For some writing I am doing, I was re-reading parts of Alfred Stepan's classic work on civil-military relations in Brazil, published in 1971. He is referring to the military "moderator" role in politics. The following segment really struck me with regard to Honduras:
When we discuss the legitimacy of a government or the legitimacy of a political role for the military, we are largely concerned with what the participant civilian political groups considered appropriate political processes, given all the circumstances. My analysis indicates that the military was often felt to be the only available structure that could perform certain functions the participant elite felt had to be performed. Military performance of these functions--whether checking the executive or maintaining internal order--was thus granted some degree of legitimacy, even by many groups who on cultural grounds were deeply antimilitarist.
Thus when the argue in the following chapters that civilian groups "sanctioned" military intervention at certain times, my point is not to argue that I think such action was morally legitimate, just, or correct, but rather to illustrate how deeply embedded such activity was in the political system itself.
Alfred Stepan, The Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1971): p. 66.