A justified coup?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarI’m not sure any coup is ever justified (Fiji is an example of the problems you get when you set a precedent) but the situation in Honduras is fascinating.
The (former) President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was deposed from office yesterday when the Armed Forces seized him and threw him on a flight to Costa Rica.
Now normally one would condemn this absolutely. And indeed the UN, US, EU and other countries have all condemned it.
But maybe in this case the Armed Forces were not totally wrong. You see Zelaya has been acting unconstitutionally and it seems there was nolegal way to impeach him.
Zelaya has been elected to a four year term that ended at the end of 2009. The Constitution of Honduras makes it very clear you can not stand for a second term – ever. Article 239 says once you have been President you can never be President (or VP) again.
The constitution is so adamant about the one term limit, it says that if you promote a change to that clause, you lose your public office immediately and can not hold office again for ten years.
And Article 42 goes further and says anyone promoting the President staying in office beyond on term loses their Honduras citizenship. So I think we can conclude they don’t want their politicians to do what Chavez did in Venezuela and use his thugs to initimidate the population into changing the law to allow him to become President forever.
Now Zelaya was organising a non-binding referndum to start on the day he was deposed. The referendum was to on whether to call a National Assembly to rewrite the constitution.
Now the referendum has been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and oppossed by Congress, the attorney general, and the top electoral body. Despite this President Zelaya asked the military to conduct the referendum. The General in charge refused as the referendum had been declared illegal and unconstitutional. The President then sacked the General. The Supreme Court reinstated him.
Zelaya then led a citizen march to take possession of the referendum materials. Some stage after that the military deposed him from office. The Supreme Court has come out and said they ordered the army to do so, and the Congress (which is controlled) by Zelaya’s own party unamiously voted to remove him from office (even though they do not have this power).
Now it is possible the Army’s action will prove detrimental in the long term. Already they have imposed censorship, and mishandled some diplomats. But from all accounts Zelaya all but forced them to act – and they may have stopped him from doing a Chavez.
The lession for nation states might be to always have clear impeachment procedures in your constitution.
Related posts:
- Chavez loses
- Coup Consequences
- A massive step back for Fiji
- The dangers of increasing the minimum wage
June 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Fascinating story David.
“Now it is possible the Army’s action will prove detrimental in the long term. Already they have imposed censorship, and mishandled some diplomats. But from all accounts Zelaya all but forced them to act – and they may have stopped him from doing a Chavez.”
You could easily and correctly have written:-
“Now it is possible the Army’s action will prove detrimental in the long term. Already they have imposed censorship, and mishandled some diplomats. But from all accounts Qarase all but forced them to act – and they may have stopped him from doing a Chavez.”
[DPF: No this is where you lose perspective. Qarase was not breaking any constitution - it is the Commodore that has done that. For all the claims of corruption about his Govt (and I am sure there was some), how come so few cases have been sucessfully prosecuted? And most of all you miss by far the biggest difference. The military immediately handed power over to the next in line (the Speaker of the House). The Army Head did not declare himself dictator and rule over the country for years and refuse to have elections. The normal elections scheduled for November will proceed]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I see Zelaya and Chavez are good mates, on that fact alone I would indeed be weary of any changes to a constitution. The supreme court should have let this referendum go through. I guess just like New Zealand those in power have no faith in their own people to make the right calls. Politicians must be the same the world over, what’s the bet if the referendum had returned the right answer it would no longer be non binding, yes most are no doubt two faced arseholes no matter where they live.
[DPF: The referendum was unconstitutional - the Supreme Court has no power to allow it]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Interesting how quickly the meme of “justified coup” and “good coup” is spreading through the conservative blogosphere.
The constitution was created amidst Reagan’s now well-documented messings with Latin American politics. Just because it’s called a constitution, doesn’t make it some bastion of democracy. Zelaya had campaigned in 2005 on addressing the question of the constitution – and won the election. There was a lot of popular support for the non-binding referendum, which was cancelled by the Supreme Court at the last minute at the behest of Congress, which is dominated by interests that would stand to lose out from reform.
Zelaya wasn’t changing the constitution. He was going to run the non-binding popular referendum on the constitution that he’d promised while campaigning in 2005. Did the Supreme Court really have a mandate to stop that?
