Constitutional Democracy in Honduras

Appears to have survived Chávezism, at least temporarily. From the New York Times:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Porfirio Lobo, a longtime conservative politician, appeared to have won on Sunday in the Honduran presidential election, which many hoped could help the country emerge from the crisis caused by last summer's coup and end its isolation.

The Times, of course, distorts the story. What happened last summer did not fit the definition of a coup. A coup is when one government is overthrown by another. In Honduras the military, acting at the request of the Supreme Court, blocked President Manuel Zelaya from conducting an illegal election. The interim government that replaced Zelaya will be replaced in January by the winners of yesterday's election. Some coup.

Zelaya was seeking to become another Hugo Chávez, which is to say, another half-quart Castro. Naturally, Venezuela backed Zelaya, as did the Organization of American States. To date, only Panama and Costa Rica among regional states have agreed to recognize the elected government as legitimate. The U.S. initially supported Zelaya, but the Obama Administration has come around to supporting the new government.

The Left in Latin America and the U.S. instinctive supported Zelaya. The failure of Chávez-style socialism in Honduras is good for the interests of the United States and good for the future of Constitutional Democracy in the region.

Comments

[Roatan]

Recognizing the election are Columbia, Costa Rica, Isreal, Japan, Panama, Peru, United States

[Erik]

KB:
Considering the history of the region, aren't you just a little concerned about the "use" of the military in the coup? Also, don't you think Chavez is more of a populist than socialist? More Peron, than Castro?
Erik

[KB]

Roatan: thanks for the update. I am glad to see Columbia on the list.

Erik: yes, I am concerned about the role that the military played. But a military that acts the request of the Supreme Court and the Congress and then immediately sponsors an election looks like a pretty responsible military to me. And again, I think it is very dubious classification to call this a coup considering that the Congress and Court remained in power, and that it was Zelaya that was trying to override the constitution.

As for Chavez, the difference between populism and socialism in Latin American is mostly a matter of power. If you crossed Castro you ended up dead or in the slammer. If you cross Chavez, you have to watch out for bricks through you window. Still, Chavez is certainly a threat to regional democracy, as would have been Zelaya.

[Lynn]

I cannot for the life of me understand (well, on second thought, considering it's Obama) why the US supported Zelaya when he was the one who decided to commit an illegal act and try to install himself as dictator for life. But maybe Obama has this in mind for himself as well??? And he didn't want to support any effort that would thwart this hope for himself in the future??

[Erik]

KB: And to be fair if you are a Honduran and opposed to the putsch, you could also end up dead, in the slammer, or have a rock threw your window. I found this New Yorker article, written before the questionable election, to be illuminating.
Here is an interview with the author http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/11/william-finnegan-on-the-coup-in-honduras.html
The full text is behind a firewall, but here is the abstract and your local library should have the full text
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/30/091130fa_fact_finnegan
Erik

[KB]

Erik: I didn't have time to read the entire New Yorker piece, but it seemed to be dramatically biased towards Zelaya. It papered over the unconstitutional actions of Zelaya. Thanks for the comment.