them. Wonderful country though and lovely people, very warm, welcoming, hard working and humble people - that and you could buy a big bag of weed for 5 dollars, so all was good :cool:

I think Chavez is right in what he's said and what he hopefully will follow-up with doing to help return Zelaya to power.

mike65

So constutuional law counts for nothing if it hinders a socialist?

Sand

So constutuional law counts for nothing if it hinders a socialist?

As I understand it thats the basic gist of it.

God help anyone who infringes on the rights of a latin american socialist however.

MikeC101

Nehaxak wrote: »

There is way too much American influence in Honduras, both in business and politics. It stifles (at least it did when I worked there and on Roatan for a short time in 1999/2000) local ability to progress themselves and their own business and self worth.

In all my short time in Honduras, there was not a cop to be seen on the streets anywhere, justice was dealt with via the gun (everyone seemed to have them) and policing was done via the military - when and if you ever saw them. Wonderful country though and lovely people, very warm, welcoming, hard working and humble people - that and you could buy a big bag of weed for 5 dollars, so all was good :cool:

I think Chavez is right in what he's said and what he hopefully will follow-up with doing to help return Zelaya to power.

So, American influence = bad, but actual military intervention by Venezuela = ok?

peasant

mike65 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Obama?

No don't be silly. Hugo Chávez of course, a man not unfamilair with attempting to change a constitution to suit his personal needs. Sending a gunboat sort of goes against all he supposedly stands for.

Not to steal your thunder, but what the article actually says is this:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, blamed "the Yankee empire", and threatened military action should the Venezuelan ambassador to Honduras be attacked

(highlights by me)

Not very diplomatic and full of bluster, as per usual Chavez ...but he isn't exactly the first head of state to threaten military action if his countries' ambassador should be attacked ...heck, the US have attacked (with rockets and not just words ) other countries for far less.

mike65

Ah fair enough, he'd start a war over a civil servant, well that is socialist!

brianthebard

Thought it would be good to bump this now that there's new information out and the legitimate president plans to return to Honduras. It seems now that the coup occurred first and then the anti-Zelaya congress members rubber stamped it. Since then protests have been violently surpressed and snipers have been stationed at the airport Zelaya intends to fly into.
http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-snipers-are-in-place-around.html

jank

Sand wrote: »

As I understand it thats the basic gist of it.

God help anyone who infringes on the rights of a latin american socialist however.

In fairness Sand we all know the history of democratically elected socialists being put to bed by the pro-business CIA/American sponsored opposition. I suppose you those infringements are OK too?

I don't know much about this current situation as there is always misinformation on both sides to find out the real story.
Zelaya seems to have the UN and the international community behind him though which makes me wonder the real reason and intent for this "coup".

jank

Also Mike, thought you were better than that to totally misrepresent facts as simple as in the BBC report.

RedPlanet

mike65 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Actually members of the congress and the Supreme Court rubber-stamped the coup after it took place. Zelaya was not removed from power via any democratic means.
Incidently (unimportantly?):

the referendum Zelaya was pushing--which prompted the coup--asked citizens only if there should be a vote on "whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political Constitution." In other words, Hondurans weren't being asked to vote on term limits or even on revising the Constitution. They were simply being asked to vote on whether or not to have a vote on revising the Constitution, with the terms of that revision being left to an elected assembly.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/grandin
But hey, don't let facts get in your way.
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) have a go at media coverage of the coup on their weekly radio show http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3835

Coverage of the Honduran coup ousting president Manuel Zelaya has often included the claim that the coup was prompted by Zelaya’s move to change the constitution, removing term limits so he could stay in power. The false claim is central to the anti-Zelaya propaganda that has gone with little challenge in U.S. media.

gurramok

All i see is a man that is democratically elected as leader of his country been ousted by the unelected army.
Now call me wrong, but i see what has happened as wrong and he should be returned to serve out his full term and face the electorate when his term is up?

Sand

The coup members claim he broke the law and ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court. Nobody is above the law?

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

The coup members claim he broke the law and ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court. Nobody is above the law?

They also forged his signature and barred anti coup members of the congress from a hearing on exiling him. Since then they've ordered the army to fire on a crowd of 200,000 at an airport, killing at least three. I know you're anti-Left, but you surely can't feel the usurpers are in the right here?

jank

What if you make up the Law on the way?

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

The coup members claim he broke the law and ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court. Nobody is above the law?

