From a WSJ editorial on the Honduras situation:

Hondurans had deposed Mr. Zelaya on entirely legal grounds for threatening violence and violating the country’s constitution in an attempt to run for a second term.

This is not a new observation, but I feel the need to call people out whenever I see it, especially because it has become a matter of received truth in some quarters, but:  whatever else one may be able to say about Zelaya’s pre-coup actions, he was not seeking a second term!  One need not be a fan of Zelaya to note this, nor is it an ideological or political observation, it is simply an established fact.  For the umpeenth time, I would refer my readers to the text of the plebiscite (click here).

As Greg Weeks has repeatedly noted:¹  while there have been accusations that Zelaya was specifically seeking a second term in office,there has never been any evidence to back that claim.  The closest one gets, by the way, is that since Zelaya was tagged as a chavista  that obviously he was trying for an extended term, after all that’s what chavistas do (like, for example, Uribe).²

One of the various reasons it has been very difficult to take the pro-coup faction in the US seriously is that they really do not appear to have their basic facts straight and instead have always based their position on a combination of anti-Chávez/anti-Obama³ sentiments that have very little to do with things like legality and democracy.

Back to the quote cited above:  the inaccurate (to be kind) statement about a second term should cast a shadow over the rest of the statement.  Further, the statement ignores the fact that, at a minimum, Zelaya’s exile was unconstitutional.  Beyond that, while it appears to be the case that there was a legal basis for the Supreme Court to act against Zelaya, it is far from clear that they (in conjunction with the Congress) had the legal power to summarily remove the sitting president from power.  The allegations of violence are also speculative.  It is possible, I will more than allow, that had Zelaya proceeded to hold his consulta without legal sanction by using volunteers that confrontations could have resulted.  However, such a situation could have been handled well short of a coup. 

This should not be as difficult to comprehend as many seem to make it.

1. For example, here, interestingly also in response to a WSJ editorial [↩]
2. Just in case:  the Uribe ref is utter sarcasm.  For those unfamiliar:  Uribe is usually viewed as the anti-Chávez and he has already managed to get the Colombian constitution amended to allow for one reelection and is poised for a second.  Uribe is also the US’ strongest ally in the region and yet somehow his question for a longer time in office isn’t seen as problematic. [↩]
3. i.e., reflexive opposition to any position taken by the administration [↩]

3 Responses to “When Does a Repeated Error Become Nothing but a Lie?”

1. MSS Says:
   November 3rd, 2024 at 11:08 am

   “while it appears to be the case that there was a legal basis for the Supreme Court to act against Zelaya…”

   I am not prepared to concede even that. I believe the Court can act only after the congress has stripped the president (or other public official) of immunity. It is the equivalent of impeachment, even if it is not a clear impeachment procedure.

   What am I missing here?

2. Steven L. Taylor Says:
   November 3rd, 2024 at 11:45 am

   I am likely being oblique. I was referring to their right (as I understand it) to act in regards to the plebiscite .

3. javier fortin Says:
   November 10th, 2024 at 5:05 pm

   I believe that the Honduran case has to be placed in context. I agree that ousting Zelaya was not the proper way to deal with the situation but I also believe that conflicts are not always resolved adhering to every word of the Law. I’m a Guatemalan and not too long ago (1993 with former President Serrano) we had a similar situation that was resolved very well but still he was allowed to leave (he should have been arrested) and now lives in Panama. Getting back to my comment, if you see how Ortega in Nicaragua was able to have the Supreme Court declare unconstitutional the articles that prohibits him from reelection, then you understand a little better the decision in Honduras. Yes, reelection was not in the ballot and was not explicitly asked, but you have to live down here to realize that in Central American politics anything can happen and twisting democratic principles and the law is in the order of the day. The way Zelaya called it first a referendum, then a survey…the way he entered the airport to steal the ballot boxes after the Court had banned the event are just but a small sample of the tactics politicians use in our neck of the woods. Please notice that I use politicians because this behavior comes from all ideological sides…there is no monopoly over crooked politicians. By the way, one final comment. I’ve noticed and find if very curious that the same people who were opposed to reelections and that in fact placed those limits in the constitution are now the ones that defend the political rights of people to choose whomever they wish and the rights of people to be elected. Also, those who argue against Chavez, as you very well point out, don’t say anything about Uribe in Colombia.