Supreme Court backed coup in Honduras.

jank

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty. They kinda equate to the same thing, but presentation is everything.

Orwell would be so proud!:pac:

Sand

So just to clarify, a military coup which takes the lives of children is improving the liberty of the people of Honduras? How exactly?

Could have sworn I made a post already dealing with this question...

And btw, even without term limits the guy still has to get elected. A power grab does not usually include a referendum, that's kind of the opposite of a power grab, that's uh, allowing the people of a country the liberty of being a part of their government?

Of course he has to still get re-elected: thats no check. Christ, if there was no chance of a leader getting re-elected, then there would be no need for a term limit, would there?

Term limits exist to prevent concentration of power in one individuals hands regardless of how popular they are.

Serious question - do you know why there are checks on the power of elected representitives or referendums? Is it that you ignore them, disagree with them or simply are unaware of the reasons?

brianthebard

Thank you for being patronising, yet I do know what they are for and no I don't think they are necessary.

Sand

Thank you for being patronising, yet I do know what they are for and no I don't think they are necessary.

You dont think checks on elected representives or referendums are necessary?

Thats fairly breath taking.

You see I have been talking about liberal democracy as a good thing...you probably dont agree liberal democracy is a good thing so that explains the confusion. So long as elections are held, you reckon elected representitives should be able to do whatever they want?

So why bother having a constitution at all?

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

You dont think checks on elected representives or referendums are necessary?

Thats fairly breath taking.

You see I have been talking about liberal democracy as a good thing...you probably dont agree liberal democracy is a good thing so that explains the confusion. So long as elections are held, you reckon elected representitives should be able to do whatever they want?

So why bother having a constitution at all?

That's fairly breath takingly unrepresentative of what I said. Because hypothetically there are no longer term limits, that would mean the power of other branches of government would also be removed, somehow, magically? I don't believe that was my position at all.

From what I can tell the Honduras constitution only allows a president one term, the intended referendum was a poll, to ask the people whether they thought it was ok to consider changing this, and would not change the laws.

Sand

I asked:

Serious question - do you know why there are checks on the power of elected representitives or referendums? Is it that you ignore them, disagree with them or simply are unaware of the reasons?

You answered:

Thank you for being patronising, yet I do know what they are for and no I don't think they are necessary.

How did I misrepresent you?

Actually - read this book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. By far the best book written in recent times on modern democracies and the conflict between democracy and liberty. Gurramok, Sovtek, Redplanet, Jank: you ought to read it too. I know its not Noam Chomsky, but give a try.

brianthebard

We were talking about term limits, I assumed that was all you were referring to. Fair enough I misread you statement. Obviously I agree with some checks on government bodies, but don't think term limits are the be all and end all.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

We were talking about term limits, I assumed that was all you were referring to. Fair enough I misread you statement. Obviously I agree with some checks on government bodies, but don't think term limits are the be all and end all.

Term limits in Presidential systems are essential though. Otherwise you're just inviting dictatorships like they're finding out in Venezuela at the moment. It's quite clear that Zelaya wanted to remove the limits to follow a similar path.

Kama

Hmm, removing term limits smells of an authoritarian drift, regardless of who's doing it...I'm not fundamentalist about terms limits, but there are pretty good systemic institutional reasons for them to be Considered Helpful, especially in countries where democratic traditions aren't especially entrenched.

But transfer of power by military means smells a whole lot worse...sends all the wrong signals, and encourages all the wrong habits. Considered Harmful, plus a bit. For me, the stink of the second grotesquely outweighs the smell of the first. Shuttling out of the country, snipers on the runway; just not cricket, tbh.

Now, I'm no Honduran constitutional expert; I get that it's Art.42-5; inciting re-election, and Art. 239, proposing reform of term limits,and that apparently its a non-modifiable part of the Constitution, which I regard as a slightly screwy concept also. But the vote was a non-binding plebiscite, a vote on whether people thought it would be worth having a vote on whether it could be changed. Which doesn't exactly seem like 'clear and present danger' to me. So the military transfer, even if it was constitutional, seems a hamfistedly excessive approach to take; it may be legal, but its appearance is odious.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

Term limits in Presidential systems are essential though.

It's up to the people of Honduras to determine that.
The president was trying to find out.
Let's not overlook the fact that the referendum proposed wasn't to remove term limits.

RedPlanet

The whole term limits thing, may be only a watershed.
Actually watershed isn't really the word i'm looking for. Rather, red-herring.