And so it follows that bursting into his residence using military soldiers dressed in balaclavas and flying him out of the country is the way law-breakers are treated?

Lately the coup leaders have prevented the presidents return by blocking an airport runway with military vehicles. The president was accompanied on the airplane by the president of the UN general assembly Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann.

Is blocking a runway with military vehicles the democratic way?
Surely if the coup leaders were sincere in their threat to arrest the President Zelaya they would have just let the plane land and proceeded to arrest him. Afterall i'm sure the president has rights under the contitution, for example a right to a trial?

The coup's faltering public relations drive took another blow when the army's top lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, admitted to reporters that the overthrow was illegal. It was nevertheless necessary, he said, to stop Honduras becoming a socialist ally of Venezuela.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/06/honduras-blocks-president-return

Sand

If his administration ignores the law and attempts to play the populist card to subvert checks on his power, then he encourages his opponents to also ignore the law and use whatever means are available to them to achieve their own aims.

Its why the "I have more votes therefore I can do whatever I want!" viewpoint of political legitimacy (that seems to prevail in Latin America Socilalism in particular) tends to result in violent opposition. It is all or nothing politics. You cant afford to lose in all or nothing politics.

The president was accompanied on the airplane by the president of the UN general assembly Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann.

What role does the UN have here?

I know you're anti-Left, but you surely can't feel the usurpers are in the right here?

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty. They kinda equate to the same thing, but presentation is everything.

RedPlanet

So basically Sand, you're defending a military coup over a democratically elected presdient, because he's leftist?
:rolleyes:

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty. They kinda equate to the same thing, but presentation is everything.

Of course you are. Well then please clarify for me, which position is the most pro-liberty in this case, the democratically elected president, or the illegal, forgery using, military coup? The side who wishes to create reform in Honduras to benefit the poor, or the side which had the military open fire on a crowd of 200,000, killing a 16 year old boy amongst others? The side who wished to hold a referendum, or the side who created a coup because they disliked the possibilities the referendum would create? Whenever you're ready.

sovtek

mike65 wrote: »

So constutuional law counts for nothing if it hinders a socialist?

Royrsh...ya know...overthrowing the democratically elected leader and installing a leader with military force is...like...SO consitutional.

brianthebard

sovtek wrote: »

Because...ya know...overthrowing the democratically elected leader and installing a leader with military force is...like...SO consitutional.

Ironically the referendum Zelaya was pushing for was to close this constitutional loophole. Honduras man, crazy country. :pac:

sovtek

Sand wrote: »

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty.

"you are free to do what we tell you".

gurramok

mike65 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Obama?

No don't be silly. Hugo Chávez of course, a man not unfamilair with attempting to change a constitution to suit his personal needs. Sending a gunboat sort of goes against all he supposedly stands for.

Sand wrote: »

If his administration ignores the law and attempts to play the populist card to subvert checks on his power, then he encourages his opponents to also ignore the law and use whatever means are available to them to achieve their own aims.

Its why the "I have more votes therefore I can do whatever I want!" viewpoint of political legitimacy (that seems to prevail in Latin America Socilalism in particular) tends to result in violent opposition. It is all or nothing politics. You cant afford to lose in all or nothing politics.

Shocking views here.

If the entire world including the most capitalist country of them all the USA calls for the Honduran president to return to power, then these views posted here are extremist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8127772.stm

Echoing the condemnation by Latin American leaders, President Obama also said that "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".

"The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past," he added.

And while Washington has - oddly - found itself on the same side as Mr Chavez in condemning the removal of Mr Zelaya and calling for his return to power, it has also had to reject allegations by Mr Chavez that it had a hand in the coup

Mr Zelaya has garnered impressive international support, including a unanimous condemnation of the coup at the UN, but Honduras's new leaders, while isolated, have vowed to arrest Mr Zelaya if he tries to return.

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Shocking views here.

If the entire world including the most capitalist country of them all the USA calls for the Honduran president to return to power, then these views posted here are extremist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8127772.stm

In fairness Obama did a bit of backtracking there from the first days of the coup. I have yet to hear a US official go on record calling it a coup and I have yet to hear anyone of them call for Zedaya to be restored to power. Obama has yet to cut off aid to the country either.

RedPlanet

Exactly.
This is a real test for Obama, and it presents a great opporuntity for him.
Does his administration side with democracy and the rule of law?
Or, screw the people and side with imperialism?

sovtek

RedPlanet wrote: »

Exactly.
This is a real test for Obama, and it presents a great opporuntity for him.
Does his administration side with democracy and the rule of law?
Or, screw the people and side with imperialism?

