Honduran Constitution: Still Explosive, But No Longer Set in Stone

[Judi Lynn]

Honduran Constitution: Still Explosive, But No Longer Set in Stone
Written by Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle
Friday, 21 January 2011 14:44

The Honduran Congress's decision last week to allow popular referendums to amend the Constitution is nothing short of momentous given the country's tumultous historical span of the last two years. The new measures need to be approved a second time when Congress begins a new session on Tuesday.

The significance, if not the irony, lies in the fact that many of these representatives who support these constitutional reforms opposed them when they were put forward by former President Manuel Zelaya. In total, 103 of 128 members of Congress voted to reform Article 5 of the constitution. Furthermore, they used Zelaya's initiative for constitutional reform to justify the illegal military coup on June 28, 2008 which deposed the former president. So today’s reformers have in theory legalized consulting the sovereign citizenry on whatever it deems appropriate. At the same time they have in hindsight legitimized Pres. Zelaya’s argument that changes to unchangeable laws were needed. The difference, says the President of Congress Hernandez, is that this reform was “done legally”, after extensive consultation, whereas Zelaya’s presumably was not.

It does not matter if this claim is true. The vote was not completely unexpected and not altogether contradictory, since prior to the coup Lobo—who in June 2009 was president of the Nationalist Party—had repeatedly declared that he personally was in favor of a “constitutional consultation” on a constituent assembly. Lobo’s decision to lead his Party into the coup was widely perceived to be an act of desperate opportunism. At the time he was also the designated National Party presidential candidate for the November 2009 elections, and was seriously lagging behind Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos. No strategy had seemed to work in his favor despite divisions amongst liberals, and he was expected to lose the national elections for a second time in a row (Zelaya had defeated him in 2005). The coup would, and in fact did, divide the Liberal Party irremediably and guaranteed Lobo a triumph.

But his triumph would prove to be bittersweet. Due mostly to the stance of South American countries, the OAS—which expelled Honduras under the coup regime—refuses to readmit the country until Lobo remedies some of the outstanding injustices the coup had generated, such as widespread acts of violence and repression against the Resistance movement and the forced exile of the deposed president and many of his more loyal collaborators. In the meantime, Honduras has become virtually ungovernable; its two principal cities have been listed amongst the ten most violent in the world, just after Kandahar. The country has also lost international credit, and the economy might have collapsed if not for U.S. foreign assistance propping it up, along with a boom in coffee prices. On the other hand, the President of Congress J. Orlando Hernandez has sustained that rather than being “the same thing Zelaya was calling for,” as most observers have argued, last week’s reform of Article 5 of the Constitution is a completely different beast. He argues, albeit unconvincingly, that in fact, it makes the Constituent Assembly to rewrite the constitution superfluous since any aspect of the constitution can now be amended through a referendum authorized by Congress. We must consider the intent behind and benefits derived from this surprising development as well as the factors that will influence its outcome.

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/honduras-archives-46/2874-honduras-constitution-still-explosive-but-no-longer-set-in-stone

Also posted in Editorials:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x584102

[social_critic]

1. I understand presumably doesn't apply here

Zelaya's proposed referendum was declared to be illegal by the Supreme Court of Honduras. They are the authority with the competence to rule. Therefore the use of presumably doesn't really apply - there was no legal basis for Zelaya to insist.

The underlying problem is the evolution of presidents who think they're god on earth. They forget government has three branches, and neither is supposed to dominate. But Zelaya and others have come to believe only "the supreme authority" - ie the President - counts.

[Peace Patriot]

2. The rightwing nonsense that gets spouted here about the leftist "dictators" in Latin America

would be laughable if it were not the echo-chamber of the corpo-fascist press and its CIA "talking point" memo writers.

The rightwing also called FDR a "dictator." He was "president for life"--ran for and was elected to FOUR terms in office, and died in his fourth term. The key word is ELECTED.

He also did a bit of power-playing with the other branches. For instance, he tried to "pack the Supreme Court," as the rightwing of that era described it. What he was actually doing was quite lawful and legitimate. The dinosaurs on the Supreme Count, appointed by the rightwing governments of the previous era who had caused the Great Depression with their utterly irresponsible failure to regulate markets and finance, were declaring FDR's crucially needed "New Deal" programs "unconstitutional." FDR proposed that Congress add more Supreme Court justices, so that he could nominate younger people to the bench, to balance out the dinosaur forces. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices. It is up to Congress.

Due to the hysterical hue and cry from the rightwing, FDR withdrew the proposal, but he had gotten one Supreme Court justice to change his mind about the "New Deal." Thus, Social Security was saved!

