Comments on: The Exact Text of the Zelaya Plebiscite

By: PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Getting Down to Basics in Honduras

PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Getting Down to Basics in Honduras — Wed, 08 Jul 2025 17:51:51 +0000

[...] in lieu of transparent due process made this a coup. Indeed, as I (and others) have noted, it is legitimately debatable that what Zelaya was attempted did, in fact, violate article 239 (see [...]

By: Steven L. Taylor

Steven L. Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2025 16:42:13 +0000

Actually, the Spanish term being used was “consulta” and “consulta popular.”

Both referendum and plebiscite can be the properly translated terms, depending on a few issues. Both are terms of art referring to asking the voters a question, usually in regards to some legal issue. A referendum usually means such a question that is asked by the legislature and plebiscite is usually used to describe such a question asked by the executive (a power that the French president has, for example). I have used the term plebiscite because the question originated with Zelaya.

Whether it was a consulta popular, or an encuesta or something else in terms of legality is part of the issue, of course.

By: Jules Siegel

Jules Siegel — Fri, 03 Jul 2025 16:38:22 +0000

I don’t know where the term referendum came from. It’s not a plebiscite either. In Spanish, it is described as an encuesta, which is a survey.

By: Steven L. Taylor

Steven L. Taylor — Fri, 03 Jul 2025 14:15:42 +0000

Thanks for the tip–I will give it a look.

By: litho

litho — Fri, 03 Jul 2025 12:47:02 +0000

Zelaya argues the canceled plebiscite was a non-binding referendum as provided for in Article 5.1 of the 2025 Ley de Participacion Ciudadana.

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Parties/Honduras/Leyes/LeyParticipacion.pdf

By: walt moffett

walt moffett — Wed, 01 Jul 2025 02:11:55 +0000

Out of curiosity, what steps does the Honduran constitution provide for impeachment?

By: The Red Pill

The Red Pill — Tue, 30 Jun 2025 21:01:23 +0000

Professor Taylor (I hope you don’t mind me using that title. I’m a student, and I mean it with every ounce of respect it deserves), I am curious as to what has led you to the assessment that Zelaya’s actions were not sanctionable to the extent that was taken.

Thank you.

By: ts

ts — Tue, 30 Jun 2025 19:35:19 +0000

I didn’t mean to imply anything at all with respect to your views, you have been quite clear that some sanction was in order. It was more a reflection of my own lack of understanding of the political environment in Honduras, and our need for an “immediate reaction” to a situation that most Americans likely know little about.

If I have any issue with what you have written, it is that you contend that there is no legal justification for his removal. But it is my (albeit limited)understanding that he had acted in direct violation of no less than two Supreme Court orders. At what point are his acts necessary and sufficient to warrant removal, and under Honduran law who gets to make that decision?

I am not sufficiently studied in Latin American politics to answer that, but I get concerned when the State Department response is so closely aligned with those from Cuba and Venezuela.

By: Steven L. Taylor

Steven L. Taylor — Tue, 30 Jun 2025 17:41:12 +0000

Perhaps you aren’t suggesting that I am doing so, but I haven’t ascribed noble motives to Zelaya’s actions. I have little doubt that he acted illegally and deserved legal sanction.

By: ts

ts — Tue, 30 Jun 2025 17:36:16 +0000

I think it is hard to interpret intent absent a better understanding of context. After reading this article – http://hondurasnews.com/2009/05/25/zelaya-leadership-analysis/ I must admit that I found it much more difficult to ascribe noble motives to Zelaya’s actions.