Coup supporter choices
RAJ's most recent post reminds me that after two months, it is worthwhile covering some old ground again. Mel Zelaya sought to include a question in a national vote about whether Honduran voters wanted to form a commission to discuss the reform of the constitution. We know that a majority was against the idea, and so he certainly would have lost.
So in retrospect coup supporters are faced with the following choice:
Would you allow a president you believed was acting illegally to hold a vote he would lose, or choose to illegally overthrow him and remove him from the country?
Days since the coup: 62
Days until the scheduled presidential election: 92
5 comments:
Greg, I simply don't agree with the premise that a majority of Hondurans would be against amending and reconfiguring the constitution.
As it stands, the intertests and aspirations of the majority is not defined and even marginalized--as a function of maintaining status quo relations of duopolistic power.
If presented in an intelligent manner, I would imagine that a majority would favor changes that bring authentic democratic changes into everyday governance.
What is certain is that the current configuration of power is undemocratic and furthers immiseration and ecological despoilation.
The treatment the amendment got in the Honduran media means that Greg's assumption may have been correct. But a real ideological battle would have been waged - during this time. That the golpistas chose what the did tells me they were not nearly as sure as Greg. And they weren't risking having a Constitution that guaranteed the rights found in the Venezuelan or Ecuadorian Constitutions.
70% suffering sever poverty, is there any doubt they want a new Constitution and new government go with it? Surely the rich nobility knew it and that is why the coup they told the U.S. to execute it.
Yes, even when you own the press, you can not be sure of controlling people's minds. All I was saying, to be clear, is that private media propaganda has played an important role in mis-informing people in Honduras.
So you actually believe that Zelaya created a constitutional crisis by repeatedly ignoring other insitutions, that he stormed a military base in direct contravention of a court ruling, that he was planning on having his own people (and not the relevant instutions) run the referendum, yet he was just going to accept 'losing' the vote?
So on June 29th, according to you, Zelaya was going to say, "Sorry I created such an institutional mess, sorry I ordered the armed forces to assist in the referendum despite what the courts said, but I lost and that's that. Let's move on to the next thing."
You really believe that?
Incredible.
Post a Comment