Return democracy to Honduras
Latin America has had more than its fill of coups d'etat. Lest we turn back the clock to a bygone era of might makes right, the latest Latin coup -- the forcible overthrow in June of Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected president of Honduras -- must not be permitted to stand.
In enacting the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001, the Organization of American States committed itself to a new era of democracy. It authorized its governing body to suspend from membership any country where there is an "unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order." After Zelaya's ouster, the OAS swiftly -- and rightly -- suspended Honduras by a vote of 33-0.
The OAS thus joined the United Nations and every government in the hemisphere in condemning the coup. The Obama administration has made it clear that the U.S. supports the international consensus. While wisely deferring to the OAS to lead diplomatic efforts to restore Zelaya to office,Washington has suspended aid to Honduras and canceled the visas of leading coup supporters.
Apologists for the coup -- in Honduras and the U.S. Congress-- grasp at constitutional straws to claim that the overthrow of Zelaya was somehow lawful.
The facts belie their claim. President Zelaya was seized by the Honduran military in the early morning hours of June 28 and forced, pajama clad, onto a flight to Costa Rica. Coup supporters now acknowledge that this was a "mistake." In fact, it was much worse: The constitution of Honduras forbids expatriating any citizen, let alone the elected president, to another country.
Defenders of the coup argue that Zelaya was a menace to Honduran democracy and was scheming to amend the constitution to allow his re-election. At the time of his ouster, criminal charges had been filed against him, and a judge had supposedly ordered the military to arrest him.
If so, the proper course was to give him his day in court. Instead, hours after the army forcibly exiled him, the Honduran Congress purported to depose him. It had no power to do so. Although the constitution formerly authorized Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against a president, an amendment in 2003 removed that power.
Undaunted, coup supporters cite a constitutional provision stating that anyone who advocates presidential re-election shall "immediately" cease to hold office. But this invocation rewrites history. The congressional decree deposing Zelaya cited a laundry list of constitutional provisions. This was not among them.
Moreover, according to this theory, Zelaya had already removed himself from office (by maneuvering to allow presidential re-election) before Congress acted to remove him. Under this theory, then, Congress voted to remove someone who was no longer president.
More fundamentally, this assertion of a "self-executing" removal overlooks a basic principle of democracy: due process of law. At minimum, President Zelaya -- and the majority of voters who elected him -- were entitled to a hearing before being denied the fruits of their electoral victory.
More recently, coup supporters, citing an analysis by a researcher for the U.S. Law Library of Congress, have seized upon a different argument. The analysis wisely ignores the argument that Zelaya removed himself from office. Instead, it speculates that the Honduran Congress "apparently" and "implicitly" interpreted its constitutional power to "approve or disapprove" executive conduct to empower it also to remove a president from office.
This is an astounding stretch of language. Neither in Spanish nor in English does the word "disapprove" import a power to remove from office. If this counts as reasoned constitutional analysis, then any coup d'etat could aspire to justify itself by distortion of language.
At issue is whether the hemisphere, once and for all, puts behind it the use of force and constitutional chicanery to topple elected leaders. Those who call for restoring normal relations with the illegitimate regime in Honduras do democracy no favor.What is needed is a single, clear message: Coups d'etat are no longer tolerated in the Americas.
Doug Cassel is director of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at Notre Dame Law School and president of the Due Process of Law Foundation, which promotes judicial reform in the Americas
In enacting the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001, the Organization of American States committed itself to a new era of democracy. It authorized its governing body to suspend from membership any country where there is an "unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order." After Zelaya's ouster, the OAS swiftly -- and rightly -- suspended Honduras by a vote of 33-0.
The OAS thus joined the United Nations and every government in the hemisphere in condemning the coup. The Obama administration has made it clear that the U.S. supports the international consensus. While wisely deferring to the OAS to lead diplomatic efforts to restore Zelaya to office,Washington has suspended aid to Honduras and canceled the visas of leading coup supporters.
Apologists for the coup -- in Honduras and the U.S. Congress-- grasp at constitutional straws to claim that the overthrow of Zelaya was somehow lawful.
The facts belie their claim. President Zelaya was seized by the Honduran military in the early morning hours of June 28 and forced, pajama clad, onto a flight to Costa Rica. Coup supporters now acknowledge that this was a "mistake." In fact, it was much worse: The constitution of Honduras forbids expatriating any citizen, let alone the elected president, to another country.
Defenders of the coup argue that Zelaya was a menace to Honduran democracy and was scheming to amend the constitution to allow his re-election. At the time of his ouster, criminal charges had been filed against him, and a judge had supposedly ordered the military to arrest him.
If so, the proper course was to give him his day in court. Instead, hours after the army forcibly exiled him, the Honduran Congress purported to depose him. It had no power to do so. Although the constitution formerly authorized Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against a president, an amendment in 2003 removed that power.
Undaunted, coup supporters cite a constitutional provision stating that anyone who advocates presidential re-election shall "immediately" cease to hold office. But this invocation rewrites history. The congressional decree deposing Zelaya cited a laundry list of constitutional provisions. This was not among them.
Moreover, according to this theory, Zelaya had already removed himself from office (by maneuvering to allow presidential re-election) before Congress acted to remove him. Under this theory, then, Congress voted to remove someone who was no longer president.
More fundamentally, this assertion of a "self-executing" removal overlooks a basic principle of democracy: due process of law. At minimum, President Zelaya -- and the majority of voters who elected him -- were entitled to a hearing before being denied the fruits of their electoral victory.
More recently, coup supporters, citing an analysis by a researcher for the U.S. Law Library of Congress, have seized upon a different argument. The analysis wisely ignores the argument that Zelaya removed himself from office. Instead, it speculates that the Honduran Congress "apparently" and "implicitly" interpreted its constitutional power to "approve or disapprove" executive conduct to empower it also to remove a president from office.
This is an astounding stretch of language. Neither in Spanish nor in English does the word "disapprove" import a power to remove from office. If this counts as reasoned constitutional analysis, then any coup d'etat could aspire to justify itself by distortion of language.
At issue is whether the hemisphere, once and for all, puts behind it the use of force and constitutional chicanery to topple elected leaders. Those who call for restoring normal relations with the illegitimate regime in Honduras do democracy no favor.What is needed is a single, clear message: Coups d'etat are no longer tolerated in the Americas.
Doug Cassel is director of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at Notre Dame Law School and president of the Due Process of Law Foundation, which promotes judicial reform in the Americas
No comments:
Post a Comment