[DPF: Oh get real. The entire Congress, Supreme Court and electoral authorities had said the referendum was illegal. His own party in Congress voted unanimously to depose him.
Do you really want to argue that the President should be above the law and able to ignore court decisions?]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
The lession for nation states might be to always have clear impeachment procedures in your constitution.
So true. How DO we go about impeaching the Queen?
just one more reason NZ should become a republic ASAP.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Should a coup as part of good constitutional government be a criminal offence in Honduras?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
High-five.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Just like Obama.
Vote:No one has been able to make him produce his full-form birth certificate, and all the evidence points to him being born in Kenya. Constitution? What – does that apply to the Democrats too?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
gee Ross, I’d love to see that “evidence”.
Come from Investigate? Or Uncensored?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Nope, but do you really want to argue that Congress should be able to get the Supreme Court to ban something as simple as a non-binding referendum on constitutional amendment? If the majority of Hondurans cannot get something as simple as a non-binding referendum to express their desire for constitutional amendment, how can popular reform ever occur?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
It’s not a matter of it being “justified coup”, it wasn’t a “coup” at all. Zelaya was the acting against the constitution therefore it was proper to remove him. Assuming the Honduran military swears to uphold the constitution, they therefore had a duty to remove him.
BTW Ross, see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp and stop the “birther” nonsense. It makes you look like a complete fool.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Going to be one of those let see how it plays.
Think the west needs to be not so quick to jump to conclusions regarding coups. We have the luxury of a history of democracy and havent in recent history had to result to extreme means to bring about change in our own backyard. Some countries with developing democracies sometimes dont have that luxury. In saying that generally a coup does not bring about positive change.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
DPF
You cannot have it both ways. In Fiji, the vast majority has embraced and are very definite about the need for what Banimarama did.
The proof of corruption is there, but the “need” to prosecute becomes less and less important, while working on changing the system so that it does not happen again becomes more the issue.
In NZ there was a number of things that certainly messed with the constitutional freedoms and with democracy. Take the removal of the police commissioner, the unexplained increase of funding for UN departments etc. There are a large number of issues like the whole WBDHB and the whole immigration mess. Yet there is only one prosecution in progress and I believe only one inquiry. As much as a lot of us would love to see large scale enquiries and prosecutions (and I still believe that they are needed to restore a level of integrity in parliament) , the fact of the matter is that Key and co has a vision for NZ and that they feel that that is the priority. And you have to accept and to an extent respect that. So the argument about prosecutions in Fiji is a nonsense.
The fact that they handed the power over to the next in line is maybe not as “good” a thing as you think either. The question of collusion etc comes into the frame here. If you need to remove the leadership by force, then you have to be very sure that the one you bestow power on, is the right person. Surely the best thing to do would be (if you have gone as far as to depose some-one) to very carefully work things through and then have elections so the people can decide, rather than the military leaders. A bit I suppose like Fiji is doing. The fact that they are not doing it fast enough for your liking is arbitrary. For some a month is a long time, for others a year is not. And going by the mood in Fiji (where I spend a lot of time) 5 years would be a short time for the populous.
You see, they are happy with the current state of affairs.
[DPF: You say the vast majority approve. Then why does the Commodore refuse to hold elections? And why does he deem it necessary to impose censorship on the media?]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I agree entirely Jeff. I think we are incredibly arrogant when it comes to how other nations run their countries. Just because we believe in a certain style of democracy, does not make it the right one for another nation.
However the thing that is worse than the arrogance, is the duplicity. Jump on Fiji but be okay with Thailand. Point the finger at Banimarama and even threaten them, yet happily trade with China and with Iran. I am not against trading with communist countries, or with one party countries, but dont point the finger at one, and happily play with the other.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Elect a Congress that approves such an ammendment.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Ross N, I see Nobama’s Kenyan birth certificate has been pulled from eBay
MHIJ isn’t it a great shame we did not have constitution with impeachment rules 6 years ago, we could have got rid of another queen.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Pretty easy really. Pass a law. Or pass a law allowing for a binding referendum.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I don’t know enough about this matter to comment on whether the coup is justified or not.
But I know that it is a far less bloody manner of deposing a leader than an an armed uprising or a civil war would be.
