If Barack Obama is to deplore the coup d'etat in Honduras, so must he
also deplore the erosion of democracy in Venezuela and the mushrooming
leftist governments in the region as a whole.
Monday, July 06, 2009
By Luis Fleishman
The June 28, 2009 coup d'état in Honduras that deposed President Manuel
Zelaya was the result of a decision by Honduras president Manuel Zelaya
to hold a referendum aimed at seeking re-election. The move was
considered a violation of the Honduras 1982 constitution that forbids an
extension of the presidential four-year term limit. The electoral court,
the Supreme Court, the attorney general, and Congress declared Zelaya's
initiative illegal. Despite this, Mr. Zelaya decided to go ahead with
the referendum. This is when the military stepped in. However, this was
no classical coup or power grab. This coup transferred power to the
President of the Honduras Congress, a member of the liberal party, the
party of Zelaya himself.
Yet this coup has raised international concern. Brazilian President Lula
Da Silva stated that he will not recognize any other president except
Zelaya. Most countries in Latin America echoed Lula's sentiment.
President Obama also indicated the inadmissibility of deposing an
elected president.
Let us face one truth. Coup d'états no doubt look and sound like the
opposite of democracy because in fact they depose an elected president
or leader by force. The traumas of the 1970's, particularly after the
1973 coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende and the distress
caused by a possible U.S. support for the coup as well as U.S. support
for all the South American military dictatorships has generated among us
a natural rejection for such actions.
It is good that the U.S. no longer supports classic coups even though
the word "regime change" still floats around certain corridors of
Washington.
Yet, what the U.S. State Department, the Obama Administration and the
rest of the Latin American countries have not yet publicly acknowledged
is the inadmissibility of creating a dictatorship using democratic
practices as a means for despotic ends. We have seen that time and time
again, in Nazi Germany, in Hamas-run Gaza, and now in Venezuela.
Zelaya argued that the Honduran constitution protects a corrupt system
of government that excludes the poor, although he has not specified what
changes he will seek. He called a non-binding referendum on the issue of
constitutional reform. Zelaya did so despite a decision by the Supreme
Court and by the Honduras Congress not to hold the referendum. The goal
of such referendum, according to Zelaya himself, was to begin a
consultation with the purpose of commencing to move from a
"representative democracy to a participatory democracy."
What does this high-sounding sound-bite really mean? In very simple
words, what Zelaya had attempted was to repeat the debacle of Venezuela,
Ecuador and Bolivia. The formula is simple: social problems cannot be
solved under the current constitution. Solution: a new constitution
would eventually provide maximum power to the elected leader. Congress
is useless unless it supports the goal of the president and the goals of
the President are to impose social justice from above without
congressional debate and with direct support from the people. Congress,
that embodies the mechanism through which debate takes place while
taking into consideration a number of interests and groups, is perceived
by these reformers as nothing but an obstacle to the goals of those
leaders who believe in the absolute rightness of their social and
political program. Therefore, participatory democracy means that the
people vote to give full powers to the president to carry out the will
of the majority. Thus, participatory democracy is only the act of
voting. After that there is no more participation because participation
is embedded in the will of the president. In fact, there is not even a
need for debate, or discussion. In other words, this is a dictatorship
legitimized by popular vote, a plebiscitary tyranny.
The Organization of American States under the grey and mediocre
leadership of Miguel Insulza backed Zelaya even before the coup took
place. On Friday June 26, 2009, the OAS and all the countries backed
Zelaya even after the Supreme Court and Congress made a decision not to
support a referendum that Zelaya conveyed a few days before. Such a
hasty decision to hold a referendum not only reduces the time needed to
hold the debate but also the 1982 Honduran constitution states that "any
politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from
public service for 10 years."
Thus, the OAS interfered in the internal affairs in Honduras in favor of
a president with a despotic project. The fact that referendums and
elections have taken place in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia is not a
reflection of democratic practices but a reflection of the will of
dictators to consolidate power via popular referendums while skipping
institutional democratic procedure.
Countries in Latin America have always been morally weak and they are
getting worse as time goes by. Brazilian President Lula Da Silva
declared, without any foundation, that the recent presidential elections
in Iran were fair and there was no fraud. Lula, who during the Brazilian
dictatorship of the 1970's, wished that the international community
would speak against it, showed little sensitivity towards the people of
Iran who courageously confronted a highly repressive theocracy.
Likewise, he signed, along with Arab countries a joint- resolution
defending the genocidal policies of the government of Sudan against the
people of Darfur. Lula, rejoiced over the economic crisis of the Western
countries stating that the recession was caused by "blond white people"
and has shown that he is unable to move beyond the narrow-minded and
obsolete anti-imperialism of the third world. Additionally, his
tolerance and sometimes promotion of Hugo Chavez is worrisome. It
reflects his inability to lead a modernizing, emerging country like
Brazil and less so to be a reliable regional leader.
Furthermore, Latin American countries have pressured to accept Cuba into
the OAS while ignoring the demolition of democracy at the hands of Hugo
Chavez. He destroyed congress and subjugated the courts and the national
electoral council to presidential prerogatives. He restricted freedom of
the press and persecuted press institutions that criticized him. He took
over local governments that were not part of his party or movement, and
then persecuted and forced into exile political opponents. Now he is
also using common criminals to assassinate union leaders who "dare" to
act independently of his will. The democratic charter of the OAS do not
seem to be worthy of the paper it is written on. Latin American leaders
have destroyed it.
The moral character of current Latin American leaders is deplorable.
President Barack Obama cannot manage policy in this continent by
pleasing the prevailing moral light-weight approach in Latin America.
Furthermore, the model that President Zelaya pursues is usually followed
by a foreign and regional policy that includes alliances with Iran,
links to drug cartels and a systematic policy aimed at expelling U.S.
influence in the region. In fact, as I write these lines reports have
emerged that president Zelaya may have allowed tons of cocaine to be
flown into Honduras on its way to the United States, allegedly to
circumvent Mexico's government crack down on cartels. According to the
allegations, the shipments were carried by Venezuelan planes.
If President Obama is to deplore the coup in Honduras, he must do the
same with the Chavez-inspired new dictatorships. He will also have to
use his influence to help the continent move away from the
anti-democratic practices promoted by Hugo Chavez and his allies. To
date, the President has espoused a foreign policy that is basically a
public relations policy with needless expressions of admiration in
hyperbole for mediocre leaders, seemingly unconcerned by the dangers
mentioned above.
Luis Fleischman write forThe Cutting Edge News and is Senior Advisor to
the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy.
An End to Dictatorship in Latin America | Spero News (7 July 2009)
http://www.speroforum.com/a/19797/An-End-to-Dictatorship-in-Latin-America
No comments:
Post a Comment