I tend to agree that "the kidnapping [of] a democratically elected President by the military is not a good precedent", but I do think that the
situation called for it, regardless of whether it's a good precedent or not. History shows that demagogues like Zelaya who aren't satisfied with the
limits placed upon their power will seek to increase their power by any means. The list of men who have done this is endless, and it includes names such as
Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.
The normal, "legal" means (and of course "legal" is different from country to country) of removing a leader from power are usually time consuming and cumbersome - and often they don't work. In a crisis situation, where time is of the essence, responsible parties must sometimes take action - and precedent be #!+$@#.
Consider the example of Hitler. He was legally and democratically elected. The German Weimar Republic at that time had a constitutional democracy in many ways similar to our own. Like our government there checks and balances, dividing power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. Hitler, as elected, had many constraints on his power - he couldn't simply rule by decree. And so over the first few years of his regime he set about changing things, using whatever means he felt were necessary. Within a very short period of time he became unassailable.
But for a few short years, the Weimar Republic had it within its power to remove him. He could have been legally impeached if the legislature had had the will to do so. Ah, but Hitler had his own private army (the SA - aka "Brown Shirts") and using this he was able to intimidate anyone who stood against him (and some few brave souls did try - they all ended up either dead or imprisoned). The reality of the situation throughout the early to mid 1930's was that only the military had the means to remove him from office. Of course they chose not to do so - they were largely in agreement with his policy goals so they weren't about to do anything to slow him down. But IF the military had had the will to do so it could have. No other legal entity could have accomplished it, because Hitler had the means to suppress them if they dared to try (and they knew it).
No doubt there are many differences between that scenario and the one in Honduras, but there are a good many similarities as well. The very fact that Zelaya was able to storm the place where the illegal referendum ballots were stored shows that he had resources similar to Hitler's brown shirts. He had been in power for over 3 years and had had time to gather resources necessary to ensure he remained in power. He had "muscle", and could raise an angry mob of supporters if needed. If the Honduran military had supported him - even passively by turning a blind eye to his illegal activities - neither the legislature or the judiciary would have had the power necessary to stop him. They could have passed resolutions in futility, but without the pure, physical power (in other words, FORCE) necessary to put down a man who was ALREADY acting in complete disregard of either the constitution or the rule of law.
I really don't see that they had any choice. It was either give Zelaya the boot, or accept his inevitable dictatorship.
I agree the rule of law is a good thing and must be respected and preserved. But sometimes it just doesn't work. In this situation, I think the Hondurans did exactly the right thing. It's not like we have some power mad general staging a coup and placing himself in the big chair. No, the head of the legislature took on the presidency temporarily, and the scheduled November elections are still going to be held.
The normal, "legal" means (and of course "legal" is different from country to country) of removing a leader from power are usually time consuming and cumbersome - and often they don't work. In a crisis situation, where time is of the essence, responsible parties must sometimes take action - and precedent be #!+$@#.
Consider the example of Hitler. He was legally and democratically elected. The German Weimar Republic at that time had a constitutional democracy in many ways similar to our own. Like our government there checks and balances, dividing power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. Hitler, as elected, had many constraints on his power - he couldn't simply rule by decree. And so over the first few years of his regime he set about changing things, using whatever means he felt were necessary. Within a very short period of time he became unassailable.
But for a few short years, the Weimar Republic had it within its power to remove him. He could have been legally impeached if the legislature had had the will to do so. Ah, but Hitler had his own private army (the SA - aka "Brown Shirts") and using this he was able to intimidate anyone who stood against him (and some few brave souls did try - they all ended up either dead or imprisoned). The reality of the situation throughout the early to mid 1930's was that only the military had the means to remove him from office. Of course they chose not to do so - they were largely in agreement with his policy goals so they weren't about to do anything to slow him down. But IF the military had had the will to do so it could have. No other legal entity could have accomplished it, because Hitler had the means to suppress them if they dared to try (and they knew it).
No doubt there are many differences between that scenario and the one in Honduras, but there are a good many similarities as well. The very fact that Zelaya was able to storm the place where the illegal referendum ballots were stored shows that he had resources similar to Hitler's brown shirts. He had been in power for over 3 years and had had time to gather resources necessary to ensure he remained in power. He had "muscle", and could raise an angry mob of supporters if needed. If the Honduran military had supported him - even passively by turning a blind eye to his illegal activities - neither the legislature or the judiciary would have had the power necessary to stop him. They could have passed resolutions in futility, but without the pure, physical power (in other words, FORCE) necessary to put down a man who was ALREADY acting in complete disregard of either the constitution or the rule of law.
I really don't see that they had any choice. It was either give Zelaya the boot, or accept his inevitable dictatorship.
I agree the rule of law is a good thing and must be respected and preserved. But sometimes it just doesn't work. In this situation, I think the Hondurans did exactly the right thing. It's not like we have some power mad general staging a coup and placing himself in the big chair. No, the head of the legislature took on the presidency temporarily, and the scheduled November elections are still going to be held.
