Coup Confusion in Honduras: Zelaya vs. Micheletti

A crisis of democracy is underway in Honduras, as protesters muster forces on either side of a dispute over whether ousted President Manuel Zelaya has been removed from power legally. Roberto Micheletti has taken over as interim leader and his government is unwilling to backdown in the face of international pressure.

Western governments and Western media have been quick to denounce the coup, putting pressure on the interim government of Honduras to reinstate Zelaya. The UN has even recalled the ambassadors of all its member countries, while the Organization of American States has threatened to suspend the country if the dispute does not get resolved by Saturday.

Yet the Hondruan congress claims that it was not an illegal coup and that Zelaya was found guilty of treason and exiled legally. The opposition to Zelaya claims that he was attempting to make amendments to the constitution so that he could remain in power. They also accuse him of trying to align the country with leftist revolutionary governments.

The coup has prompted the international community to condemn the interim government. Yet even though the OAS has condemned the coup the US has not declared it illegal:



There is public support for both side of the dispute, making it difficult to understand what is in fact going on in the country.

Supporters of Zelaya claim that he is helping the poor.

Yet Micheletti supporters say that not only is Zelaya aligning himself with left wing governments like Cuba and Venezuela but that he is also involved with major drug trafficking organizations.

The tension has left the population polarized:


Amidst this confusion international financial institutions have begun to lean on the interim government.



The actions of western governments and institutions to condemn the coup so quickly bring up questions about the legitimacy of their motivations.

Developping countries are wound tightly into the debt structures of international finance through a host of trade and finance agreements. Yet if their congress is acting legally than they should enjoy the democratic freedom to do so.

The World Bank does not have a mandate to determine constitutional legality in a country, yet they insist on putting economic pressure on the interim government even though it has acted legally within its own constitutional framework.

These types of actions are reminiscent of structural adjustment programs created by the IMF and World bank in the 90s which forced developing countries to open their borders to international trade, and liberalize their financial markets in exchange for funding and aid.

The World Bank's actions during the 90s in the name of structural adjustments are widely regarded as being more harmful than productive, contributing to at least 3 financial crises (Argentinean, Mexican Peso and Asian crises).

More information available through the Wikipedia post.

Where should the line be drawn between the desire of western countries for stability in their backyard and the desire to spread democracy?

Western financial institutions have been used as wedges to pry open economies for the last 50 years. But often the economic expansion and trade mechanisms do not bring with them the necessary legal structures developing countries need to take advantage of trade relationships.

Fernando Desoto, a prominent Peruvian economist, has claimed for years that in order for developing countries to achieve economic growth, legal frameworks need to be in place to allow for the development of law.

To create a society that can depend on its government to protect the interests of its citizens there must be a legal framework. Yet when a country attempts to legally restrict a political leader from creating social and political unrest, the West steps in to slap them on the wrist… suggesting yet again that the West knows best.