Unfortunately I think he's backtracked because most of the international institutions have condemned the coup. At first he seemed quite comfortable with imperialism as you say and it's not unrealistic to think that he could have stopped the coup had he wanted to.
I'm not too enthusiastic about Obama because he's shown he doesn't care all that much about democracy and rule of law when it comes to certain places...like Afghanistan/Pakistan or Israel/Palestine. He's pretty much been Bush Lite all the way around...just smarter and more articulate and maybe a little less trigger happy.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

Unfortunately I think he's backtracked because most of the international institutions have condemned the coup. At first he seemed quite comfortable with imperialism as you say and it's not unrealistic to think that he could have stopped the coup had he wanted to.

I don't think you can argue that he could have stopped the coup. It was a quick and swift action supported by most of the major institutions in the country. At best what he can now do is apply pressure to have the president reinstated.

One of the biggest problems here is that the Honduras Senate cannot impeach or remove a president who they feel is overstepping their authority and this is essentially what the problem is here. The president wanted to ram an unconstitutional referendum through against the wishes of the courts and the Senate and they were powerless to stop him, ergo why the coup happened. If there was a better check against presidential power in Honduras that was available to the Senate then this might not ever have happened.

I stand by my original post though, the army was very restrained here and passed over power immediately to the Senate with the next series of elections not postponed or affected. A few decades ago in that part of the world it would have been more likely that they'd install a puppet of theirs and ignore the people's representatives. As much as I disagree with the idea of a coup being used to oust a president at least this wasn't a return to military juntas.

Sand

So basically Sand, you're defending a military coup over a democratically elected presdient, because he's leftist?

I dont recall defending it. I never said it was the best thing since sliced bread. I just note that when you make populist power plays, when the administration of any country decides they can ignore the laws and the Supreme Court...well, then your enemies might also note that they can take exceptional actions.

Shocking views here.

If the entire world including the most capitalist country of them all the USA calls for the Honduran president to return to power, then these views posted here are extremist

Now thats a shocking view. The popularity or unpopularity of a view doesnt make it right or wrong. Plenty of dubious and disproven theories, views and opinions were widely held throughout history.

Does his administration side with democracy and the rule of law?

They dont seem to be on the same side in Honduras. The democratically elected President was removed because he ignored the rule of law, wasnt he?

Of course you are. Well then please clarify for me, which position is the most pro-liberty in this case, the democratically elected president, or the illegal, forgery using, military coup? The side who wishes to create reform in Honduras to benefit the poor, or the side which had the military open fire on a crowd of 200,000, killing a 16 year old boy amongst others? The side who wished to hold a referendum, or the side who created a coup because they disliked the possibilities the referendum would create? Whenever you're ready.

You are confusing liberty with democracy. They are two, often opposed, forces in modern politics. It may seem odd, but the army removing a populist but democratically elected President may be of benefit for liberty in that country if that President was illiberal and hostile to checks on his power like the Supreme Court.

The referendum was part of an aim to remove term limits and to allow this guy to run again and again indefinitly.

Term limits are there for a reason - to prevent cults of personality, to prevent any one man becoming too powerful or too central in the administration of the state. They preserve liberty, but are anti-democratic in that they prevent people from voting for a candidate they might wish to re-elect.

Generally speaking, removing term limits is a really, really, really, really bad idea no matter how popular the person in question might be, as term limits help to ensure power is not concentrated in any one persons hands. Given the attempts by Zelaya to remove these term limits, the institutions in Honduras may have feared the worst (a move to a Chavista style state where the state serves a charismatic regime) and took steps to defend the constitution and the state.

Zelaya doesnt appear to have been the patron saint of constitutional probity anyhow. Im not an expert on his regime but apart from the alliance with Chavez and Castro ( neither liberal democrats...) hes been accused of all sorts of shenanigans:

In April he announced plans to begin wiretapping of all cellphones in Honduras?

He cut funding to the agencies that oversee the elections in Honduras?

Apparently forcing the countrys TV and Radio stations to carry many 2 hour long political broadcasts favourable to his government. This was to try counter what he considered a hostile media - and apparently the media are hostile to him.

Linked to that perhaps, the UN has criticised the amount of attacks on journalists in Honduras - murders/death threats and so on.

