Honduras
 

Strange that nobody mentioned it so far.

The military in Honduras has ousted ex-president Zelaya, after Zelaya tried to push the limits of the constitutional order in Honduras by wanting to hold a referendum that would take out the safeguard many constitutions in the region have implemented after the experience of decades of military dictatorships: that is ultimate limits to the number of terms for presidential office holders.

Zelaya's leftist course reminding of Venezuela's Chavez, not only made him bitter enemy of the conservative establishement, but has seen his public support falling to below 30% since he was elected in 2006.

The military has taken him prisoner and ousted him from the country after the National High Court had authorised the military to do so. Before, the national parliament as well as the high court had warned ex-president Zelaya to not seek for changing the constitution and not to try removing that safeguarding limit on the number of presidential terms.

It must be reiterated, since most media skip this: the nations' high court has asked and authorised the national military to take Zelaya out, while congress was backing the action as well. The military did not act by itself, it did not conduct what would be the classic military coup, it followed a request by the country's two highest bodies.

That Chavez and many other left-leaning politicians from the region condemn the action, is no surprise, nor is it surprising that these figures see no problem to try to change the Honduran constitution in favour of their political ideology and it's powerinterest. What is slightly irritating, though, is that after years of dictatorships they have no scruples to undo the safeguards that were implemented in several nations that should protect against the ursurping of power - since this time it is not the right but the left trying to ursurp it.

Most irritating I find the wide global condemnation of what the world misleadingly calls a "coup". That especially the Obama administration also found very clear words against it and made a strange alliance with Chavez' Latinamerican buddies here, is especially confusing for me - and probably most confused in itself.

Congress has voted in the interim govenment. It says there will be new elections in November. Zelaya should not take part, by constitutional rule.

That is irrelevant since under the constitution there is no legal method for the courts to ask the military to remove the elected president, so they cannot authorise it which is why all the countries and organisations are condemning the coup.
It should also be noted that Zelaya was asking for a referendum on a non-binding resolution not an actual amendment of the constitution so even the courts ruling there is dodgy.

They call it a coup because that is what it is.

While shutting down the local media, arresting any congressmen who opposed the vote and blocking the access of the election monitors.

So he had public support ratings the same as many western politicians.
Then again Bush at stages got ratings of 19%, Blair got down to 24% while Cowen is currently at 18% .
So he was doing better than many western leaders yet none of their countries had a coup.

The military also has the role and duty to protect the nation'S constitutional order. An analyst compared it to the Turkish constitution, where the military also has the mandatory duty to protect the constitution, formulated more explcitly than in most other constitutions. The court's and parliament's call for military action therefore came on the ground of inherent implications from the nation's constitution. Zelaya additionally has been warned repeatedly both by Congress and the high Court to go the way he choosed. But he insisted on laying the basis for getting more terms. So in the end he got what he asked for.

Thinks you.


Many congressman were arrested along many protesters because they supported violent protests on the street. That these were the ones wanting Zelaya in office and are members of the left camp, is no surprise.

Irrelevant. The examples you mentioned have nothing to do with Honduras.

I know from bad experience before how "discussions" with you use to unfold, so without wanting to be unpolite this is my first and last reply to you.

I was going to post something about this a few days back but didn't want to seem overly political about the response out of the executive mansion, and the reports seemed scetchy. Add to that I am not familiar with the Honduran constitution, so I elected to keep silent on the matter. As more facts are being revealed it would seem that this was not a military coup but a concensus by both the highest federal court, legislature (inclding the now ex-president Zelaya's own party) and with the help of the military, a peacefull removal from office.

If the oath the Honduran military takes is anything like the US, allegience to the constitution is sworn, not to the president. If no other mechanism is available for political removal, i.e. impeachment, this seems like a equatable outcome. Zelaya wasn't killed or imprisioned. I understand he was in NYC yesterday.

I think one reason all these gov'ts, including the US, were critical is because in a way it puts some in the political-class on notice asto where the power lies, not in one person, but in the constitution and the people and there are still institutions which believe in that form of government..

Yes, but where does the constitution say that the court or miitary can remove the president?

Thinks every government that has commented and all the international organisations that have commented.

The popularity of the president is irrelevant to the legality of the issue, but since you mentioned it as though it might be relevant I pointed out that his popularity levels are not unusual for politicians and are indeed better than many politicians who were not illegally removed from office and deported.

:har::har::har::har:
Thats OK , I will just pick apart your posts without you responding