28 of 30 - Honduran Presidency

[aggienaut]

   So, apparently, the president of Honduras has been removed. He wanted to hold a referendum on changing the constitution so he could run for another term, but not only does the constitution say he can't have another term, it also says that he can't CHANGE that clause. So the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do that, and the congress told him he couldn't do that, and the military told him he couldn't do that (so he fired the chief of the military, but the Supreme Court reinstated him) ... but he wanted to go ahead with it anyway.

   So the Supreme Court authorized the military to remove him and drop him off in Costa Rica. And then following the established rules of succession the head of his party in congress was sworn in (the VP had apparently resigned in 2008).

   At least Hugo Chavez says he'll still be his buddy, lol.

   So... I'm not sure this is even a coup d'etat, if all three branches of government worked together on it and the Supreme Court of their country thinks it's the way to go. Thoughts?

[Poll #1422630]


   Also, compare this to 2005 when the Bolivian congress REJECTED the resignation of the then-President. If I recall correctly the President resigned and so did the VP and the head of congress flatly refused to take the position so the chief justice became the acting president. Silly!

Comments

[guabili.livejournal.com]

It's both a coup d'etat and a legitimate action. A military coup d'etat (often shortened to simply "military coup") is usually the scary kind, where a military force removes the government against the will of all branches. Plz observe:

"Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État."

--

Coups.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Yes but the implication there is still that it's illegitimate. If an election is held and the Elections Committee displaces the former governor from his/her control of the government it's considered normal. If the congress followed indisputable impeachment procedures to displace the president from his control of government it wouldn't be considered a coup...

And I'm not saying this is not a coup, which is why "condemnable" is a key word in my poll question. The question at hand is specifically "is this condemnable" or is this legitimate.


...I need to get that coup handbook though :D

Re: Coups.

[guabili.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if something like that occurred in the States, no matter how totally the other branches of gov't agreed, it would be absurd. My guess, given that it's Latin America, is that there is either no really "proper" procedure set up for this type of thing, or it would be too convoluted to get into, so they just went with the coup.

I don't know a whole lot about Honduran politics or Zelaya in particular, but from what I've read, I think this was a legitimate move. Bear in mind, though, anyone Chavez approves of automatically loses like, sixty thousand points in my book.

--

Re: Coups.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Haha and as I noted, Chavez has promised he'll still be best buddies with him. But then again Chavez himself held a "shall I be president for life?" referendum (which failed).

I looked at the wikipedia entry before making this entry, it noted that "there wasn't a viable way to impeach the president" ... so I'm not sure what the dealio with that was, because it sounds like if it was just a 2/3rds of senate thing they'd have had it -- sounds like he wasn't too popular with the congress and all.

A condemnable coup d'etat!

[shannonkringen.livejournal.com]

in insane! i think it's wrong and illegal to remove him! i agree with hugo chavez and Evo Morales

Costa Rica

[giographix.livejournal.com]

Costa Ricans don't want him. I speak on behalf of all my peeps. Let Nicaragua have him.

[fsk8ing-judge.livejournal.com]

I voted for legitimate action. I tried not to over-think it, and just decided it was not a coup d-etat as the military authorized the removal and it was not unconstitutional as he was trying to tinker with the constitution and their military is sworn to uphold it. But poor Costa Rica, now they are stuck with him. For the time being, at least.

[emo-snal.livejournal.com]

That's a good way of looking it. If the military is tasked with protecting the constitution, but is presumed to be the bad guy if they DO and the president is presumed to always be the good guy, who's protecting the constitution???

It sounds like that's really exactly what the army did in this case. They're tasked with safeguarding the elections materials, so the first stage of this was the president demanding they bring them out. The military refused, so he sacked the head of the military. Then the Supreme Court said no the military was right and reinstated him. So it sounds like the other bodies of government did exactly what they were supposed to.

Then the president proceeded to where the military was keeping the elections materials, backed by national police and crowds of supporters, and took possession of the material. So...