The OAS accused him in 2008 of imposing a subtle censorship on the country.

Also the referendum itself - he already has the power to invoke constitutional change on 98% of the countries constitution. The only parts he cant touch are term limits, presidential succession and so on. Its a power grab. Pure and simple.

The Supreme Court declared his referendum illegal. The Congress of Honduras declared his referendum illegal. The attorney general declared his referendum illegal. The top electoral body in Honduras declared his referendum illegal. The Army chief refused to help him force the referendum through over their objections. When he was sacked, the Supreme Court declared that illegal too. Even his replacement ( a member of his own party) described his removal as a democratic act. The guy didnt win over too many of the other institutions of government in Honduras by the looks of things.

Like I said, Im not an expert on the guy - he might be the second coming of Jesus Christ - but it looks to me like he set the standard of play in Honduras and his enemies decided enough was enough.

Oh, and while you rally around him and declare him a wronged lefty you might be interested to know that apparently, back in 1975 a lot of students, priests and social activists were found dead at the bottom of a well on his fathers ranch, shot by his fathers gun. Must make for interesting political discussions at family reunions, though he cant have been too distant from his father either as he received his business interests from his father.

brianthebard

So just to clarify, a military coup which takes the lives of children is improving the liberty of the people of Honduras? How exactly? And btw, even without term limits the guy still has to get elected. A power grab does not usually include a referendum, that's kind of the opposite of a power grab, that's uh, allowing the people of a country the liberty of being a part of their government?

jank

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty. They kinda equate to the same thing, but presentation is everything.

Orwell would be so proud!:pac:

Sand

So just to clarify, a military coup which takes the lives of children is improving the liberty of the people of Honduras? How exactly?

Could have sworn I made a post already dealing with this question...

And btw, even without term limits the guy still has to get elected. A power grab does not usually include a referendum, that's kind of the opposite of a power grab, that's uh, allowing the people of a country the liberty of being a part of their government?

Of course he has to still get re-elected: thats no check. Christ, if there was no chance of a leader getting re-elected, then there would be no need for a term limit, would there?

Term limits exist to prevent concentration of power in one individuals hands regardless of how popular they are.

Serious question - do you know why there are checks on the power of elected representitives or referendums? Is it that you ignore them, disagree with them or simply are unaware of the reasons?

brianthebard

Thank you for being patronising, yet I do know what they are for and no I don't think they are necessary.

Sand

Thank you for being patronising, yet I do know what they are for and no I don't think they are necessary.

You dont think checks on elected representives or referendums are necessary?

Thats fairly breath taking.

You see I have been talking about liberal democracy as a good thing...you probably dont agree liberal democracy is a good thing so that explains the confusion. So long as elections are held, you reckon elected representitives should be able to do whatever they want?

So why bother having a constitution at all?

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

You dont think checks on elected representives or referendums are necessary?

Thats fairly breath taking.

You see I have been talking about liberal democracy as a good thing...you probably dont agree liberal democracy is a good thing so that explains the confusion. So long as elections are held, you reckon elected representitives should be able to do whatever they want?

So why bother having a constitution at all?

That's fairly breath takingly unrepresentative of what I said. Because hypothetically there are no longer term limits, that would mean the power of other branches of government would also be removed, somehow, magically? I don't believe that was my position at all.

From what I can tell the Honduras constitution only allows a president one term, the intended referendum was a poll, to ask the people whether they thought it was ok to consider changing this, and would not change the laws.

Sand

I asked:

Serious question - do you know why there are checks on the power of elected representitives or referendums? Is it that you ignore them, disagree with them or simply are unaware of the reasons?

You answered:

Thank you for being patronising, yet I do know what they are for and no I don't think they are necessary.

How did I misrepresent you?

Actually - read this book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. By far the best book written in recent times on modern democracies and the conflict between democracy and liberty. Gurramok, Sovtek, Redplanet, Jank: you ought to read it too. I know its not Noam Chomsky, but give a try.

brianthebard

We were talking about term limits, I assumed that was all you were referring to. Fair enough I misread you statement. Obviously I agree with some checks on government bodies, but don't think term limits are the be all and end all.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

We were talking about term limits, I assumed that was all you were referring to. Fair enough I misread you statement. Obviously I agree with some checks on government bodies, but don't think term limits are the be all and end all.

Term limits in Presidential systems are essential though. Otherwise you're just inviting dictatorships like they're finding out in Venezuela at the moment. It's quite clear that Zelaya wanted to remove the limits to follow a similar path.

