.jpg)
.jpg)
Alice in Hondurasland
By Kerry Healey December 4, 2009Region: South and Central America
Topic: National Preparedness
By now, much has been written by Honduran election observers about the peaceful, orderly, transparent and fair Presidential elections that took place without a hitch on November 29. Unaccountably, many nations still question the legitimacy of the new government and remain mired in rehashing the events of June 28, when President Zelaya was removed unceremoniously from office by the military at the behest of the Honduran Supreme Court. To their credit, the United States, Costa Rica, Peru and Colombia all have agreed to recognize the legitimacy of President-elect Porfirio Lobo’s selection. However, some prominent members of OAS who have sympathies with the left-leaning Zelaya, including Brazil and Venezuela, remain intent on de-legitimizing the election, asserting that to recognize President-elect Lobo would—in some way that is not clear—validate the “coup” that brought President Micheletti to office. The majority of the international community still demands that Zelaya be restored to office to serve out his term as a pre-requisite to resuming full diplomatic relations, despite the Honduran Congress’s firm and repeated refusal to comply.
For those not steeped in the politics of the region, it would be easy to conclude from the overwhelming international condemnation of Zelaya’s ouster and the sensational press photos of protesters clashing with Honduran troops that Honduras is indeed on the brink of a socialist revolution. Before my trip to Tegucigalpa this past week as one of the over 500 international observers from 31 countries who were invited by the Honduran Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) to witness the Presidential election, I too had concerns about the legitimacy of the Micheletti government and questions about where the true the allegiances of the Honduran people lay. Based on news reports and academic briefings in the US, I had expected to find widespread civil unrest and a heavy-handed military presence.
Initial impressions of Tegucigalpa did little to dispel the bleak image of a divided and struggling democracy that had been painted so vividly in the international press and re-enforced by the universal condemnation of the Micheletti government by the international community, including the US, OAS and our European allies. There was, by US standards, a heavily armed military presence on the streets surrounding polls and key government buildings, and entering our own hotel resembled clearing airport security at Heathrow, complete with bomb dogs and baggage searches. Spray painted graffiti messages supporting former President Zelaya (“Viva Mel!”) and condemning current President Micheletti, lined the main routes between the airport and our hotel in downtown Tegucigalpa, giving the impression that dissent, while nowhere evident on the street, was simmering somewhere just below the surface.
The next day, together with a team of National Election Observers from the Honduran civil society group Union Civica Democratica, several of us set out to the streets of Tegucigalpa to hear directly from Honduran citizens. What emerged from our conversations over the course of the next two days was a starkly different reality than the one being peddled by the international media and OAS.
First of all, no one on the streets or at the polls on election day had any hesitance speaking openly with us about their political views, often within easy view and earshot of the military. In my experience, in countries where the military or government is feared, speaking publicly with foreigners is considered dangerous. The people of Tegucigalpa, from shady Central Square to El Sitio, one of the poorest shanty towns surrounding the city, were enthusiastically debating politics and sharing their untrammeled views with international observers, foreign news crews and each other. No one claimed to feel intimidated by either by the government or by Zelayists.
What ordinary Hondurans wanted was to assert their right to vote for a new president, to re-join the international community, and to prove to all doubters that Honduran respect for Constitutional democracy was strong. Second, there was virtually no support voiced for the re-instatement of Zelaya, and even less for Chavez-style socialism. Many people deplored the desecration of their buildings—even churches—with political graffiti by what they suspected to be foreign activists. Even more objected to the tinkering of foreign governments in the internal exercise of Honduran democracy, whether the interference came from the Chavez-influenced OAS or the US Embassy. In my experience, the 111 to 14 vote in the Honduran Congress Wednesday rejecting international calls to re-instate Zelaya accurately reflects Honduran public sentiment and is in no way an elitist perspective as asserted by Zelaya in the wake of Congress’s rejection of his bid to return to office.
Third, Zelaya’s campaign to delegitimize the outcome of Sunday’s election by calling for a voter boycott fell firmly on its face. Hondurans were outraged by the idea that they should disenfranchise themselves and were instead energized to turn out at a hearty 61%--fully 8% above the voter turnout that elected Zelaya to office four years earlier. Despite scare tactics from pro-Zelaya newspapers and radio broadcasts that warned Hondurans that their lives would be in danger by venturing out to vote, venture out they did—in droves. I personally witnessed voters arriving on crutches and in wheel chairs, young and old voters, rich and poor; everyone came out to vote.
The Honduran Supreme Court, an overwhelming majority of the Honduran Congress, and many members of President Zelaya’s own party, all support an interpretation of the Honduran Constitution that would compel the immediate removal of any president who seeks to change the core democratic provisions of their constitution—especially the provision that limits presidents to one term. Given the regional context, where Chavez has extended his control over Venezuela by lifting presidential term limits, who can blame the Hondurans for seeing a genuine threat to democracy in Zelaya’s attempt to test the waters for a similar change?
It’s time for the international community to end its inappropriate—and ultimately unsuccessful—efforts to influence Honduran politics and instead recognize the profound strength of the Honduran people and this tiny nation’s inspirational commitment to democracy. To have held fast to core democratic values in the face of crippling economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and vociferous condemnation in the international press has required enormous strength of character. In an era when many politicians spend their time worrying about how their actions will be perceived and reported by the daily press, Honduran judges and elected representatives have kept their focus on abiding by core democratic principles and are content to be judged by history. The international press may continue to distort events in Honduras, but it is the duty of the 500 international observers who were eye-witnesses the profound celebration of democracy in Honduras on November 29 to begin to set the record straight.
