Echidna Media Organization project S.N.A.L. (emo_snal) wrote,
Echidna Media Organization project S.N.A.L.
emo_snal

The Honduran Presidency

   The more I think about it (and I do think about it because I'm a political science nerd like that) the more I think the recent ousting of the president of Honduras is NOT a condemnable coup d'etat but exactly what was supposed to happen.

   This entry shall assume you know nothing about it, so no excuses for not following along (:


   Recently the president of Honduras decided he wanted to hold a referendum on changing the constitution to allow him to run for a another term. Problem is, not only does their constitution say he can't serve another term, it says he can't CHANGE that clause either. So their Supreme Court told him he couldn't do that .. but he ignored them.

   The president then asked the military to give him the elections materials (because apparently they keep it) and the military refused, as his planned referendum was unconstitutional. He then fired the head of the military ... and the Supreme Court reinstated him.
   The president then proceeded to where the elections materials were kept with the national police and his supporters and took custody of it.

   ...and the next morning the Supreme Court authorized the military to arrest and deport him. They did so and the congress (which also condemned his unconstitutional ambitions btw, even his own party) supported it. They then followed the normal line of succession and the head of his party in congress was sworn in.


   So here's my take on it. The military is tasked with protecting the constitution. The Court is tasked with determining what is right. No one disputes he was trying to violate the constitution, and so the military defended it by removing him. (I'm not an expert on Honduran politics but what I've read says there was no "viable" means to impeach him, I'm not sure what that means but I'm taking it at face value).

   Yet Obama and many other heads of state are condemning this as a evil coup d'etat. I think it's the checks and balances of separation of powers acting exactly like they should. It's like people agree with checks and balances in principal, but when it comes down to it they think the executive is always right and the other branches have no right to interfere (granted the military is not a branch, but in this case they appear to have acted only in a manner expressly authorized by the congress and judiciary)

Tags: international news, international politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 16 comments