On the minus side for the ones carrying out the coup, carrying out a coup vastly increases the chance of another coup occurring, as all those hungry soldiers beneath the general witness how easy it would be to grab the reins of power.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I think we have learned a lesson today. If you start to run a left wing government in Latin America, you will see the right try and take power from you militarily. The rules of this country were set by a military dictatorship, and the people who enabled Zelaya’s rise to power are the ones who are promoting the coup now.
I’m sick of so called justified coups. You’ll always find a way to justify a coup. There will always be a ‘good reason’ to remove the person elected by the people.
[DPF: He was due to retire in a few months anyway and seemed most reluctant to. And he has been replaced by someone from his own party - with the unanimous support of that party's MPs. This is not quite like Chile]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
We learned that lesson today?!
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
# MyNameIsJack (786) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 6 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
The lession for nation states might be to always have clear impeachment procedures in your constitution.
So true. How DO we go about impeaching the Queen?
”
Act of Parliament, that is to say the same as the last time it was done.
”
just one more reason NZ should become a republic ASAP.
”
Although this is off topic, the only way I would wish to see NZ as a republic (or have the Maori monarch as Head of State) is when we get rid of the concept of sovereignty of parliament, sovereignty resides in the public, and have all laws subject to the Bill of Rights. This mindless talk of Republic Republic Republic, without any thought and discussion of more important constitutional issues is infuriating, and can only aid and abet the ambitions of politicians.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
# Bok (562) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I agree entirely Jeff. I think we are incredibly arrogant when it comes to how other nations run their countries. Just because we believe in a certain style of democracy, does not make it the right one for another nation.
However the thing that is worse than the arrogance, is the duplicity. Jump on Fiji but be okay with Thailand. Point the finger at Banimarama and even threaten them, yet happily trade with China and with Iran. I am not against trading with communist countries, or with one party countries, but dont point the finger at one, and happily play with the other.
”
I am reminded of a saying: “Nation’s do not survive by setting an example to others, but by making an example of others.”
Vote:Hypocrisy is the stock and trade of the world, if we want to get on and prosper we have to practice it, but we don’t have to like it.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
[DPF: You say the vast majority approve. Then why does the Commodore refuse to hold elections? And why does he deem it necessary to impose censorship on the media?]”
I would have thought that was obvious David. He does not hold elections because he sees the systems as essentially corrupt and racist and he censors the media because he does not trust it and sees at as being subject to manipulation by those who are racist and corrupt.
[DPF: Oh of course. So instead we have a dictatorship because they never prove corrupt]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
We learned that lesson today?!
Yeah, that was badly phrased.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
when we get rid of the concept of sovereignty of parliament
I’d like to see us adopt it, actually. Soveriegnty should rest with the Parliament, as the representatives of the people, but in practice it rests in Cabinet
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Bok “I agree entirely Jeff. I think we are incredibly arrogant when it comes to how other nations run their countries. Just because we believe in a certain style of democracy, does not make it the right one for another nation.
However the thing that is worse than the arrogance, is the duplicity. Jump on Fiji but be okay with Thailand. Point the finger at Banimarama and even threaten them, yet happily trade with China and with Iran. I am not against trading with communist countries, or with one party countries, but dont point the finger at one, and happily play with the other.”
I was not advocating what has happened in Fiji. The guy has censored the media, threatened anyone who opposes him, and deferred elections consistently. It doesnt take 3 years to get ready for elections. My thoughts are that discretion should be used before offering our condemnation. I.e. where a regime is corrupt, and elections unfair there is the potential need for a coup. However it is rare, and adherence needs to be paid it normally turns out for the worse.
I think China is gradually moving towards a positive point from a human rights perspective. You cant expect a country of a billion people which a large portion are uneducated to suddenly move towards a democratic system, but you can hope and expect steps in that direction, which overall I think you are getting and will continue to get. Increased knowledge and wealth generally goes hand in hand with increased demand for representation and rights. It is this what I hope will bring China gradually to a more human rights focussed point of view, with a different take on some things, i.e. a greater focus on the”greater good” verse individual rights. I think the later is a safer option, but the values in China defers on this.
Democracy is not a perfect system, but its the best system we have developed so far, and I think overall it hold accountability and if properly implemented helps reduce abuses of power. However when it fails, and a person stops it being able to work through multiple means and thereby stopping the ability to have fair elections occasionally the need to break the system to fix it is in order.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
David jump on a plane and go and have a look. Speak to the people.
