Honduras

As a point of reconciliation, I do have concerns the US is somehow involved in this.  But (a) I don't know; (b) I am even less certain as to Canada's involvement; and (c) this is not really the correct forum for *guessing*.

The link you provide is factual, but why not choose one from much more recognized source, Reuters (off of Yahoo! News):  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090929/ts_nm/us_honduras

I couldn't find a vote tally for the elections, does anyone know this yet?  CBC reported up to a 70% turn out.  Zelaya claims 65% abstention rate.  One of the two figures has to be baseless.

The whole situation is really confusing.  

While at the same time, any sort of military intervention in latin America is troubling, the fact is that the Honduran Parliament pretty much unilaterally (including Zelaya's party which was the largest elected party) stripped him of his presidency, quickly called new elections, and the turnout is really pretty close to what would have been seen in a normal election.  

It was also the courts that ordered his expulsion (or at least his detention), and was not a unilateral military action. (Nor did the military take power)

While Zelaya may have been seen as progressive, I'm looking over reports.  Apparently, he was very authoritarian.  Not only that, but he tried to veto electoral reforms that would have moved to a publicly funded election system and removed barriers for smaller parties.

In late 2008, he refused to submit his budget.

He then, tried to by-pass parliament to (rumored to remove presidential term limits) and alter the constitution, despite that requiring approval of congress.  (Remembering, his own party held the majority of seats.)  When the court ruled he couldn't proceed without congresses support, and the military wouldn't conduct his plebicite, he fired the head of the military who was obeying the law.

Ultimately, all the information we seem to have is so distorted.  From articles, it seems his popularity was down to 25% or so in 2009.  His own party even had begun impeachment processes against hi,

If Stephen Harper or George Bush had tried to go overtop of parliament/congress (not to say they haven't) and do items unilaterally and then ignore a court order, we would certainly be calling for their expulsion.

I don't really see how a president should have any more legitimacy than the elected a parliament, particularly when legislative and consultative powers exist with them.  I actually prefer presidential system, but certainly not one where the executive has unilateral powers.

Certainly, the forced expulsion of the president was the wrong way to go.  It appears, that the supreme court had ordered his detention and the military expelled him which was unconstitutional.  

I'm not saying the situation there was cherry blossoms.

However, the two main candidates, both who were nominated be their parties prior to Zelaya's ouster, were not filing any grievance and all the political parties there had accepted the results.

So, while the police/military there may have be overly reactive in dealing with Zelaya protesters out of fear they would disrupt the elections, which is of concern, this does not translate into influencing the election results.

We have had elections in places like Iran and Afghanistan where violence and corruption was used in the electoral process and at the polls.  However, there is no indication that the police presence in Honduras was intended to influence the polls rather than merely protect them against Zelaya supporters who wanted it disrupted.

Even more so, the Candidate that won the election was from a different party than the interim government that was administering the election.

I didn't really want to take an opinion on Honduras until I saw new election called.  We have had plenty of coups where the military hung on to power and that was major concern at first.  However, Zelaya seemed to unite both his own party on the left and the opposition on the right in their desire to see him gone.  

While I support progressive politics, I don't support left or right wing authoritarians who think they should be leader for life.  Benevolent or not, power corrupts, and executive term limits on presidential systems is a good thing.  

If Zelaya couldn't even maintain the confidence of his own party or recruit a like minded successor to take over when his term would have ended (next month), then it probably shows a general lack of support for his plans or poor leadership abilities.

So what do you want?  

The west to shove a leader back in place after his term has expired.  

To ignore legal elections which were back by Honduras's supreme court, both major parties.  

Why did Zelaya fail to file a budget which was needed for the November Elections?

Why did Zelaya moved up the plebicite to June from November (the 4th ballot option)?

Why did Zelaya need a constitutional assembly when the only item which could not have been changed by congress was the term limits.

Most of my references are from pre-coup articles from Hondurans:

http://octavioislas.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/3008-coha-report-zelaya-of-...

http://borninhonduras.blogspot.com/2009/03/public-ministry-consultation-...

The US State Department and the west had nothing to do with this.  Every western government was highly suspect of what was happening and the western media bought Zelaya's koolaid for the first few weeks.

However, ignoring legal elections would be a bigger problem.  

Then recognizing the new government would be the way to go. 

There is no evidence of US or Canadian involvement.  The extent of the US involvement was to not recognize the coup and insist that Zelayas be allowed to return to the country.

  Coup or not, Hondurans were set to go to the polls in November and choose between Pepe Lobo of the Nationals and Elvin Santos of the Liberals.  

Both of these Candidates were nominated over a year ago in their parties primaries, over 6 months prior to the coup.

One of them was going to win the election.  The only thing that has changed at all, is that Lobo (who won the election and was not part of the interim government) is supposed to take assume office immediately rather than waiting for January when the customary change over was happening.

We could call for new elections, but it would be the same two candidates, and probably the exact same results.