A coup with an expiration date
There are almost too many interesting angles to explore with the events in Honduras, but one of the most pertinent at the moment is the idea that we can be 95% certain there will be a democratically elected leader in six months. Whether or not Zelaya returns, it's almost certain that elections will be held in November (if not sooner) and a new president inaugurated in January. That's not something you can say about many coups.
In fact, in the Cold War era in Latin America, restoring democracy within six months of a coup would have been seen as a major triumph. It's a sign we have higher expectations for the region today that every country in the region including the US is still pushing to have Zelaya reinstated rather than just letting the timetable play out.
Last night, Zelaya gave a new ultimatum. Restore him to power within a week, or else. As we've all realized over the past few weeks, Zelaya likes the high-noon showdown in his cowboy hat.
There is a broad, though not unanimous, consensus that the restoration of Zelaya should be done peacefully through negotiations. Forcing democracy on a country isn't particularly easy (see Iraq) and comes with risk of violence and conflict.
But negotiations are slow. They're time consuming. They're boring. That pace works and may even be essential in normal negotiations to bring peace to a long standing conflict or restore democracy after an undemocractic regime has taken power. However, in this case, that amount of time may not be available because the negotiations could be overtaken by events, in this case, elections.
Or to put it another way: Arias sees this as a peace process and is willing to take the time to make it work; Zelaya sees this as a hostage negotiation and believes acting soon is the only option. Which analogy wins the international debate may impact the outcome.
In fact, in the Cold War era in Latin America, restoring democracy within six months of a coup would have been seen as a major triumph. It's a sign we have higher expectations for the region today that every country in the region including the US is still pushing to have Zelaya reinstated rather than just letting the timetable play out.
Last night, Zelaya gave a new ultimatum. Restore him to power within a week, or else. As we've all realized over the past few weeks, Zelaya likes the high-noon showdown in his cowboy hat.
There is a broad, though not unanimous, consensus that the restoration of Zelaya should be done peacefully through negotiations. Forcing democracy on a country isn't particularly easy (see Iraq) and comes with risk of violence and conflict.
But negotiations are slow. They're time consuming. They're boring. That pace works and may even be essential in normal negotiations to bring peace to a long standing conflict or restore democracy after an undemocractic regime has taken power. However, in this case, that amount of time may not be available because the negotiations could be overtaken by events, in this case, elections.
Or to put it another way: Arias sees this as a peace process and is willing to take the time to make it work; Zelaya sees this as a hostage negotiation and believes acting soon is the only option. Which analogy wins the international debate may impact the outcome.
Labels: conflict, CostaRica, democracy, honduras, latinamerica |
