Log in

View Full Version : WSJ: Chavez and Honduras



Jimmie Higgins
1st July 2009, 19:21
Watch-out for that crazy radical "one-person, one-vote" brand of democracy!

This Wall St. Journal article does a pretty good job of showing how selectively, "democracy" is supported by the establishment... when it's in the interests of US imperialism it's "democracy" but as soon it moves away from US interests, democracy is "mob rule" and a military coup is "civil society".

-----------------------------------------------

The Wages of Chavismo

The Honduran coup is a reaction to Chávez's rule by the mob.


As military "coups" go, the one this weekend in Honduras was strangely, well, democratic. The military didn't oust President Manuel Zelaya on its own but instead followed an order of the Supreme Court. It also quickly turned power over to the president of the Honduran Congress, a man from the same party as Mr. Zelaya. The legislature and legal authorities all remain intact.

We mention these not so small details because they are being overlooked as the world, including the U.S. President, denounces tiny Honduras in a way that it never has, say, Iran. President Obama is joining the U.N., Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and other model democrats in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return from exile and restored to power. Maybe it's time to sort the real from the phony Latin American democrats.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DZ087_1hondu_D_20090630200520.jpg
Associated Press People against the return of ousted Honduras President Manuel Zelaya participate in a rally at the central park in Tegucigalpa, Tuesday, June 30, 2009.

The situation is messy, and we think the Hondurans would have been smarter -- and better off -- not sending Mr. Zelaya into exile at dawn. Mr. Zelaya was pressing ahead with a nonbinding referendum to demand a constitutional rewrite to let him seek a second four-year term. The attorney general and Honduran courts declared the vote illegal and warned he'd be prosecuted if he followed through. Mr. Zelaya persisted, even leading a violent mob last week to seize and distribute ballots imported from Venezuela. However, the proper constitutional route was to impeach Mr. Zelaya and then arrest him for violating the law.

Yet the events in Honduras also need to be understood in the context of Latin America's decade of chavismo. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez was democratically elected in 1998, but he has since used every lever of power, legal and extralegal, to subvert democracy. He first ordered a rewrite of the constitution that allowed his simple majority in the national assembly grant him the power to rule by decree for one year and to control the judiciary.

In 2004 he packed the Supreme Court with 32 justices from 20. Any judge who rules against his interests can be fired. He made the electoral tribunal that oversees elections his own political tool, denying opposition requests to inspect voter rolls and oversee vote counts. The once politically independent oil company now hires only Chávez allies, and independent television stations have had their licenses revoked.

Mr. Chávez has also exported this brand of one-man-one-vote-once democracy throughout the region. He's succeeded to varying degrees in Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and Nicaragua, where his allies have stretched the law and tried to dominate the media and the courts. Mexico escaped in 2006 when Felipe Calderón linked his leftwing opponent to chavismo and barely won the presidency.

In Honduras Mr. Chávez funneled Veneuzelan oil money to help Mr. Zelaya win in 2005, and Mr. Zelaya has veered increasingly left in his four-year term. The Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single term, which is scheduled to end in January. Mr. Zelaya was using the extralegal referendum as an act of political intimidation to force the Congress to allow a rewrite of the constitution so he could retain power. The opposition had pledged to boycott the vote, which meant that Mr. Zelaya would have won by a landslide.

Such populist intimidation has worked elsewhere in the region, and Hondurans are understandably afraid that, backed by Chávez agents and money, it could lead to similar antidemocratic subversion there. In Tegucigalpa yesterday, thousands demonstrated against Mr. Zelaya, and new deputy foreign minister Marta Lorena Casco told the crowd that "Chávez consumed Venezuela, then Bolivia, after that Ecuador and Nicaragua, but in Honduras that didn't happen."

It's no accident that Mr. Chávez is now leading the charge to have Mr. Zelaya reinstated, and on Monday the Honduran traveled to a leftwing summit in Managua in one of Mr. Chávez's planes. The U.N. and Organization of American States are also threatening the tiny nation with ostracism and other punishment if it doesn't readmit him. Meanwhile, the new Honduran government is saying it will arrest Mr. Zelaya if he returns. This may be the best legal outcome, but it also runs the risk of destabilizing the country. We recall when the Clinton Administration restored Bertrand Aristide to Haiti, only to have the country descend into anarchy.

As for the Obama Administration, it seems eager to "meddle" in Honduras in a way Mr. Obama claimed was counterproductive in Iran. Yet the stolen election in Iran was a far clearer subversion of democracy than the coup in Honduras. As a candidate, Mr. Obama often scored George W. Bush's foreign policy by saying democracy requires more than an election -- a free press, for example, civil society and the rule of law rather than rule by the mob. It's a point worth recalling before Mr. Obama hands a political victory to the forces of chavismo in Latin America.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12

Bright Banana Beard
1st July 2009, 23:16
Typical from bourgeois mouthslut, he actually wants a opinion poll about constitution (never found the word elimination of presidential term by Zelaya but typical bourgeois)to be carry out by military, but the military refused to listen to him, which is direct violation according the constitution. The Congress also accepted the false resignation, which tell you that Congress have the real power and not chavista, otherwise coup will never happen. There is also pro-Zelaya faction in Honduras, telling you the people still want him but the bourgeois media never report this. You can see that in thread ""Coup in Honduras" under politics.

L.J.Solidarity
1st July 2009, 23:38
The perception of the coup in bourgeois media is quite interesting. In Germany, just a few traditionally right-wing newspapers openly support the coup and claim the army saved democracy from evil man-eating communists, while liberal and other privately-owned media denounce the coup and declare that Zelaya is the rightful president. Angela Merkel joined Obama and other leaders in condemning the coup while her own party's think tank (and also that of the market radical FDP) openly claims the coup was completely legitimate.
Looks like different factions of the capital have different opinions on the events, do you know if that's also true in Honduras itself?

Jimmie Higgins
2nd July 2009, 02:51
I posted this article more to point out the hypocrisy of the bourgeois support of "democracy" even in a parliamentary-style government. If the limited democracy we have now gets in the way, then it is suddenly "the mob" and not voters and the need is for a "civil society" not democracy.

Anyway, interesting comments from you both. I don't know about specific splits among the rulers in Honduras, but it is definitely a symptom of the larger split in the Latin American ruling class. Neoliberalism has caused many problems and so some nations have been turning to populist and social-democratic alternatives. The interesting thing for me is how it shows some of the timidness of US imperialism right now. My feeling is that the US probably supported (or, at least, tacitly approved) the coup and then they saw how isolated it was and had to bite its tongue and claim that it is not supporting the coup because it respects the decision of the Organization of the Americas. Some of the Imperialists want to go full-on 80s style to stop populism and Chavez, but the "realist" Imperialists want to rely proxy groups and so, seeing how isolated the coup is, had to go soft in this case.

Guerrilla22
2nd July 2009, 03:25
The military didn't oust President Manuel Zelaya on its own but instead followed an order of the Supreme Court.

*Facepalm* The supreme court ordered Zelaya to reinstate a general, not to step down. And even so, I didn't know it was the job of the military to enforce decisions made by the judiciary. Interesting concept of democracy they have over at the Wall Street Journal.

KurtFF8
2nd July 2009, 05:04
Wait, the WSJ isn't a revolutionary paper and puts out articles opposing leftist gains?!