Bettina Ide *
As a close observer of Latin American political developments both academically and as an activist on the ground, I have closely followed and participated in debates over the ongoing events Honduras. On day ten after the military coup, I feel the need to comment on a theme that keeps reappearing throughout the debate, namely the emphasis that is placed on President Zelaya’s supposed infractions against constitutionality in Honduras. These arguments tend to equate the military overthrow of a democratically elected president with the attempt of Zelaya to gather support for a potential referendum on constitutional reform at the end of his four year term.
Knowing about the history of dictatorships in Latin America and being aware of the terror they have brought upon populations in the region, I am regularly shocked and appalled by the nonchalance with which the overthrow of a democratically elected government by the military is put aside while the president’s attempts to dissolve the political and institutional deadlock in the country are played up to present such an egregious offense. Soldiers locking down the country, blocking every bridge and intersection, completely closing off the capital, pointing their guns at civilians, taking television and radio stations off the air, shutting down phone lines, suspending basic constitutional rights such as habeas corpus and thus holding the entire population hostage – I ask you how could that be an appropriate response to a poll over whether or not the population would be interested in a constitutional referendum? And that is without taking into consideration the history of military terror in the region in general and in Honduras very specifically. But with that in mind, I cannot help myself but to consider arguments that blame Zelaya for the current situation deeply cynical and ideologically blinded.
After studying the political history of the region academically and now living here for a while and gaining first-hand experience, I feel the need to encourage people to question their faith in political institutions per se. I believe that especially those of us who are outside observers have a bias in favor of strong political institutions, often prescribing enduring democratic structures and resolution of political or social conflict within the system of these institutions as the right way. What we often fail to appreciate is that the sound institutional framework necessary for competing political interests to resolve their differences in a cooperative way are simply not given in the Latin American context.
So instead of insisting that Zelaya was usurping the constitutional order, we should start by asking ourselves under what conditions, when, and by whom the current Honduran constitution was written. We should also look into where the Supreme Court Judges that so consistently rule against President Zelaya come from, or more specifically, who appointed them. Very important here is also why the fake letter of resignation, supposedly signed by the President Wednesday before the coup (!!!) does not constitute a problem for that same Supreme Court…
After a few years of observing the political processes here in the region close up and having been privy to personal experience in several of the electoral processes including the elections in El Salvador where I got some real insight into the political maneuvering and horse-trading that took place behind the curtains of the electoral tribunal the night that the results came in, for example, I can say that blind faith in these institutions is misplaced faith. If you believe that these institutions function independently and autonomously, think again. In most cases they are direct extensions of the same political interests that have always tried to mold the political and economic fate of these countries in their own best interest. In that sense this conflict is very much a manifestation of a continent-wide confrontation between the traditional oligarchic Right and the resurgent Left. I absolutely disagree, however, portrayals that Venezuela’s evil president, as the ringleader of a populist, anti-democratic Left, is pulling the strings in Honduras trying to hurl the region into chaos. The political confrontation in Honduras is very much a homemade conflict, involving sufficient grievances that no outside involvement was necessary to make this situation explode.
Instead of blindly or cynically maintaining a bias in favor of existing institutions, we should perhaps consider what we mean by democracy. Zelaya was not trying to have a poll on whether the population would be interested in having a referendum that would institute him as life-long dictator. The poll would have allowed the possibility to have a referendum on the reform of the constitution and among other things that need to be changed enable the possibility to run for a second term! Let’s be very clear about that. Most presidents in the world get to run for a second term. Additionally, whatever would have come out of this process would have needed to be ratified by the Congress at various stages of the process anyway. I ask those of you who blame Zelaya for supposedly violating the constitutional order why that is such a horrible offense? Are those who are in favor of maintaining the current constitutional order at all costs (and the costs are very high) against the idea that a democracy should allow for the political manifestation of the will of the people? And if one considers that the Honduran political system as it has existed since only 1982 is obviously not working in favor of the broad masses of the population (see, to name but a few, poverty and economic inequality indicators) the question arises – at least for me – whether it might not be time to reform the system. Especially in the Latin American context, in which the politically powerful have always been the financial oligarchy which used whatever means necessary to disempower, disenfranchise, and oppress the people.
Does it not rather seem that the pure attempt to awaken popular interest in the destiny of the country and -in the process- giving the population a sense of empowerment that they do indeed have a say in how they want their constitutional order to work for them, is what is really the egregious offense that President Zelaya is guilty of? Do we not believe that the source of power in a democratic system should lie with people? There are plenty who do not think so, and they are especially numerous among the ranks of the Latin American oligarchies and militaries, but we would hardly consider them democrats, would we?
If that is not enough to make one question the legitimacy of the current order, then the violent and horrific means that have been employed by these factions in the past, and the utter disregard for life, human rights and any kind of democratic order, which -as demonstrated last week – is alive and well, should be enough to conclude who is in the right and who is in the wrong here.
I think that some of the people who fear challenges to the existing political order in Latin America are motivated by an honest belief in democracy and constitutional order for the purpose of guaranteeing the best possible political representation for the largest section of the population. But if that is so, they need to stop closing their eyes to the fact that that ideal situation is not given, and is in fact, very far from being achieved in many countries. The thing that is new is that the historically oppressed and disenfranchised majorities in the region are able to rally and insist on shaping the political arena in their interest.
One may have quarrels with the way this is done in some situations, but to this I say two things: Do not underestimate how biased and often plain wrong the information is that comes out through the mainstream media. Really, I encourage everyone to seek deeper than the most obvious newspapers and television networks. What have you to lose? I am one of those people who is slowly and finally learning some of this. And secondly, I simply cannot identify the threat that the newly powerful Left presents to democracy in the region. Where have the new leftist governments endangered the democratic order? What I see is an expansion of the political arena, I see mobilized peoples insisting on their rights and their participation in the political process, voting their own representatives into power, writing new constitutions and resisting an economic model that is not working in their interest.
It is the traditionally powerful economic actors in the region that cannot accept that. They are the ones who would rather start a civil war than concede some economic and political power. They are the ones who would rather shoot at the population than grant them access to the political arena. They are the ones who wield the terms of democracy and constitution in the most sinister and cynical way like a magic shield because it blinds us so easily. Question it. At least question it.
* Bettina Ide has a master’s degree in Political Science, Political Economy and Social Movements in Latin America. Media Justice Center-Costa Rica.