Stuart Mackey answered your questions. The point is still that you are trying to measure a squiggly line with a straight ruler.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
# georgedarroch (234) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
when we get rid of the concept of sovereignty of parliament
I’d like to see us adopt it, actually. Soveriegnty should rest with the Parliament, as the representatives of the people, but in practice it rests in Cabinet
”
I prefer that Sovereignty rest in the people who live in a nation, that we the people delegate its exercise to our chosen representatives from time to time.
Vote:And currently sovereignty does rest with parliament, but cabinet exercises it because they control a majority of the house on confidence and supply, at this point. Should a majority of parliament disagree with cabinet, cabinet is screwed: witness the fall of the UK’s coalition government in 1922, where cabinet lost support of the majority of parliament and Bonar Law formed a Conservative government.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Only those who squint really hard through one eye and spend vast amounts of time totally ignoring what happens in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia could draw such a lesson. The use of military force to suppress dissent is not entirely right wing in Latin America.
And in more than a few places that “reason” is to advance “socialism”.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
wah wah wah duh koo iz tewwible sob sob sob
A power hungry Chavez stooge due to retire in a few months was prevented from turning Honduras into a Chavismo shithole by its brave military acting under orders from the Supreme Court. The new President is from the very same party as Zelaya. A socialist dictatorship has just been prevented, and we should be celebrating that.
Not surprised Omoron is siding with Chavez though. Wouldn’t want to get on his newest buttbuddy’s bad side, particularly after they’ve recently exchanged ambassadors (and bodily fluids). Smrt power!
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Only those who squint really hard through one eye and spend vast amounts of time totally ignoring what happens in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia could draw such a lesson.
I’ll deal with them individually.
Cuba was a left wing military coup through and through. They then had plenty of US and rich elite backed attempts to destroy their regime. Not going to defend the actions of Castro Regime though.
Venezuela’s Chavez led a coup in the 1990s, and then had one against him led by the rich elites after he was elected president. He has since shown plenty of anti-democratic tendencies. Nowhere near as bad as Castro, not someone I’ll defend either.
Bolivia – Morales was elected as the first indigneous president in their history, despite having an indigenous majority. No funny business there. Has had a low scale insurgency against him, backed by the rich elites.
So, are the left without sin? No. But the pattern, of left wing Governments finding themselves unseated by force in Latin America is completely uncontroversial.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
David, if you can get hold of a copy of Fiji’s 1970 constitution I’d appreciate a copy. I’m sure I have read that in it, the military had a constitutional role in national governance – namely, to step in and stop a democratically elected but abjectly corrupt government from enacting legislation which would do medium and/or long term damage to the nation. Ordinary people in Fiji, both Indo and Fijian, look up to and respect the military because of that constitutional role. While it was removed by the do-gooders from NZ who drafted the current constitution, people still hold to those values.
Bainimarama made it very clear to the abjectly corrupt Qarase that if he either introduced his Goligoli Bill which would have given control of the foreshore to just six venal Fijian chiefs (thereby killing development and jobs) or granted amnesty to Speight and his gang of murderers and conspirators (who killed eight of Bainimarama’s troops in their attempt to assassinate him), a number of whom where Qarase’s political colleagues who had yet to be tried, he, Bainimarama, would remove him from power. Qarase proceeded to enact his obnoxious legislation and Bainimarama removed him.
All Fijians, bar Qarase’s mates, applauded and they continue to applaud. You don’t seem to understand that Fiji does not need New Zealand and Australia. Bainimarama will do as he pleases, when he is ready and no amount of hot air or impotent chest thumping from Canberra or Wellington will make the slightest difference. He knows he has the support of people for the far reaching changes he wants to implement.
Meanwhile we continue to hurt thousands of ordinary Fijian families whose jobs in tourism we have capriciously destroyed, while the regime quietly goes about its business.
Well done David.
The question you should be asking is “Why has New Zealand failed to offer assistance to the current regime to bring about a fair and non-racist constitution and a reliable census in order that elections can be held at the earliest opportunity?”
Our failure to first ask what is required to comply with our wishes before we wrecked their economy with our outrageous adverse travel advisories marks one of the worst episodes of diplomatic incompetence and dumb arsed chicanery in our history and you are complicit in it.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
The coup must be a good thing. Chavez and his pals don’t approve.
