There were certainly protests by expatriates supporting Zelaya and a small boycott at home, but they did not disrupt the process. Furthermore, Zelaya’s term is over, and these elections have been scheduled for some time. As long as observers certify that the election was free and fair, which they are likely to do even though the OAS refused to send a delegation, there is no reason for Honduras to continue to be such a prominent international issue. If this was a “constitutional” coup and the interim government was legitimate, than they have fulfilled their duties. If it was illegitimate, Honduras has gotten rid of it through the most democratic means possible, an election. While there are certainly some issues for Honduras to deal with to straighten out these legal issues, they do not require such intense diplomatic efforts by neighbors.

It is understandable for South American states to be touchy over the issue of military coups, since they have been so unlucky with them in the past. They are afraid Honduras will set a bad example. Yet the Honduran case was clearly not a power grab by the military. The military immediately stepped aside for the civilian government, which held elections as scheduled and has now turned power over to its opposition, which won the vote fair and square. The OAS can feel justified in having condemned what it saw as a coup, but now it needs to let Honduras move on.

Other

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…

Other

Now it turns out that even other parts of our government aren’t too sure about the validity of these diplomatic decisions. The Congressional Research Service recently released a report indicating that the Honduran Supreme Court was acting within its rights.  (Here’s an excellent editorial from the WSJ explaining it more.)

If this country wants to be taken seriously in its democracy promotion efforts, we need to be a little more careful in how we assess democracies abroad. The Honduran government took laudable action to prevent a president seeking unconstitutionally to remove his term limits.  We should have condemned former President Zelaya’s attempt and offered our assistance in an interim election. Our support of this man despite his undemocratic actions just portrays us as being confused about what democracy really means. If we wanted unconditionally to support those who win elections regardless of what they do while they’re in power, we need to start making amends with Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and many others.

Other