Kama

Hmm, removing term limits smells of an authoritarian drift, regardless of who's doing it...I'm not fundamentalist about terms limits, but there are pretty good systemic institutional reasons for them to be Considered Helpful, especially in countries where democratic traditions aren't especially entrenched.

But transfer of power by military means smells a whole lot worse...sends all the wrong signals, and encourages all the wrong habits. Considered Harmful, plus a bit. For me, the stink of the second grotesquely outweighs the smell of the first. Shuttling out of the country, snipers on the runway; just not cricket, tbh.

Now, I'm no Honduran constitutional expert; I get that it's Art.42-5; inciting re-election, and Art. 239, proposing reform of term limits,and that apparently its a non-modifiable part of the Constitution, which I regard as a slightly screwy concept also. But the vote was a non-binding plebiscite, a vote on whether people thought it would be worth having a vote on whether it could be changed. Which doesn't exactly seem like 'clear and present danger' to me. So the military transfer, even if it was constitutional, seems a hamfistedly excessive approach to take; it may be legal, but its appearance is odious.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

Term limits in Presidential systems are essential though.

It's up to the people of Honduras to determine that.
The president was trying to find out.
Let's not overlook the fact that the referendum proposed wasn't to remove term limits.

RedPlanet

The whole term limits thing, may be only a watershed.
Actually watershed isn't really the word i'm looking for. Rather, red-herring.

As quoted from The Guardian

The coup's faltering public relations drive took another blow when the army's top lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, admitted to reporters that the overthrow was illegal. It was nevertheless necessary, he said, to stop Honduras becoming a socialist ally of Venezuela

Stopping Honduras from becoming a "socialst" ally ofVenezuela and term limits are not the same thing.

Sand

It's up to the people of Honduras to determine that.

Nope, term limits are there to over rule the wishes of the people. Again, there are good reasons for that.

Let's not overlook the fact that the referendum proposed wasn't to remove term limits.

It was a step in the process to removing the term limits. Zelaya already had the power to adjust 98% of the constitution. The only parts he couldnt touch were the parts that limited his power. There are good reasons for that.

Stopping Honduras from becoming a "socialst" ally ofVenezuela and term limits are not the same thing.

I do not blame people who believe in liberty looking at Chavez's regime and shuddering - clearly no one who values decentalised power structures, or who doesnt want to see tyranny of the majority and cult of personality will not react well to attempts to mimick Chavez.

As for it being illegal, thats undeniable. It was illegal. But Zelaya set the rules by ignoring the Supreme Court rulings. When he was determined to engage in illegal action, but decided to ignore it and carry on with an illiberal populist action, then his enemies realistically will feel they are forced to take extraordinary actions to defend the freedoms of all people - not just the majority.

Zelaya backed his enemies into a corner by refusing to be bound by the Supreme Court and the law of the land. As for it being a military coup, by all appearances the military has been extremely restrained, like Cincinnatus taking exceptional, unconstitutional action and then immediately surrendering power. A member of Zelaya's own party has been appointed as his replacement, not some general.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

I do not blame people who believe in liberty looking at Chavez's regime and shuddering - clearly no one who values decentalised power structures, or who doesnt want to see tyranny of the majority and cult of personality will not react well to attempts to mimick Chavez.

So if you don't like Chavez, it's ok to overthrow your government. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of your post, it's all a red herring.
Here it is again:

Top Honduran military lawyer: We broke the law
Inestroza acknowledged that after 34 years in the military, he and many other longtime soldiers found Zelaya's allegiance to Chávez difficult to stomach.

''We fought the subversive movements here and we were the only country that did not have a fratricidal war like the others,'' he said. ``It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That's impossible. I personally would have retired, because my thinking, my principles, would not have allowed me to participate in that.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html
It's got feck all to do with presidential term limits.
It's all about the rightwingers lust for power, to dictate terms regarding the country's direction.

Sand

So if you don't like Chavez, it's ok to overthrow your government.

Two problems here.

First youre not reading my posts.

Second you believe Zelaya is the government. He isnt. He is, or was, one component of it. Other parts, such as the Supreme Court, are just as important. If Zelaya ignores the Supreme Court and the rule of law then practically by defintion extraordinary action is required.

It's got feck all to do with presidential term limits.
It's all about the rightwingers lust for power, to dictate terms regarding the country's direction.