Bill.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
What are the chances of a Coup in Godzone?
Is it feasable ever?
What circumstances are likely? We don’t have a Constitution at all.
So are we more or less prone?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
# Glutaemus Maximus (1834) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
What are the chances of a Coup in Godzone?
Is it feasable ever?
What circumstances are likely? We don’t have a Constitution at all.
So are we more or less prone?
”
********************************
The big questions is what do you mean by Coup? If its a military coup or one led by the police, then I don’t think so. I don’t think the armed forces would, they would be suppressing their own families, I think theyt have better standards than that anyway, not that I am in the army of course. The police wouldn’t for the same reasons and I dont think the public or the armed forces would tolerate them trying it.
Vote:The question is the public: If pissed off enough the public might, we have enough guns to pull it off and the obvious numbers, the rest is just a question of will power. Of course if any government got that bad then the Police/Armed Forces would probably stand aside other than to keep a modicum of order and orderly transition to new elections, probably organised via the Governor General, who I presume would exercise the Royal Prerogative personally in the absence of responsible government..
June 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Isn’t it obviously the military’s job to act as the last resort protector of a constitution and the rule of law?
I thought that’s ultimately what a military does?
Can I summarise your logic as follows DPF?
*If* the president’s actions were unconstitutional
*and* this was ruled so by the supreme court (i.e following the rule of law and not just the military’s opinion)
*and* the government didn’t listen to the supreme court (i.e the govt ignores the rule of law)
*then* who else but the military can do anything?
Ultimately someone has to suspend the government of the day. If the supreme court says something, and the government doesn’t listen, then the military ought to roll in, take over for a defined period of time and see that new free and fair elections are held.
Of course when the military becomes involved, the nature of the outcome is dependant on whether you have a George Washington in charge for that short time or a Napolean Bonaparte.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
This is a keeper!
The next time you witter on about the “rule of law” we can always remind ourselves that this noble principle only applies when the laws concerened do not involve governments that our David disagrees with.
Oh and I love the phrase “doing a Chavez”
Does that mean winning lots of elections?
[DPF: The President is the one who broke the law. He ignored repeated court rulings]
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 7:00 am
Err Sonic, the phrase doing a Chavez comes from the often used expression meaning when a leader buys off his poor and desperate workers with promises of wealth distribution only for them to still not have running water and a leader who has squandered BILLIONS on arms purchases and weaponry to fight against an enemy that doesn’t exist.
Chavez is delusional and he is going to fuck Venezuela up. Sonic, why is Chavez closing down all the opposition news networks? Does this sound acting within the rule of law? Fuck it must echo quite loudly in that head of yours!
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 7:12 am
DPF said: The constitution is so adamant about the one term limit, it says that if you promote a change to that clause, you lose your public office immediately and can not hold office again for ten years.
And Article 42 goes further and says anyone promoting the President staying in office beyond on term loses their Honduras citizenship…
Now Zelaya was organising a non-binding referndum to start on the day he was deposed. The referendum was to on whether to call a National Assembly to rewrite the constitution.
And you support that DPF? For someone who railed so strongly against the EFA, I would have thought you should have been abhored by such anti-democratic restrictions on freedom of speech and political expression in the Honduran constitution and fully backed Zelaya and his supporters’ challenge to those provisions.
[DPF: I think term limits are the best safeguard against tyranny a country can have. Zelaya I suspect has no interest in freedom of speech - just in becoming President for Life]
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 7:44 am
DPF said: I think term limits are the best safeguard against tyranny a country can have.
That may be the case, and I tend to agree. But what you appear to be supporting David is a prohibition on anyone who has a differing view from advocating their position. Surely that is a far more draconian and anti-democratic restriction of freedom of speech than anything that was in the EFA.
[DPF: No I don't support such a prohibition, but the President of all people should not be breaking the law.]
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
“[DPF: No I don't support such a prohibition, but the President of all people should not be breaking the law.]”
Of course in little old NZ it is perfectly acceptable for the Labour party and the Greens to break the law when it comes to elections, hell, it does not matter how you “win” and election in our country, if you break the law then you simply change the law to legalise your crimes.
Vote: