Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Supporting a Military Coup....In the name of "Democracy"


What a perfect example of the ridiculousness of the Venezuelan opposition. A little over a week ago, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped by the Honduran military and forced out of the country, in what has been condemned almost unanimously as an illegal military coup d'état. The United Nations, the Organization of American States, the European Union, and virtually every nation in the Western Hemisphere condemned the coup and demanded the reinstatement of Zelaya to the presidency.

But, remarkably, the Venezuelan opposition pundits have shown their enthusiastic support for this illegal coup. They hate to be labeled "golpistas", yet they support "golpes" with enthusiastic support, and a total manipulation of the facts. Here are a few examples:

"How can a coup where it seems that the coupsters may get away with it be a bonus for democracy in this continent? Very simple: for the first time perhaps in our troubled history, South of the Rio Grande there is grudging acknowledgment that there are three powers of state which in theory are equal. If anything the Honduras coup would have been worth because it touched to our sacrosanct presidential superiority, a danger that even the US must on occasion be reminded of."

-- Daniel of Venezuela News and Views blog

"Sunday's coup in Honduras has been portrayed as a throwback to the bad old days when Latin American armies got drafted in as the ultimate umpires of political conflict. But in arresting president Manuel Zelaya in his pajamas and putting him on the first plane out of the country, Honduras's generals were acting out of fear of a genuine and growing threat to Latin Democracy: the looming prospect of unchecked, hyper-empowered executive power held for life by a single, charismatic individual."
-- Francisco Toro of CaracasChoronicles blog


"The Honduran constitution clearly states that Zelaya ousted himself from the presidency the very moment he proposed to reform the article of the constitution. The military carried out an arrest warrant dictaed by the supreme court. The unconstitutional act the military committed was to take the arrested ex-president out of the country (i.e., paraphrasing, the constitution states that no citizen shall be forced-handed to another nation). Legally, the moment of the arrest was not unconstitutional, and was not an ousting. The moment the ex-president is handed over to another nation was unconstitutional, but still not an ousting. Naming the head of congress president was the constitutionally correct act following Zelaya's self-ousting."

--"torres" at CaracasChronicles blog
Now, let's deconstruct this mountain of nonsense with verifiable facts and evidence. The Venezuelan opposition pundits have made it sound like President Zelaya had committed some serious abuses, or had walked all over the Honduran constitution, which justified his ousting by the military. All of this is false, of course, as we will see.

What was the horrible act that Zelaya committed that created the political crisis than resulted in his overthrow? Well, Zelaya's crime was that he wanted to hold a national vote to consult the Honduran population about their constitution. Pretty horrible huh? And, even worse, the results of the national vote wouldn't even be binding, and would have no effect on the constitution no matter what the result. Zelaya simply wanted to guage public opinion, following a 2006 law, to see if the Honduran people were interested in having a constitutional assembly to re-write the national constitution. The question to be asked was the following:
"Do you agree to the installation of a fourth ballot [box] during the November 2009 general election to decide whether to convene a National Constitutional Assembly to approve a new political constitution?"
In other words, Zelaya's poll would only ask the Honduran people if they wanted to vote in November about having a constitutional assembly. It didn't even ask if they supported a constitutional assembly or not. It simply asked if they wanted to vote on it.

This man must be stopped! How dare he ask the Honduran people to decide if they want to vote about their own constitution?!?!? Well, as the opposition pundits argue, Zelaya was going to change the constitution without approval of Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court had already ruled the vote illegal, yet he continued forward with it anyway, disrespecting Honduran institutions.

But, as usual, the fact say otherwise. Zelaya was not going to change the constitution in any way (as you can clearly see from the question being asked above), not to mention the fact that the referendum was non-binding, so no matter what the result, no action could be taken.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, well, they only said a binding vote was illegal. They never made a ruling on a non-binding vote. And how can the Supreme Court rule on something that has no effect on Honduran law or the Honduran constitution anyway? The answer is, they can't. Not only that, but this kind of referendum is allowed for by Honduran law, so the Supreme Court decision was illegal, and unconstitutional. (not to mention undemocratic as it would prevent consulting the people)

But, the Ven oppos claim, Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to remove term limits so that he could be reelected and magically become "president for life"!!! Again, as anyone with eyes can see, that is not what the referendum (posted above) was about. It had nothing to do with term limits, and would not change a single letter of the Honduran constitution. So where do the oppos get this stuff??? Simple. They make it up.