The rich, the rightwing and the corporate HATE strong leftist leaders who aren't afraid to use their lawful powers on behalf of the "little guy"--say, by punching corporate monsters like Exxon Mobil in the nose (as Chavez has done), or throwing the U.S. ambassador and the DEA out of Bolivia, and legalizing coca leaves (as Evo Morales has done in Bolivia), or doubling the minimum wage to help sweatshop workers and poor farm workers slaving for multinational corporations (as Mel Zelaya did in Honduras), or daring to propose reform of a constitution written by Reagan's henchmen, with an advisory vote of the people that CONTAINED NOT ONE WORD ABOUT TERM LIMITS (Zelaya, Honduras).

These forces--the rich, the rightwing and the corporate--will call such presidents "dictators"--and you can review their seething hatred of such presidents every day, in corpo-fascist 'news' broadcasts and publications. What they really mean--and of course don't tell you--is that THEY want to be "dictators." THEY want to re-write the law to serve themselves. THEY want to be tax-free while your taxes serve THEM. THEY want to hijack your military for corporate resource wars. THEY want all the oil profits. THEY want "free speech" only for themselves. THEY want to "privatize" every good public program that democratic peoples have created for themselves--such as Social Security--in order to loot it for private profit. THEY want to own the government. THEY don't want government fighting for "the little guy."

A leftist president creates BALANCE in the forces at work in a society. It gives the poor majority a chance against the rich and powerful. THEY don't want BALANCE. They want ALL the power.

So, when a strong leftist leader comes along, who actually fulfills his mandate to advocate for the majority, they scream bloody murder: "Dictator! DICTATOR!"

They've done it to Chavez, relentlessly--including an outright rightwing coup attempt in 2002. They did it to Mel Zelaya, and wretchedly succeeded at kidnapping him at gunpoint and removing him from the country--an outrageous violation of the Honduran constitution which forbids exile of Honduran citizens. No trial. No habeas corpus. Just "you're gone!"--to the ELECTED president of the country (with a refueling stop at the U.S. air base in Honduras!). They're now doing it to Evo Morales in Bolivia (after a failed U.S.-funded/organized attempted coup in 2008) and to Rafael Correa in Ecuador (another coup attempted, last year, probably U.S.-backed).

All four elected, by big majorities. All four doing the will of the people. All strong leftists. And not one violation of any law by any of them.

We should be worried about the Dictatorship of the Rich that we see now in the U.S. We should be worried about the cabal of multinational corporations and war profiteers, working out of our capitol, who plot against these independent leaders in Latin America. THEY are the problem, not Hugo Chavez, Mel Zelaya, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa or the other new leftist leadership of Latin America. And we should in fact be heeding what these new leftist leaders are saying and doing and what their supporters have done to get them elected (including working for and achieving honest, transparent elections--which we don't have here any more).

-------

Here are my additional comments on this development in Honduras, in your other thread on this subject:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x584102

[social_critic]

3. You are missing the point 100 %

The rise of imperial presidents is more a concern of liberals than of right wing types. I wish I could draw a lesson for you on the board, because it will help you understand.

Modern democracy requires three balanced branches of government, and a fourth estate, the media, which is supposed to be free and independent so it can inform the people. This is the theory.

The reality is that we are seeing the emergence of the imperial president, and of course the media is biased to say what certain elites want. The imperial presidency happens to be convenient because it stiffles debate and dissent, and concentrates power, which can be abused. The problem arises on both sides of the spectrum - Bush abused the Imperial presidency in the USA - Chavez is an excellent example of autocratic abuse on the extreme left. Zelaya seems to have been a fairly naive guy who was influenced by leftists to behave as an imperial president, but he missed the call, moved too fast and was forced out of power.

Note that I never said Zelaya was a dictator - you are confusing dictatorship with presidential abuses of power and the rise of the imperial presidency. For example, in Venezuela we see an autocratic president with NEAR DICTATORIAL powers, but he's not completely consolidated yet. Therefore he should not be called a dictator, Chavez be called an autocratic president. And also note it doesn't matter if the guy was originally elected or not. Leaders can be elected and change their stripes. Fujimori is an example. Zelaya was elected and changed gradually, in his case it was evident he was being influenced by Chavez.

Chavez too has been elected, but is clearly out of control now, having packed the Supreme Court with his supporters, and having obtained the enabling law which allows him to bypass the national assembly. Today, Chavez can be considered an autocrat. And unfortunately for Zelaya, it was Chavez who had the most influence on him in those critical days when he was forced out of power.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Yes, you've nailed it. We've been living under our own dictatorship right ####ing here!

It's an actual relief to see it written out.

Thanks for your comments in the other thread, and your link.