As quoted from The Guardian

The coup's faltering public relations drive took another blow when the army's top lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, admitted to reporters that the overthrow was illegal. It was nevertheless necessary, he said, to stop Honduras becoming a socialist ally of Venezuela

Stopping Honduras from becoming a "socialst" ally ofVenezuela and term limits are not the same thing.

Sand

It's up to the people of Honduras to determine that.

Nope, term limits are there to over rule the wishes of the people. Again, there are good reasons for that.

Let's not overlook the fact that the referendum proposed wasn't to remove term limits.

It was a step in the process to removing the term limits. Zelaya already had the power to adjust 98% of the constitution. The only parts he couldnt touch were the parts that limited his power. There are good reasons for that.

Stopping Honduras from becoming a "socialst" ally ofVenezuela and term limits are not the same thing.

I do not blame people who believe in liberty looking at Chavez's regime and shuddering - clearly no one who values decentalised power structures, or who doesnt want to see tyranny of the majority and cult of personality will not react well to attempts to mimick Chavez.

As for it being illegal, thats undeniable. It was illegal. But Zelaya set the rules by ignoring the Supreme Court rulings. When he was determined to engage in illegal action, but decided to ignore it and carry on with an illiberal populist action, then his enemies realistically will feel they are forced to take extraordinary actions to defend the freedoms of all people - not just the majority.

Zelaya backed his enemies into a corner by refusing to be bound by the Supreme Court and the law of the land. As for it being a military coup, by all appearances the military has been extremely restrained, like Cincinnatus taking exceptional, unconstitutional action and then immediately surrendering power. A member of Zelaya's own party has been appointed as his replacement, not some general.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

I do not blame people who believe in liberty looking at Chavez's regime and shuddering - clearly no one who values decentalised power structures, or who doesnt want to see tyranny of the majority and cult of personality will not react well to attempts to mimick Chavez.

So if you don't like Chavez, it's ok to overthrow your government. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of your post, it's all a red herring.
Here it is again:

Top Honduran military lawyer: We broke the law
Inestroza acknowledged that after 34 years in the military, he and many other longtime soldiers found Zelaya's allegiance to Chávez difficult to stomach.

''We fought the subversive movements here and we were the only country that did not have a fratricidal war like the others,'' he said. ``It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That's impossible. I personally would have retired, because my thinking, my principles, would not have allowed me to participate in that.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html
It's got feck all to do with presidential term limits.
It's all about the rightwingers lust for power, to dictate terms regarding the country's direction.

Sand

So if you don't like Chavez, it's ok to overthrow your government.

Two problems here.

First youre not reading my posts.

Second you believe Zelaya is the government. He isnt. He is, or was, one component of it. Other parts, such as the Supreme Court, are just as important. If Zelaya ignores the Supreme Court and the rule of law then practically by defintion extraordinary action is required.

It's got feck all to do with presidential term limits.
It's all about the rightwingers lust for power, to dictate terms regarding the country's direction.

It has got everything to do with term limits. The Zelaya regime has been in power since January 2006. Neither his election nor the previous 3 and half years of his rule sparked these actions.

His move to ignore the rule of law and try to bring about an end to limits on his power did. As your source noted the problem was:

You should understand it's very difficult for someone who has dedicated his whole life to a country and an institution to see, from one day to another, a person who is not normal come and want to change the way of life in the country without following the steps the law indicates.

For a man who likes to talk about red herrings, you seem to throw a lot of them around.

RedPlanet

Fact:
At no point have you demonstrated that the proposed referendum sought to end term limits.
Which by the way, President Zelaya denies.
RedHerring much?

Sand

The referendum ( apparently Zelaya tried to argue it wasnt even a referendum because that would be illegal) was to establish the favourability of setting up a national constitutional assembly to entirely re-write the constitution. Not just to change it, to replace it.

Why do this when Zelaya already had the power to rewrite 98% of the constitution? Because the 2% he couldnt re-write were term limits and other checks on his power. As a wise man once said

" Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. "

There is no mystery as to what Zelaya was attempting, to achieve another Venezeuala where like Chavez all power would be concentrated in his hands. Luckily it was nipped in the bud.

I am not a constitutional expert on Honduras, but this is apparently the relevant section from the constitution in question:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

Thanks to the power of babelfish...

The citizen who has carried out the ownership of the Executive authority could not be President or Vice-president of the Republic. The one that break this disposition or propose its reform, as well as those supports that it direct or indirectly, will stop immediately in the performance of their respective positions and will be disqualified by ten (10) years for the exercise of all public function.

