As Hondurans go to the polls tomorrow, the big question is whether the election will help end or deepen the country’s political crisis.  On the surface, the answer seems clear.  The military overthrew President Zelaya in June and the election will restore democracy to Honduras.  If this is so clear-cut, why is every democracy in the hemisphere with the exception of Costa Rica, Panama, and the US against it?

The answer lies in considerable disagreement concerning the nature of the problem.  Some argue that Zelaya’s removal was an illegal coup and hence the only way to restore democracy is to place him back in power.  Others suggest that Zelaya is to blame for his removal because he repeatedly violated the country’s constitution. Since the constitution does not allow for impeachment, it thus lacks a legal mechanism for solving the political crisis he created.  Accordingly, removing Zelaya was the only way to restore the rule of law.  Those who take the first view see the election as legitimizing the coup.  Those who take the second view see the election as a return to democracy.

For someone whose main concern is democracy, neither view seems reasonable.  On the one hand, restoring Zelaya without an enforceable mechanism for sanctioning him if he violates the Constitution again hardly seems prudent.  On the other hand, holding an election under a questionably legal government that is illegally silencing its opponents doesn’t seem sensible either.  To me, the democratic solution has to address the roots of the crisis: the Constitution’s silence on impeachment.  It’s a messy solution to be sure, but neatness is not one of democracy’s virtues.  (Interestingly, most Hondurans support constitutional reform as well.)  The instrumental path the US has chosen, condemning the coup but supporting the election, seems unlikely to solve the crisis.  Stay tuned…