The case against rejecting elections in Honduras
Before you read this, go read my post from back in September "Elections won't return democracy to Honduras." Seriously, go read it, I insist.
This post outlines the case for not rejecting elections in Honduras (note the double negative is on purpose), even if elections are not an ideal solution. This post isn't arguing that the international community should fully embrace elections in Honduras. However, I think it's worth writing out some arguments in favor of recognizing them.
Moving on. For Hondurans, elections are a chance at a new beginning. If elections aren't recognized, then this crisis continues and stagnates. Given the choice between moving forward or continuing to fight over the coup, it seems cruel for the international community to push Honduras to continue fighting.
New leadership. The main way elections help move beyond the crisis is by getting Micheletti out of the de facto president's chair and moving beyond Zelaya's term in office towards a new government. I think dealing with Lobo or Santos once they have been elected by a majority of Hondurans will be easier than dealing with Micheletti. Once Zelaya's term is over, the issue of whether he should be reinstated becomes much less of a political issue in the country. New people make it more likely we can move past the ugly politics of the last five months.
Beyond the presidency. Any solution to returning democracy to Honduras must include elected leaders at every level and branch. These elections are for the legislature and local positions as well as president. Rejecting these elections means rejecting the political leadership at every level of government in the country, which would be a harsh verdict to condemn the country from a fight over the presidency between Zelaya and Micheletti. If the international community doesn't recognize elections, then they condemn Honduras to not having a single elected leader in any position next year.
Don't prejudge. The candidates were chosen before the coup. The National Electoral Tribunal is independent of the Micheletti government. Observers should come in, observe the elections and state what went right and what went wrong rather than prejudge them and condemn them fully before they're held.
Most Hondurans want elections. While polls show Hondurans dislike the de facto government, disagree with the coup and many wish Zelaya could return, a large majority of Hondurans also want elections to be recognized as legitimate. The international community shouldn't allow a small minority of voters to veto the legitimacy of elections that a majority want to recognize.
Imperfect elections recognized all the time. Restrictions on speech, media and assembly? Government using their position of power to unfairly influence the population? Concerns about cheating? Part of the population boycotting or not recognizing the legitimacy of the election? Wow, that sounds like a dozen or so elections in Latin America over the past two decades. Unfortunately, the international community recognizes imperfect elections all the time. Sometimes they acknowledge the criticisms of the opponents of the election, but they rarely refuse to legitimize the elected government. Honduras may be a more extreme case than the election problems in Venezuela or Colombia or Haiti, but it's not exactly Cuba or North Korea with the dictator in power holding a sham and winning 99% of the vote either.
Better than the alternative. Canceling or postponing elections is a serious action. If they're canceled, and the de facto government refuses to reinstitute Zelaya, then what? Micheletti remains as president? New president is named by Congress? Assuming the coup government won't let Zelaya return, the options other than elections are worse than holding an imperfect election. Those options definitely lead away democracy, while elections at least open the possibility for reestablishing democracy.
This post outlines the case for not rejecting elections in Honduras (note the double negative is on purpose), even if elections are not an ideal solution. This post isn't arguing that the international community should fully embrace elections in Honduras. However, I think it's worth writing out some arguments in favor of recognizing them.
Moving on. For Hondurans, elections are a chance at a new beginning. If elections aren't recognized, then this crisis continues and stagnates. Given the choice between moving forward or continuing to fight over the coup, it seems cruel for the international community to push Honduras to continue fighting.
New leadership. The main way elections help move beyond the crisis is by getting Micheletti out of the de facto president's chair and moving beyond Zelaya's term in office towards a new government. I think dealing with Lobo or Santos once they have been elected by a majority of Hondurans will be easier than dealing with Micheletti. Once Zelaya's term is over, the issue of whether he should be reinstated becomes much less of a political issue in the country. New people make it more likely we can move past the ugly politics of the last five months.
Beyond the presidency. Any solution to returning democracy to Honduras must include elected leaders at every level and branch. These elections are for the legislature and local positions as well as president. Rejecting these elections means rejecting the political leadership at every level of government in the country, which would be a harsh verdict to condemn the country from a fight over the presidency between Zelaya and Micheletti. If the international community doesn't recognize elections, then they condemn Honduras to not having a single elected leader in any position next year.
Don't prejudge. The candidates were chosen before the coup. The National Electoral Tribunal is independent of the Micheletti government. Observers should come in, observe the elections and state what went right and what went wrong rather than prejudge them and condemn them fully before they're held.
Most Hondurans want elections. While polls show Hondurans dislike the de facto government, disagree with the coup and many wish Zelaya could return, a large majority of Hondurans also want elections to be recognized as legitimate. The international community shouldn't allow a small minority of voters to veto the legitimacy of elections that a majority want to recognize.
Imperfect elections recognized all the time. Restrictions on speech, media and assembly? Government using their position of power to unfairly influence the population? Concerns about cheating? Part of the population boycotting or not recognizing the legitimacy of the election? Wow, that sounds like a dozen or so elections in Latin America over the past two decades. Unfortunately, the international community recognizes imperfect elections all the time. Sometimes they acknowledge the criticisms of the opponents of the election, but they rarely refuse to legitimize the elected government. Honduras may be a more extreme case than the election problems in Venezuela or Colombia or Haiti, but it's not exactly Cuba or North Korea with the dictator in power holding a sham and winning 99% of the vote either.
Better than the alternative. Canceling or postponing elections is a serious action. If they're canceled, and the de facto government refuses to reinstitute Zelaya, then what? Micheletti remains as president? New president is named by Congress? Assuming the coup government won't let Zelaya return, the options other than elections are worse than holding an imperfect election. Those options definitely lead away democracy, while elections at least open the possibility for reestablishing democracy.
Labels: conflict, democracy, honduras, latinamerica, OAS, US-foreign-policy |