So, as can be clearly seen, Zelaya broke no laws, did not go against the constitution, and did not abuse his power in any way. He was acting within Honduran law to consult the people, and the Honduran Congress and Honduran Supreme court were deathly afraid that real democracy (one where the people's will is actually carried out) might take over Honduras. As we all know, this would be terrifying for our chronically clueless friends among the Venezuelan opposition, so support for a military coup, "in the name of democracy", is the position they are holding on to.

19 comments:

peter said...

Well we wouldn't want democracy to take over the whole region now would we?

Anonymous said...

Can you write a post about the difference between Honduras coup and 4-F Chavez coup? Isn't Chavez a "golpista" too that talks about democracy?

ChronicallyClueless said...

Anonymous,

Sure. The two are drastically different.

Chavez's coup was a military rebellion against a government who had ordered the shooting of hundreds (if not thousands) of protestors, and buried them in mass graves, obviously losing any legitimacy as a democratic government. (democratic governments don't send out the military to kill their own people, period.)

Nevertheless, Chavez was tried and punished for his coup, and spent years in jail.

The Honduran coup, on the other hand, was carried out against a president who simply was requesting a popular conultation, a referendum, which is almost universally recognized as a democratic instrument. The Honduran institutions were obviously afraid of what popular opinion would represent, and so sought to prevent any consultation of the people.

Even if the Honduran coup leaders could receive the same punishment for their actions as Chavez did it would be sufficient.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to disappoint you but is public domain (and Chavez himself talked about this in public) that he was conspiring since 1981 to take venezuelan power by force and CAP assumed in 1989 his Democratic Elected Government (even if you didn't like it, it was Elected under democracy) and in 1992 he had only 1 year left in the power so it was kind of late for a "military rebellion" (aka simply A Coup even if you try to change the name).

You're using a double morality to justify Chavez coup and criticize Honduran coup, because a coup is a coup no matter what, and by the way Zelaya was breaking his country laws when he decided to confront all the elected powers, a president isn't god so he can't step over others elected powers in a democracy (I know this is a hard to swallow concept for Chavez followers because they're accustomed that all institutions must look at the president as a King to whom they only must pay honor and obey over the laws)

ChronicallyClueless said...

Sorry to disappoint you but the MBR was still unsure about carrying out a coup until the Caracazo which convinced them that the regime had to be overthrown. It doesn't matter if CAP only had one year left, as the power-sharing agreement would have certainly put another like-minded regime in power.

And talk about double morality!!! You are trying to equate a regime that simply wanted to consult the people of his country about their own constitution to a government that massacred its own population and put them in mass graves!!!!

Oh, and by the way, Zelaya didn't break the law in any way. See the post which clearly explains why what Zelaya wanted to do was allowed for by law, and was not under the jurisdiction of the Honduran Supreme Court. (I know this is hard to understand for coup supporters like yourself)

ChronicallyClueless said...

And, no, all coups are not the same. Leaders that kill their own populations no longer have any legitimacy, and so overthrowing them cannot be viewed the same as overthrowing a government that simply wanted to consult the population on an important matter. This is extremely obvious to anyone with a brain.

So, I suppose you'd also condemn Romulo Betancourt as a golpista???

Anonymous said...

So Chavez was a conspirer, a coupster, and tried to overthrow a democratic elected government... but no matter what he will always be an innocent misunderstood angel of god... And everyone else that doesn't share this opinion is wrong...

PS: Yes, based on history books Romulo Betancourt was a coupster that took power in a coup d'état but by that time I wasn't even born so I don't see the point, it's like when Chavez insults spanish people because of something that happened 500 years ago... that's just stupid.

ChronicallyClueless said...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here Anonymous. You asked me to explain the difference between the two coups. I did.