It has got everything to do with term limits. The Zelaya regime has been in power since January 2006. Neither his election nor the previous 3 and half years of his rule sparked these actions.

His move to ignore the rule of law and try to bring about an end to limits on his power did. As your source noted the problem was:

You should understand it's very difficult for someone who has dedicated his whole life to a country and an institution to see, from one day to another, a person who is not normal come and want to change the way of life in the country without following the steps the law indicates.

For a man who likes to talk about red herrings, you seem to throw a lot of them around.

RedPlanet

Fact:
At no point have you demonstrated that the proposed referendum sought to end term limits.
Which by the way, President Zelaya denies.
RedHerring much?

Sand

The referendum ( apparently Zelaya tried to argue it wasnt even a referendum because that would be illegal) was to establish the favourability of setting up a national constitutional assembly to entirely re-write the constitution. Not just to change it, to replace it.

Why do this when Zelaya already had the power to rewrite 98% of the constitution? Because the 2% he couldnt re-write were term limits and other checks on his power. As a wise man once said

" Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. "

There is no mystery as to what Zelaya was attempting, to achieve another Venezeuala where like Chavez all power would be concentrated in his hands. Luckily it was nipped in the bud.

I am not a constitutional expert on Honduras, but this is apparently the relevant section from the constitution in question:

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

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 (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

Thanks to the power of babelfish...

The citizen who has carried out the ownership of the Executive authority could not be President or Vice-president of the Republic. The one that break this disposition or propose its reform, as well as those supports that it direct or indirectly, will stop immediately in the performance of their respective positions and will be disqualified by ten (10) years for the exercise of all public function.

Unless something has been lost in translation it appears pretty clear why Zelayas actions were illegal, and why he will clearly deny he was attempting to remove those limits.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

The referendum ( apparently Zelaya tried to argue it wasnt even a referendum because that would be illegal) was to establish the favourability of setting up a national constitutional assembly to entirely re-write the constitution. Not just to change it, to replace it.

Well, you got part of that right.

There is no mystery as to what Zelaya was attempting, to achieve another Venezeuala where like Chavez all power would be concentrated in his hands. Luckily it was nipped in the bud.

Are you sure? As it stands the President still retains the ability to change 98% of the constitution, how much can Chavez change. :rolleyes:

At least you've dropped the pretence that you arent defending military coups over democratically elected leftists.
It also is revealing that you share the same level of paranoia as the right wing nuts in Honduras that would find themselves violating their own laws, and in international isolation.

Sand

At least you've dropped the pretence that you arent defending military coups over democratically elected leftists.

Serious question - do you read my posts?

Here is another question. President Uribe of Colombia is taking steps to relax term limits on his regime. I take it you welcome the potential for a third term of Uribe rule in Colombia? Having already forced through constitutional changes to allow him a second term? Will of the people and all that?

RedPlanet

You know, you really don't give the people of Honduras much a chance do you.
You've got a constitution that in your own words, allows the President to control/change 98% of it. Yet when a referenda is proposed about creating a National Constituent Assemby with a view toward amending the constitution is proposed, you'd rather accept military coup.
Does that mean in your view that the Honduras people have no right to seek to change their constitution?
At miniumum i suspect, you aer content that teh president has 98% control of the constitution.

Sand

Does that mean in your view that the Honduras people have no right to seek to change their constitution?

Even proposing changing the Presidential term limits, even supporting such a proposal are grounds for immediate removal from office.

Term limits are there for a reason - to check populism. The Honduras Constitution seems exceptional in its defence of those checks, but given the historic instability of the region such defence against populism is probably wise.

Of course they can change the constitution. They can elect representitives to Congress. Congress and the President then enact any required changes to the Constitution. Its a fairly standard diversification of power.

At miniumum i suspect, you aer content that teh president has 98% control of the constitution.

See above - I am content that the the President and the Congress, all with electoral mandates, can alter 98% of the constitution with sufficient support.

TBH, I think the problem here is that many of Zelayas new found supporters are socialists or supporters of Chavez style rule. They are not liberal democrats. They place no value on diversified power. They believe everything should be decided by a popular vote of the community and so on. Any check on populism is terrible and wrong, nothing cant be solved by more democracy or by a referendum, no bad government has ever resulted from a popular vote...

So the finepoints of what makes a liberal democracy are lost on them. They dont care if a liberal democracy works well or not, they dont want a liberal democracy.