[Marxism] Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional

[Michael Friedman]

http://rebelreports.com/post/133319827/why-president-zelayas-actions-in-honduras-were-legal


Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional

Zelaya attempted to give Hondurans the gift of participatory
democracy. It was the coup leaders who violated the constitution.
Those who say otherwise are wrong.

By Alberto Valiente Thoresen, RebelReports Guest Contributor

EDITOR’S NOTE: RebelReports is publishing this original article as a
response to those who claim that the coup in Honduras was legal and/or
constitutional and to the reporting by those media outlets that
consistently repeat false characterizations of Honduran law and
President Zelaya’s actions.—JS

In the classic Greek tragedy, Prometheus Bound, the playwright
observes: “Of wrath’s disease wise words the healers are.” Shortly
put, this story is about Prometheus, a titan who was punished by the
almighty gods for having given humanity the capacity to create fire.
This generated a conflict, which ended with Prometheus’ banishment and
exile.

Currently, there is a tragedy being staged in the Central American
republic Honduras. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity follows the events,
as spectators of an outdated event in Latin America, which could set a
very unfortunate undemocratic precedent for the region. In their rage,
the almighty gods of Honduran politics have punished an aspiring
titan, President Manuel Zelaya, for attempting to give Hondurans the
gift of participatory democracy. This generated a constitutional
conflict that resulted in president Zelaya’s banishment and exile.  In
this tragedy, words are once again the healers of enraged minds.  If
we, the spectators, are not attentive to these words, we risk
succumbing intellectually, willfully accepting the facts presented by
the angry coup-makers and Honduran gods of politics.

In this respect, media coverage of the recent military coup in
Honduras is often misleading; even when it is presenting a critical
standpoint towards the events. Concentrating on which words are used
to characterize the policies conducted by President Zelaya might seem
trivial at first sight. But any familiarity to the notion of
‘manufacturing of consent’, and how slight semantic tricks can be used
to manipulate public opinion and support, is enough to realize the
magnitude of certain omissions. Such oversights rely on the public’s
widespread ignorance about some apparently minor legal intricacies in
the Honduran Constitution.

For example, most reports have stated that Manuel Zelaya was ousted
from his country’s presidency after he tried to carry out a
non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. But this is not
completely accurate. Such presentation of “facts” merely contributes
to legitimizing the propaganda, which is being employed by the
coup-makers in Honduras to justify their actions. This interpretation
is widespread in US-American liberal environments, especially after
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the coup is unacceptable,
but that “all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying
problems that led to [Sunday]’s events.” However, President Zelaya
cannot be held responsible for this flagrant violation of the Honduran
democratic institutions that he has tried to expand. This is what has
actually happened:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National
Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely
accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in
office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239
of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have
served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The
same article also states that public officials who breach this
article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will
automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by
law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of
1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not
possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form
of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran
territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are
not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do
in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military
elites disliked so much.  President Zelaya intended to perform a
non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected
National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the
Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006.  According to this act,
all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations
to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act
was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the
Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper
of 2006.  That is, until the president of the republic employed it in
a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of
these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the
conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the
mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran
public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process
would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article
373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to
approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution,
excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly
legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and
fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National
Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but
re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come
directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new
draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only
need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be
more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982
Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by
counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil
façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition
to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly
or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the
Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a
subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the
widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he
tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in
office.

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to
prohibition.  However it was not a referendum, as such public
consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the
objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it
is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January
2010.  In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982,
Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November
2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is
completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly
would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and
re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all
Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would
have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had
decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates
again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new
constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the
1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239
and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the
people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the
new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be
ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President
Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios
which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a
legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982
Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to
violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress.
As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric
preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and
stability in the region.

It is fundamental that media channels do not fall into omissions that
can delay the return of democracy to Honduras and can weaken the
condemnation issued by strong institutions, like the United States
government. It is also important that individuals are informed, so
that they can have a critical attitude to media reports. Honduras
needs democracy back now, and international society can play an
important role in achieving this by not engaging in irresponsible
oversimplifications.

Alberto Valiente Thoresen was born in San Salvador, El Salvador. He
currently resides in Norway where he serves on the board of the
Norwegian Solidarity Committee with Latin America