When a Coup is the Right Thing to Do...

How far are countries willing to go to defend their democratic institutions in the face of danger? We got a glimpse of that this weekend in the Central American country of Honduras who – via a military coup d’etat – ousted its democratically-elected president, Manuel Zelaya. Via a court order issued by the country’s Supreme Court, the country’s military apparatus was put in motion to capture the president and fly him to Costa Rica to exile. Immediately following his touchdown in Costa Rica, he described the events as a “kidnapping” and a “coup” promulgated by his political opponents.

The reason for the sacking, and removal from office, had been the combative and insurgent-like demagoguery Zelaya used to incite the masses and score political points. Like his idols in Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia, Zelaya wanted to further control the government in ways that the Honduran Constitution deemed illegal. And this is where this story begins to unravel for Zelaya. The strategy that he would begin to apply would be the one used by past despots with varying degrees of success throughout Latin America.

Zelaya intended to hold a referendum on whether or not the country should hold a constitutional convention to change the constitution and allow him to be re-elected president next year. Keep in mind that a presidential limit of one 4-year term only is expressly mandated by the Honduran constitution and was included as a result of the heightened probability and concern regarding the rise of would-be dictators, very common in Latin America. Thus, Zelaya’s views regarding the term limit clause was not a view shared by the vast majority of lawmakers, including some members of his own political party. Opponents argued that Zelaya wanted to change the term limit clause so he could hold on to power next year and beyond, possibly indefinitely.

According to government authorities, prior to June 28th, Zelaya covertly enacted a law – an illegal act in and of itself – that would have allowed him to bypass any referendum to request a new constitutional convention, thus allowing him to prevent new presidential elections from being held at all, and granting him authority to organize a new assembly empowered to draft a new Honduran constitution. The National Congress, hoping to thwart the power-hungry Zelaya, passed a law forbidding referenda no less than 180 days before the next general election. In addition, and most importantly, the Honduran Constitution expressly forbids amendments and reforms altering presidential term limits or allowing re-election, which explained Zelaya’s zealous approach journey to a new constitution, a clear and pathetic display of power grab. Zelaya urged the military to offer logistical support to hold the referendum, as is normally done by the armed forces, but the army chief denied his request because he didn’t want to break the law. Zelaya then fired him.

How Wrong is the World?

Zelaya was the democratically-elected president of the Honduran people when he was removed from his office for violating the country’s constitution. The world should be appalled not by his removal, but by the events that led to his removal. Zelaya’s utter disregard for that country’s constitution is as unbearable as President Obama disregarding the U.S. Constitution and deciding to change the term limits without amending the said constitution. It would be as if Obama were to say – like Andrew Jackson once said – to forget about the Supreme Court, they can enforce their own laws, similar to what Jackson did to then Chief Justice Marshall in the early 19th century when Marshall ruled against the former war hero. Jackson, however, never broke the law by going against the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, what happened in Honduras is a blow to democracy, but only because there was no mechanism for the people to remove Zelaya from power. In the US, we have an impeachment process. The House of Representatives impeaches a President and the Senate tries him/her. The impeached president is removed from office and depending on the offence, could be tried by a civilian court. In Honduras, however, this process is lacked. The Honduran constitution, however, is clear regarding the illegality of changing its articles regarding presidential term limits: “No amendments, under any circumstance, shall be made… to the presidential term limits.”

It is also explicit in the way the Honduran Supreme Court should do its job, saying that the court has “original and exclusive jurisdiction” regarding whether any law is unconstitutional.
It is also very clear when it states that every public official is sworn by the following oath when they take their respective offices: “I swear to be loyal to the Republic, the Constitution and its laws.” A very explicit and concise phrase that encompasses all public officials, the president included.

How far are we willing to go to guarantee that our democratic institutions are there for us, but more importantly for our children and our children’s children? The crisis in Honduras has made many people ponder these same thoughts. Are we as a people in a democratic society going to sit idle while a president – elected democratically – maneuvers to the point where he is positioning himself to rule forever? Can we sit on our hands while this happens? Our own freedoms are trampled when a power-hungry individual attempts to cover our eyes while at the same time he tries to change the constitution to further his political goals.

What will happen with the deposed leader? Well, surely negotiations will take place and I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to return to Honduras. But, the people should remain resolute. If he were to regain power, it should definitely be only under the following circumstances:

(1) He will finish his term as president of Honduras till January of 2010 and no more;
(2) He will forgo planning referenda for the remainder of his term;
(3) He will be barred from again running for president in his lifetime;
(4) He will not incite people to violence

These are simple and protective measures designed to return law and order to the country and continue growing as a democracy. For Obama was right in that deposing leaders when they do something we don’t agree with is one thing, but deposing of leaders when they break the law – especially the country’s constitution – to strengthen their hold on power is another.It is the responsibility of the people and their elected leaders to act to defend their Republic. For sitting on the sidelines doing nothing is the greatest sin of all.