Friday, July 3, 2009

Democratic dictators

Although there are several topics I could write about (most notably, my 'unique' take on Michael Jackson's death), I will repeat myself writing about politics. Or more precisely, writing about the failure of democracy in its standard definition. This is motivated by the recent events in Honduras. It must be said that Honduras is a rather irrelevant country in the world. This is not to be taken negatively; Colombia is also an irrelevant country, it's just that it is sometimes relevant for negative reasons.

Since I find Honduras irrelevant, I trust you can forgive my lack of knowledge about its basic facts. Let me summarize the situation as I learned it by reading some online news this week. Honduras had/has a left-wing president called Manuel Zelaya who, as several of his peers, wants to be president for a little longer, forever if possible. He tried to do it in the correct way, but the main courts denied his desires. Zelaya is a populist, clever enough so as to maintain good relationships with Venezuela and the United States. Zelaya's ambitions for continued periods in office made the congress (in which Zelaya's party has the minority) rather uncomfortable, and several processes against him were initiated. The opposition claims that Zelaya intends to convert Honduras into yet another puppet country of Chavez, pretty much as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua already are. They're are not that wrong in that one. Zelaya's was kidnapped by the army and expelled to Costa Rica in his pajamas. Funny scene. The congress then named a rather stupid guy called Roberto Micheletti as temporary president (if you read Italian, make sure you read this note on Micheletti); Micheletti expects to call for presidential elections very soon, and to bring Zelaya into justice if he dares to change his pajamas and return to Honduras.

The situation in Honduras is useful to illustrate a phenomenon occurring in several other countries: legally-elected leaders are becoming into democratic dictators. In other words, potential dictators are using seemingly democratic methods to gain legitimacy. It's democracy only on the surface: indeed, the idea of democracy has been reduced to the mere act of winning an election; basic laws and principles, such as the respect for the opposition and law systems and the preservation of the so much needed equilibrium of civil institutions, are rapidly fading out. The executive power is increasingly gaining more and more power in the process; we can see it in left-wing countries such as Venezuela, right-wing countries such as Colombia, and in undefinable countries such as Italy. Now it is easy to change a constitution based on polls and perceptions induced by media. And nobody seems to complain about it.

The situation is rather worrying, even if you happen to live in a country in which the president is not one such democratic dictators. At the end, they all will end up acting by example.

2 comments:

Ebbe said...

"It must be said that Honduras is a rather irrelevant country in the world." I like this statement. It is amusing. You're completely right about the worrying tendency in Latin America that presidents want change constitutions more often than their underwear. There is a reason why constitutions are usually hard to change; they should aim to state the basic rules of the political game in a neutral way. It is the set of basic laws that should be upheld no matter the current political trends. Anyway, there are many ancient constitutions around that need revisions, e.g. the Danish Constitution 'Grundloven' (The Ground Law) from 1953, which has the monarch as the ruler of the country -- a person who must adhere to a particular branch of Protestantism. Hello, Dark Middle Ages...Well, being a largely irrelevant country I hardly know anything about Honduras, but I do know that its current Constitution is from 1982. I have no informed opinion about the planned vote on changes of it in Honduras, but it is certainly clear that a military coup, however, is NOT the way to change the political scenery. And NO, it DOESN'T matter that not much blood was spilled and that the Supreme Court backs the coup. It's the principle! First of all, the Supreme Court is politically appointed in Honduras and consists of right-wing supporters so their opinion on matters should not be considered neutral and based on legal facts, a situation apparently common for Latin America. Second, if the coup is ratified in the international community then the grim tradition of bloody military coups, e.g. in the 1970ies, across Latin America could experience a revival. THIS IS BAD NEWS. On a personal note I'd like to ask all of the presidents and generals reading this blog not to do coups in Latin America because Bolivia could very well be the next country to fall in the case Honduras' current coup makers persevere.

Jorge said...

Ebbe, thanks for your comment. It complements very well what I try to convey with the post. I am glad you found the post amusing, too. And yes, the Honduras case is crucial as it might be taken as example for other countries, including Bolivia. As you might know, many presidents and general read this blog; let's hope they take these lessons into account.