Unless something has been lost in translation it appears pretty clear why Zelayas actions were illegal, and why he will clearly deny he was attempting to remove those limits.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

The referendum ( apparently Zelaya tried to argue it wasnt even a referendum because that would be illegal) was to establish the favourability of setting up a national constitutional assembly to entirely re-write the constitution. Not just to change it, to replace it.

Well, you got part of that right.

There is no mystery as to what Zelaya was attempting, to achieve another Venezeuala where like Chavez all power would be concentrated in his hands. Luckily it was nipped in the bud.

Are you sure? As it stands the President still retains the ability to change 98% of the constitution, how much can Chavez change. :rolleyes:

At least you've dropped the pretence that you arent defending military coups over democratically elected leftists.
It also is revealing that you share the same level of paranoia as the right wing nuts in Honduras that would find themselves violating their own laws, and in international isolation.

Sand

At least you've dropped the pretence that you arent defending military coups over democratically elected leftists.

Serious question - do you read my posts?

Here is another question. President Uribe of Colombia is taking steps to relax term limits on his regime. I take it you welcome the potential for a third term of Uribe rule in Colombia? Having already forced through constitutional changes to allow him a second term? Will of the people and all that?

RedPlanet

You know, you really don't give the people of Honduras much a chance do you.
You've got a constitution that in your own words, allows the President to control/change 98% of it. Yet when a referenda is proposed about creating a National Constituent Assemby with a view toward amending the constitution is proposed, you'd rather accept military coup.
Does that mean in your view that the Honduras people have no right to seek to change their constitution?
At miniumum i suspect, you aer content that teh president has 98% control of the constitution.

Sand

Does that mean in your view that the Honduras people have no right to seek to change their constitution?

Even proposing changing the Presidential term limits, even supporting such a proposal are grounds for immediate removal from office.

Term limits are there for a reason - to check populism. The Honduras Constitution seems exceptional in its defence of those checks, but given the historic instability of the region such defence against populism is probably wise.

Of course they can change the constitution. They can elect representitives to Congress. Congress and the President then enact any required changes to the Constitution. Its a fairly standard diversification of power.

At miniumum i suspect, you aer content that teh president has 98% control of the constitution.

See above - I am content that the the President and the Congress, all with electoral mandates, can alter 98% of the constitution with sufficient support.

TBH, I think the problem here is that many of Zelayas new found supporters are socialists or supporters of Chavez style rule. They are not liberal democrats. They place no value on diversified power. They believe everything should be decided by a popular vote of the community and so on. Any check on populism is terrible and wrong, nothing cant be solved by more democracy or by a referendum, no bad government has ever resulted from a popular vote...

So the finepoints of what makes a liberal democracy are lost on them. They dont care if a liberal democracy works well or not, they dont want a liberal democracy.

RedPlanet

-RedHerring Alert!-

Sand wrote: »

Even proposing changing the Presidential term limits, even supporting such a proposal are grounds for immediate removal from office.

Yeah, um is that in the constitution? (no)

You're still harking on about the coup's redherring.
The proposed referenda was about forming a National Constituent Assembly with a view toward amending the constitution.
What amendments that body would propose are speculation.
Which means, not fact.

The body might have proposed that any and all changes to the consitution require national referenda.
I'm sure we will never know now.
A democratic opportunity for the people of Honduras lost, due to the corrupt and illegal actions of the military.
Which by the way are apparently trying to preserve the status quo (at least their view of it). That the president gets to change 98% of the constitution.

Sand

Yeah, um is that in the constitution? (no)

I asked before

Serious question - do you read my posts?

Now you ignored it, which is evidence in its own right. But with your post above its pretty clear you dont read my posts. So run along and waste someone elses time. Thanks.

RedPlanet

Sand, your denigrating views about Leftist leaders are well known to all here.
It's the real reason you're defending this military coup.
Your anti-referenda stance is probably a result of Nice I and Lisbon I.
Your side didn't win, therefore you amended your views so now the people shouldn't have the right to thwart the political direction you prefer.
Term limits are a redherring in this instance as it's been shown to you that that is not what was occuring in Honduras.

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's up to the people of Honduras to determine that.
The president was trying to find out.
Let's not overlook the fact that the referendum proposed wasn't to remove term limits.

First the referendum proposed was looking at the same route that Chavez took to remove term limits in his country, so it's disingeneous to argue that removing term limits wasn't a goal when Zelaya was openly taking advice from Chavez.

