Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net
- President Manuel Zelaya and Mayor Antonio Ledezma were elected by the people in democratic elections, but both were stripped of nearly all the constitutional powers of their offices through pseudo-legal mechanisms and abuse of power. Which means that the deprivation of authority they are suffering is a coup d'etat, because it is an unconstitutional replacement of the existing regime.
- In each case the coup was against an executive branch. Zelaya was the head of the national executive of Honduras and Ledezma was the regional chief executive of the Metropolitan District of Caracas.
- Both coups were justified as lawful.
- On the two occasions the coup d'etat was caused by the differences of these officers with other divisions of government in their respective nations. Zelaya against the legislative and judicial branches of Honduras, Ledezma against the executive and legislative branches of Venezuela.
- Zelaya is usurped by Roberto Micheletti, a de facto authority appointed for the convenience of the powers that oppose Zelaya, and not elected by the people. Ledezma is usurped by Jaqueline Farias, also a de facto authority named to suit the powers that oppose Ledezma, and not elected by the people.
Related articles:
- Coup if it is rightist, revolution if it is leftist
Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html (article 42):
ReplyDeleteARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde: 5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República.
Further, Article 239 indicates that anyone who has held the office of chief executive cannot be president or vice president and anyone who proposes reform to that prohibition can be barred from holding public office for ten years: ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
My educated guess on that provision is that it is aimed move at banning past military dictators from pursuing the office than it is a stricture contra re-election, per se.
Additionally, Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term (amongst other things:
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
As such, it is pretty clear why the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Zelaya’s plebiscite proposal in the first place. It also means that if the vote had been allowed to happen it would have had no legal standing.
You’re right when you talk about the constitutional violations made by Manuel Zelaya, but that does not justify the procedure used to overthrow him, because in contemporary democracies a president cannot be removed suddenly, without respecting the rule of law.
ReplyDelete