America's Future Foundation

I have to say, I’ve been relatively flummoxed by the reaction to the “coup” in Honduras. The facts as I understand them are thus: The president wanted to run for another term in office, which is illegal under the Honduras constitution; when he planned on holding a vote amending the constitution to grant him more time in office (something that isn’t allowed by the constitution), the country’s supreme court ordered him out of office and the country’s congress unanimously agreed; when he refused to leave, the military was ordered by the supreme court to take him into custody and kick him out of the country.

Imagine if, in October of 2008, George W. Bush announced that the tenuous peace in Iraq meant it was unsafe for any other candidate to assume the presidency. Imagine further that the public agreed with him (a stretch, I realize) and supported his being given a third term. If the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the military to take the president into custody, would we call that a coup? I don’t think so.

Anyway, this piece over at The Plank is a handy reminder that this isn’t the first time a Central European strong man has attempted to use the “democratic” process to subvert democracy. Money quote:

[C]ongress’s request had been seconded by the nation’s Supreme Court, which is sworn to uphold a constitution that explicitly makes the act of “inciting, promoting or backing the continuation in power or re-election of the President of the Republic” punishable with the loss of Honduran citizenship.

So while we wince at the image of soldiers kidnapping a president, it’s important to recognize that the move against Zelaya was, if not strictly speaking constitutional, certainly institutional.

Share/Bookmark