Second, there are very good reasons why presidents can't lengthen their term. It's a necessary check on the power of one man that Presidential systems create.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

First the referendum proposed was looking at the same route that Chavez took to remove term limits in his country, so it's disingeneous to argue that removing term limits wasn't a goal when Zelaya was openly taking advice from Chavez.

Chavez had put to referenda the question of ending term limits.
That's not what Zelaya was doing.
Your speculating, and you're uncritically accepting the redherring argument proposed by those that performed the coup.
Other observers/editors/opinion makers are suggesting it has more to do with Zelaya's move to the left, aligning Honduras with Venezuela politically.
Just as the article i've linked from one of the coup's lawyers suggests.

Second, there are very good reasons why presidents can't lengthen their term. It's a necessary check on the power of one man that Presidential systems create.

Those reasons only hold water if the people in said democracy decide so.

RedPlanet

Here's an article that spells out the legality of Zelaya's non-binding referenda.
http://counterpunch.com/thorensen07012009.html

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

By the way Sands, this guy says right there that the Constitution does have a device by which the president can be impeached.
Thereby contraticting your earlier asertion that they did not have that ability.

Sorry, it wasn't Sands. It was Nesf.

One of the biggest problems here is that the Honduras Senate cannot impeach or remove a president who they feel is overstepping their authority and this is essentially what the problem is here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61020594&postcount=29
So did you just make that bit up Nesf?

Sand

Here's an article that spells out the legality of Zelaya's non-binding referenda.

Oh wow, I had thought the Supreme Court of Honduras was the expert on constitutional law in Honduras, but clearly ALBERTO VALLENTE THORENSEN of Counterpunch is the highest court in this matter.

There are not enough :rolleyes: emoticons...just not enough.

Those reasons only hold water if the people in said democracy decide so.

You dont "get" checks on populism, do you?

Term limits are a redherring in this instance as it's been shown to you that that is not what was occuring in Honduras.

Do me a favour here. We all agree that Zelaya could already alter 98% of the constitution. The only parts he couldnt were limits on his own power.

Why does he need a national constitutional assembly to replace the existing constitution when he can already alter 98% of it through existing channels?

Honestly, wake up.

Sand, your denigrating views about Leftist leaders are well known to all here.

Where you say Leftist you mean populist anti liberty regimes like Chavez and Castro. I am clearly in favour of liberty,whereas those regimes are against it so I amnt going to have many nice things to say about them.

I wouldnt be too sure about Zelaya's credentials as a community minded social activist either - I dont know the guy but his dad apparently murdered actual social activists back in the mid 70s and dumped down the well of the family ranch. Zelaya wasnt so estranged from his father that he didnt inherit the family business regardless.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

You dont "get" checks on populism, do you?

Oh i "get" your arguement Sand, it's just that I reject it and side with democracy.

Do me a favour here. We all agree that Zelaya could already alter 98% of the constitution.
Why does he need a national constitutional assembly to replace the existing constitution when he can already alter 98% of it through existing channels?

Because the constitution of 1982 was created after a military coup and needs some updating. Or least it's possible that the people of Honduras would like to see it changed, and that's what Zelaya was asking in a non-binding referendum.

Where you say Leftist you mean populist anti liberty regimes like Chavez and Castro. I am clearly in favour of liberty,whereas those regimes are against it so I amnt going to have many nice things to say about them.
I wouldnt be too sure about Zelaya's credentials as a community minded social activist either blah blah blah -insert more redherrings here-.

:rolleyes:

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

There is no mystery as to what Zelaya was attempting, to achieve another Venezeuala where like Chavez all power would be concentrated in his hands. Luckily it was nipped in the bud.

Your two main criticisms of Zelaya seem to be that he's leftist and he was attempting a power grab through a non binding referendum that would influence or change no laws. The rightist coup made an Actual power grab, yet you are not critical of that, in fact you're pretty much praising them. Why is that?

Kama

Mmm, pretty clear divide here, between those who favour their democracy 'raw', the referendum-loving populists, and those who prefer it 'cooked', the representative-democracy liberal democrats. The answers to questions differ depending on which way you ask the question (Lisbon, anyone?), so everyone can happily wrap themselves in a holier-than-thou democratic flag.

As to Honduras itself, my 2c is that both sides did dirt; Zelaya provoked a constitutional crisis, but the transfer of power was illegal (arrest without trial, kidnapping style, forged resignation, etc). For me, the second outweighs the first, by a long shot.

The foundational question is whether Honduarans have the right to reform their constitution if not, why, and if so, how? The more pressing and practical question is how civil war can be prevented; with an already polarized country, dubiously-legal moves like this are a step closer to the abyss.