Does that mean Chavez is perfect and never does anything wrong? No. But trying to equate the two coups is just more of the same ridiculous nonsense that makes the Venezuelan opposition who they are, and that gives this blog its Raison d'être. Thanks for contributing.

rty said...

You asked me to explain the difference between the two coups. I did.

Very simple:
Chavez coup = good.
Coup that Chavez opposes = bad.

ChronicallyClueless said...

I'll explain it one more time for the severely challenged individuals who can't manage to understand.

Coup to overthrow murderous regime that killed hundreds of its own citizens = justified.

Coup that overthrows a regime that has not killed a single person, and only wishes to consult the people about their own consitution = totally unjustified.

Try your best oppo-morons. I know you can understand if you use all three of your combined brain cells.

Anonymous said...

Ilike how Lat's face talks of MBR as if he were there when they decided to engender their coup.

What, you read it in a rejected Oliver Stone script?

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, some of us oppos are slow thinkers. So if I understand you correctly, since Chavez spilled blood on April 11, 2002, an act for which the armed forces removed him from power, the coup was justified according to your criterion? Or, being a moron oppo do I miss something in your reasoning? Could it be possible that since only 19 people got killed and not hundreds, the coup is partly justified. Oh man am I getting totally confused. Help please!

Charly

Anonymous said...

Charly,

The deaths were produced as a result of an opposition-led coup, which was planned in advance (including the deaths) as an excuse to get Chavez out of power. See the Otto Neustadl testimony, the after coup admission on live television, and the recordings of the Metropolitan Police which prove that the deaths were the result of an opposition plan which Chavez had nothing to do with.

Your confusion stems out of your own ignorant interpretation of events.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to see that some people still believe in this story. You are a good foot soldier Tosh. Long live the revolution.

Charly

Bruni said...

I'm going to ask you a very simple question CC.

Do you/did you support the February 4, 1992 military coup in Venezuela?

ChronicallyClueless said...

Charly,

Please refute the evidence.

1.) Otto Neustadl testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVH6xMDTQg0

2.) Mayela Leon testimony.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gc33_periodistas-admiten-ayudaron-en-ins_politics

3.) Coup leaders openly discussing the "plan" on national television, April 12th, 2002.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqS9NzMue4 (it is just fucking incredible that anyone could be so dihonest as to try to deny this one).

4.) Recordings of Metropolitan Police which reveal they had infiltrated the building La Nacional and were "neutralizando los talibanes."
http://www.aporrea.org/ddhh/n132711.html

Anonymous said...

And while you are at it, why don't you read "El acertijo de Abril" and "Las balas de Abril" to get a balanced opinion.

ChronicallyClueless said...

I'm not interested in opinions. I'm interested in facts.

Refute the hard evidence, or shut up.

leif said...

The popular struggle in Honduras relates to reforming the constitution. The pressure comes from social organizations and politically educated progressives, not from Zelaya himself, who agreed to indefinitely postpone the non-binding referendum in exchange for serving out the rest of his presidency.

This video really explains what Honduran progressives are about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYY4vj9ROC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upMu_oR2YUU

As for coups, like everything it has to be judged on the results. For better and for worse (mostly for better) we in the West are past the stage where coups and revolutions have much chance to end well even if done by those with the best of intentions.

In Honduras the coup is being carried out by those with the worst intentions, supporters of past dictatorships and death squads, supporters (and benefitters from) Honduras's insanely unequal and feudal economic structure...

The word "coup" by itself doesn't tell us enough to condemn or support... just as, unfortunately, facts like "the majority of congress supports it" are not helpful.

In fact the Honduran congress and court system have been named among the most corrupt in the hemisphere, with NGO's saying that the Honduran congress is "held hostage" to entrenched power and even the State Dept considered the Honduran courts especially corrupt.

Long term the best results I can imagine from this is that all those coup-backing MF's get voted out (and their leaders prosecuted) and that a new and serious party emerges with mass appeal.

It's a long road to that however. (PS - Venezuela has nothing to do with this except as a symbol in popular imagination, both golpistas and antigolpistas.)