Well I want to take a break from slow-going Iran coverage to post a little something about events in Honduras and make a larger point about many Latin American countries and other "tempestuous" democracies.
The basics of the situation in Honduras are as follows: The President, a Mr Zelaya (or former President depending on your opinion) had pushed for a constitutional convention. According to Zelaya, this was to try and address the power of international commercial interests in Honduras. According to the opposition (and I say opposition but actually mean the legislature, courts and the military) this was part of an attempt to remove term limits (the constitution permits only a single 4 year term for presidents) and generally progress the chavezizing of the country. The existing constitution apparently (I say "apparently" because I can't find an english version and my spanish is somewhere between non-existent and awful) makes it illegal for an official to try to remove term limits. As the constitution also empowers the military to act in it's defence, Mr Zelaya was knocked off by the military (following a decision of the constitutional court, which ruled that he ought to be), put on a plane and sent into exile. The legislature has now appointed an interim successor.
I'm not going to pass judgement on Zelaya or his intentions, by all accounts he had become profoundly unpopular in Honduras and given the level of institutional opposition to him that is now apparent, I don't see it as likely that he would have been able to end term limits (presuming of course he ever wanted to) let alone do anything more radical, and even if he had removed term limits, he seemed to be in a poor position to win reelection, and without the necessary control over the state to steal the result.
But I do think it was a huge mistake to throw him out. It may have been legal (of course some would argue it is legal by definition because a court backed it, but we quibble) and it may indeed have been a way to remove a potentially dangerous chavista figure from office. Given the crooked nonsense Ortega has pulled in Nicaragua (not to mention Daddy Hugo himself) these people did have a reasonable basis to be worried. But this is a man who clearly has not penetrated the "deep state" and his Liberal Party, a more than century old organization, does not seem to me to be the kind of mass based movement-party that was instrumental in ensuring the rise of folks like Morales and Ortega. I have trouble seeing him converting his current position into anything particularly threatening, even if he had wanted to.
The problem with many Latin American countries, and many other countries around the globe, is that it is thoroughly dangerous to have a situation where the deep state runs for the barracks as soon as an elected offical spooks them. It prevents the establishment of real, functional politics. Look at the last 50 years of Turkish History, or the last 20 of Thailand's. When conservatives (where conservative is here defined as persons aligned with the institutional ideology and interests of the state, and opposed to their being changed) don't have to actually participate in politics to achieve their goals, parties to do so fail to develop, or develop poorly. By the same token so long as radical (where radical is defined as well... it should be obvious) politicians are tossed out whenever they try to do anything, instead of being dealt with using democratic processes, their constituency (which in the highly unequal countries of Latin America, are many) will continue to be susceptible to radical anti-system rhetoric, and will never become accustomed to the idea that the liberal democratic process can actually bring meaningful results for them.
Whether it's the Kemalists VS the AKP in Turkey, populist champions of rural Thailand VS the Bangkok elite, Latin American judges and generals VS Neo-Populists, or whatever else, the fighting between these groups and the failure to deal with them within the political, electoral realsm, distorts politics and endangers the stability of the state. Though they may well have had the best intentions in doing so, Honduras's generals have just set the progress of their country back years. And the most succesful Latin American countries will continue to be those like Brazil, where the radicals have been shown they can succeed within the system, and the conservatives have let them.
Ultimately it is wiser for all factions within society to remain in contact with the democratic institutions of state until it becomes ABSOLUTELY necessary for them to use other means. Stable democratic politics cannot come either from the barrel of a gun or the writ of a judge. Rather they emerge from the acceptance by all people that their interests can and will be represented by peaceful participation in democratic institutions.
The basics of the situation in Honduras are as follows: The President, a Mr Zelaya (or former President depending on your opinion) had pushed for a constitutional convention. According to Zelaya, this was to try and address the power of international commercial interests in Honduras. According to the opposition (and I say opposition but actually mean the legislature, courts and the military) this was part of an attempt to remove term limits (the constitution permits only a single 4 year term for presidents) and generally progress the chavezizing of the country. The existing constitution apparently (I say "apparently" because I can't find an english version and my spanish is somewhere between non-existent and awful) makes it illegal for an official to try to remove term limits. As the constitution also empowers the military to act in it's defence, Mr Zelaya was knocked off by the military (following a decision of the constitutional court, which ruled that he ought to be), put on a plane and sent into exile. The legislature has now appointed an interim successor.
I'm not going to pass judgement on Zelaya or his intentions, by all accounts he had become profoundly unpopular in Honduras and given the level of institutional opposition to him that is now apparent, I don't see it as likely that he would have been able to end term limits (presuming of course he ever wanted to) let alone do anything more radical, and even if he had removed term limits, he seemed to be in a poor position to win reelection, and without the necessary control over the state to steal the result.
But I do think it was a huge mistake to throw him out. It may have been legal (of course some would argue it is legal by definition because a court backed it, but we quibble) and it may indeed have been a way to remove a potentially dangerous chavista figure from office. Given the crooked nonsense Ortega has pulled in Nicaragua (not to mention Daddy Hugo himself) these people did have a reasonable basis to be worried. But this is a man who clearly has not penetrated the "deep state" and his Liberal Party, a more than century old organization, does not seem to me to be the kind of mass based movement-party that was instrumental in ensuring the rise of folks like Morales and Ortega. I have trouble seeing him converting his current position into anything particularly threatening, even if he had wanted to.
The problem with many Latin American countries, and many other countries around the globe, is that it is thoroughly dangerous to have a situation where the deep state runs for the barracks as soon as an elected offical spooks them. It prevents the establishment of real, functional politics. Look at the last 50 years of Turkish History, or the last 20 of Thailand's. When conservatives (where conservative is here defined as persons aligned with the institutional ideology and interests of the state, and opposed to their being changed) don't have to actually participate in politics to achieve their goals, parties to do so fail to develop, or develop poorly. By the same token so long as radical (where radical is defined as well... it should be obvious) politicians are tossed out whenever they try to do anything, instead of being dealt with using democratic processes, their constituency (which in the highly unequal countries of Latin America, are many) will continue to be susceptible to radical anti-system rhetoric, and will never become accustomed to the idea that the liberal democratic process can actually bring meaningful results for them.
Whether it's the Kemalists VS the AKP in Turkey, populist champions of rural Thailand VS the Bangkok elite, Latin American judges and generals VS Neo-Populists, or whatever else, the fighting between these groups and the failure to deal with them within the political, electoral realsm, distorts politics and endangers the stability of the state. Though they may well have had the best intentions in doing so, Honduras's generals have just set the progress of their country back years. And the most succesful Latin American countries will continue to be those like Brazil, where the radicals have been shown they can succeed within the system, and the conservatives have let them.
Ultimately it is wiser for all factions within society to remain in contact with the democratic institutions of state until it becomes ABSOLUTELY necessary for them to use other means. Stable democratic politics cannot come either from the barrel of a gun or the writ of a judge. Rather they emerge from the acceptance by all people that their interests can and will be represented by peaceful participation in democratic institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment