Friday
Jul102009
Has The World Rushed To Judgment On Honduran Coup?
Friday, July 10, 2009 at 2:36PM
By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service
By attempting to run for reelection, did ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s violate his country's constitution? On Friday, representatives from seven Latin American organizations testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee to discuss the question.
Certain members of the committee were adamant in their view that Zelaya's actions had, in fact, crossed constitutional boundaries.
“I think it was clear that virtually all major Honduran political institutions and actors opposed President Zelaya’s efforts. Not only were the Supreme Court, Congress, and Zelaya’s own Attorney General against him, even members of his own political party and the influential Catholic Church were hostile to Zelaya’s efforts to change the constitution,” said Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y).
Cynthia Arnson, Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Washington Office on Latin America, noted that Zelaya's actions should serve as a “wake-up call” that further progress to advance democracy in Latin America is still needed.
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), the committee's ranking member, said, “It seems to me that the more we look at Mr. Zelaya, the more we find a man who believes he is above the law, untouchable, and clearly a man who has no respect for democracy.”
Guillermo Perez-Cadalso, former Foreign Minister and Honduran Supreme Court Justice, said he believes the international community rushed to judgement over the coup before evaluating all the facts. He testified under the title of “Concerned Honduran Citizen" rather than using his official government title.
Perez-Cadalso argued that Zelaya was “legally and constitutionally removed from office,” and that the “military is not in charge of Honduras; the consitutional order of [the country] remains intact.”
The U.S. State Department headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has endorsed a dialogue process with the Organization of American States. On that subject, Perez-Cadalso noted, “I am optimistic that this situation can be resolved through the dialogue. This process will be successful if both sides refrain from emotional personal reactions and stick to constructive discussions about the issues.”
By attempting to run for reelection, did ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s violate his country's constitution? On Friday, representatives from seven Latin American organizations testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee to discuss the question.
Certain members of the committee were adamant in their view that Zelaya's actions had, in fact, crossed constitutional boundaries.
“I think it was clear that virtually all major Honduran political institutions and actors opposed President Zelaya’s efforts. Not only were the Supreme Court, Congress, and Zelaya’s own Attorney General against him, even members of his own political party and the influential Catholic Church were hostile to Zelaya’s efforts to change the constitution,” said Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y).
Cynthia Arnson, Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Washington Office on Latin America, noted that Zelaya's actions should serve as a “wake-up call” that further progress to advance democracy in Latin America is still needed.
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), the committee's ranking member, said, “It seems to me that the more we look at Mr. Zelaya, the more we find a man who believes he is above the law, untouchable, and clearly a man who has no respect for democracy.”
Guillermo Perez-Cadalso, former Foreign Minister and Honduran Supreme Court Justice, said he believes the international community rushed to judgement over the coup before evaluating all the facts. He testified under the title of “Concerned Honduran Citizen" rather than using his official government title.
Perez-Cadalso argued that Zelaya was “legally and constitutionally removed from office,” and that the “military is not in charge of Honduras; the consitutional order of [the country] remains intact.”
The U.S. State Department headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has endorsed a dialogue process with the Organization of American States. On that subject, Perez-Cadalso noted, “I am optimistic that this situation can be resolved through the dialogue. This process will be successful if both sides refrain from emotional personal reactions and stick to constructive discussions about the issues.”
Reader Comments (7)
Clearly:
Mel Zelaya VIOLATED Article 239 of Honduras Constitution and was REMOVED IMMEDIATELY as set forth in their constitution. You get one term and if you PROPOSE to change the Constitution then your removal from office is IMMEDIATE.
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.
President Manuel Zelaya did NOT attempt to run for reelection. That's just something the pundits are spreading, without providing a quote or source. The president wanted a consultative referendum on whether there should be a vote on a constitutional convention at the November elections, in addition to the presidential vote. That is legal under a Honduran law passed in 2006. I am not a supporter of Zelaya, but I am a supporter of democracy, and it is more important that the country is ruled by the democratically elected president than by ones favorite person or party.
Martin, please post the law or statue that you are referring to that was passed in 2006. And to say that Mel was not after a contitutional change shows your ignorance of current events in Honduras. Mel had public stated, on record that the purpose of the referendom was to change the re-election clause. He even went before the U.N. after his ouster and promised that if put back into power that he would no longer attempt to change the constitution. Do not pass your self off as a supporter of Democracy and support an ousted President that clearly broke laws that according to his constitution required immeadiate removal. Your democratically elected argument would mean that every president is a monarch for their term and above the rule of law. Think for yourself man, do not listen to the drival coming out of Washington.
Martin is wrong. First: Yes, Zelaya wanted a Referendum, but to make a constituent assembly in order to make a new constittution. The Honduran constitution protects itself and it does not have a process for its elimination. So only to propose a new one is a crime.
Second: The President cannot call a referendum, manage it and count it. It is ilogical. The process of consultation is in the Constitution in the article 5. and its special law. The only organ that can manage a referendum is the electoral organ.
Third: The Honduran Constitution have 379 articles, 373 of them can be reform in congress only 6 articles cannot be change. those articles are about the presidential period, the form of the government (Republic-Democrat), Honduran Territory, and that a president cannot be reelected.
So, Can the people participate with a referendum or plebicite in Honduras? Yes, they can but with the legal procedures but they cannot change the 6 stony articles.
Why Zelaya aske for a constituent assembly? because this constitution cannot allow a re election or have a president for more tha 4 years. So if this constitution does not allow that the only way was to make a new one. Of course only for its personal needs.
And because only he wanted that, he invented the so call pool or public consultation. Which of course he was going to manage and then said that 4 million honduras want a new constitution so if the people wants it is obligatory to do it.
That is false more than 70% of hondurans doesnt want a new constitution.
Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html (article 42):
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde: 5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República.
Further, Article 239 indicates that anyone who has held the office of chief executive cannot be president or vice president and anyone who proposes reform to that prohibition can be barred from holding public office for ten years: 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 años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
My educated guess on that provision is that it is aimed move at banning past military dictators from pursuing the office than it is a stricture contra re-election, per se.
Additionally, Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term (amongst other things:
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
As such, it is pretty clear why the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Zelaya’s plebiscite proposal in the first place. It also means that if the vote had been allowed to happen it would have had no legal standing.
Check the stony articles (Article 374, Honduran Constitution)
check Article 375, Says that even if it the constitution is eliminated or is change (stony articles) by any other procedures that are not in the constitution, the constitution remains alive and the people has the mandatory to reestablish it.
One point that seems to have been overlooked in this discussion. Just as in the U.S. the Honduran government has three branches; executive, legislative and judicial. Again as in the US, each branch has certain powers and responsibilities assigned to it. There is a constitutional procedure for ammending the Honduran constitution, and (again similar to the US) that procedure rests with the LEGISLATIVE branch. Regardless of his motive (and if you had been living in Honduras in the weeks and months prior to June 28, as I was and am, that motive would have been crystal clear), the mere fact that Mr. Zelaya was appropriating to himself powers reserved to another branch of the government put him in violation of the constitution.