Notes of a Brooklyn Sun

You might have missed it because the level of coverage that it’s received nationally has been sparse at best but there was a “coup d’etat” in Honduras. As coups that involve the military go, this one was a “relatively” bloodless process. Being of Haitian descent, I think I know a thing or two about the history of these sort of things. Though, there does seem to be some disagreement of how gingerly the soldiers who abducted the President (in his pajamas no less) dragged him from his bedroom. One thing was clear from the onset, both sides were preparing to dig in.

Coup leaders (Robert Micheletti), members of President Manuel Zelaya’s own Liberal Party, immediately took credit along with military commanders for having engineered the ouster of the sitting President. Immediately there was polarization not among politicians (the opposition party not having done much opposing), but among the citizenry that they claimed to be representing. The  coup leaders had a strong general base of  support amongst Honduras’ wealthy and middle classes, which included the business elite and politicians. This gave them enough presence and confidence to press forward. However, in a country of 7.3 million where 59% of the people live below the poverty line, what the hell does that really mean?

“One woman started a kind of kaffeeklatsch with her high-powered friends that grew into the driving force behind a movement that toppled the Honduran president. The other preferred to stay out of politics until the president’s ouster compelled her to protest.”

“Between them is a yawning political and socioeconomic divide that still threatens the stability of what was once one of the United States’ principal staging grounds in Latin America during the cold war. And what they have to say about how this country’s political crisis began — and about the sacrifices they are willing to make to defend their views — leaves little hope that it will end any time soon.”

This coup has never really been about Manuel Zelaya though he does paint himself as a figure to be loved or hated. President Manuel Zelaya circumvented the Honduran Constitution: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions.” This alone could have led to his legal ouster but given the relatively little time that was left of his term, it was highly unlikely. It’s debateable whether or not Zelayas moves to have the constitution altered were sufficient evidence to remove him from power. Clearly the man was on a path that was threatening to not only the oligarchy but all those in his way. Aligning with Chavez and taking on the courts was not a move that was going to be seen as gaining him political capital with anyone he needed to play ball with. Still, those who were simply of the population and were not connected enough to help him navigate his mess figured he did indeed do one or seven things right.

Edward Schumacher-Matos  argues in “A Coup for Democracy?” that the issue is simply with the lines of legitimacy and democracy being blurred. People don’t often realize that there can be one without the other. If you follow his logic, actions must be taken against someone who is democratically elected but ceases to act “legitimately”. The problem with his argument is actually one he brought up but didn’t apply to this specific issue. He made the claim that the Honduran government was under assault for their coup actions mainly because of the speed in which it took place and the size. Had Honduras been a larger state then the actions would have been more of a constitutional crisis and not a coup at all. I’d make the claim that if larger states took the same action each and every time a leader stepped out of the bounds of legitimacy, the world would be a coup stricken battlefield (and not just ones backed by the CIA).

The he said / she said of the matter not withstanding where do the people of Honduras fit in? They exist in a hemisphere where they are the third  poorest and one in which is dominated by the United States of America constantly sounding the drumbeat of democracy. Who better to defend a democracy  than a patriot? Who in Honduras is a patriot? Is it the former Vice-President who claims she was trying to prevent a “meglomaniac” from using his powers and popularity to “dissolve the other branches of government and to rewrite the Constitution in order to extend his presidency”? Or is it the school teacher who says that “the president’s ouster was an attack on her own freedom” ? Of the protest she says  “This is not about President Zelaya … this is about my country. Many people gave their lives so that we could have a democracy. And we cannot let a group of elites take that away.” When it comes to Honduras the issues of democracy, legitimacy, and patriotism collide in such a way that it’s very difficult for anyone to stand on the side of right and be 100% right. When Jefferson Davis presided over the Confederacy during the Civil War did he not still think himself a patriot of the United States of America? Is fighting the only way for one to prove oneself a patriot or is it working the system until it benefits you that qualifies you as a true citizen? In the end, sometimes right is simply wrong.

Whatever the case may be, with the recent election of Porfirio Lobo as President of Honduras and the United States sending signals that they will overlook the coup and recognize him, it’s not long before other countries do as well legitimizing the coup. Read more in this New Yorker piece below about the causes, the day by day and the opinions of many on the coup: