Attorney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
Debates: Hashing Out Honduras
Many have condemned the military ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a brutal, undemocratic coup; others have praised it as a necessary measure to stop a power-hungry leader from unconstitutionally extending his rule. Most of the Western world sides with the former camp, though Canada has remained conspicuously quiet about the event. Was the military right in overthrowing Zelaya? If so, were the methods of the coup justified? And more generally, when, if ever, should a country suspend democracy to protect its constitution or its people?
Cool with the Coup
Cold to the Coup
Assistant Professor of international development studies, Dalhousie University.
The Positions
President Zelaya tried for an illegal power grab, and failed. Why is his removal being slammed as a coup, instead of praised as a victory against a would-be dictator?
Those who believe the military brutality in Honduras is justified by the country's constitution are making the mistake of putting abstract ideas ahead of people.
The Rebuttals
The military government in Honduras may well be operating with an unnecessarily heavy fist, but that doesn’t make the country a police state.
The Honduran military may have the best democratic intentions for the country, but their brutality in defence of an unfair constitution cannot be justified.
Re:Marks
You must be logged in to comment.
Click here to log in, or register
“ Re: The Constitutional Coup, I agree with the content except for one thing. Mel Zelaya has through both words and actions repeatedly and brazenly called for violence in Honduras to ensure his return as President. So I believe Mr. Mader wrongly faults the interim government and the military for the few deaths that have occurred. Murillo's was the direct result of Zelaya, with the full backing of the OAS, to force himself on Hondurans who obviously don't want their criminal ex-president back. The pro-Zelaya protester killed near Las Manos also was there because he was beckoned by Mel knowing full well he was risking the lives of those who showed up. Mel's cavalier disregard for the welfare of his fellow Hondurans prove his "man of the people" line is nothing but lip service. Just like in other dictatorships (right or left wing), the poor will not prosper because they are simply a tool for the political aspirations of the powerful. No one is prepared to provide the tools needed to really help the poor: education and birth control. One other thing: because no one talks about this, I remain concerned about the presence of so many foreigners in Honduras...who funded Mel's channel 8 24/7 reality show prior to June 28th? None of the "anchors" talked like any of the many Hondurans I know. The foreigners presence also calls into question what/who really caused the few deaths....the military is not the only suspect here, protester deaths are great propaganda. And Zelaya badly needs to keep the propaganda alive.
“ I know I'm fighting a rearguard action here, but I'd like to point out that - headlines notwithstanding - I don't actually believe what happened in Honduras was a coup, at least inasmuch as coup is a shorthand for 'coup d'etat,' which is in turn defined (per the Oxford English Dictionary) as "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power." The crux of my position is that the change in government (viz. the removal of Zelaya from office, as distinguished from his removal from Honduras) was neither violent nor illegal, but was instead achieved by order of the Supreme Court and direction of the Attorney General under the Constitution. Of course 'coup' has become a bit of a shorthand for any tumultuous governmental change, and there's no denying that events have been tumultuous. But because the term goes to the heart of my disagreement with Prof. Huish, I think it's important to point out.
David Mader
Attorney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP