Even more on Honduras and turnout
As I had earlier written, the Honduran TSE had initially estimated 61% turnout, which has now been revised down to 49% (though we still rely on news reports, as I still don't see final numbers on the TSE site). And, indeed, I should have reported that turnout in 2005 was 55% rather than 45%. So will this affect recognition? It is hard to see it as being a dramatic enough change, but as always with the Honduran crisis, we have to wait and see.
A recent email exchange about turnout has also made me think about the political effects if Liberal Party supporters were disproportionately boycotting (as we would logically expect). Could that have the lose-lose impact of not being enough to delegitimize the election while being just enough to hurt the party in the legislature?
12 comments:
Could that have the lose-lose impact of not being enough to delegitimize the election while being just enough to hurt the party in the legislature?
As I wrote in a previous post, boycotts tend to backfire on those who are doing the boycotting. Look at the Venezuelan 2005 legislative elections for another example. With rare examples to the contrary, candidates who boycott elections tend to lose more influence than the election winners they try to discredit.
Then again, Zelaya had more than one motivation for boycotting. Certainly, he wanted to see an election defeat for the Micheletti and Santos blocs of the Liberal Party who supported the coup. Even if he didn't succeed in delegitimizing the election, he certainly got some revenge in watching them lose big.
yes, boycotts are not a good idea.
I appreciate the corrections, Greg. I won't harass you about the matter again.
As I wrote in a previous post, boycotts tend to backfire on those who are doing the boycotting.
This whole line of reasoning is just another way of blaming the victim, which is what Boz is known to do when he doesn't care for the victim. This is not a genuine form of argumentation. If the Venezuelan opposition were facing daily curfews, the total militarization of the country's public spaces, and a summary shutdown of almost all of the opposition's major media, would Boz be blaming the Venezuelan opposition if it decided to boycott an election under such circumstances? No. The sole purpose of Boz's post is to try to deligitimize Zelaya.
The Venezuelan opposition's boycott of the 2005 legislative elections was absurd because all of the conditions for a free and fair election were in place, as Insulza himself noted.
Boz's whole line of reasoning goes something like this. Let's not do what's necessary to help pressure the Honduran coup leaders to restore the presidency to the country's democratically elected president. And, then, now that we're complicit in putting Zelaya and his supporters up against a wall, let's trash them for boycotting an election held under conditions that are clearly not free and fair.
That's a pretty slimy position, if you ask me.
If the Venezuelan opposition were facing daily curfews, the total militarization of the country's public spaces, and a summary shutdown of almost all of the opposition's major media, would Boz be blaming the Venezuelan opposition if it decided to boycott an election under such circumstances?
I would especially blame the Venezuelan opposition, because of all groups, they should have learned that boycotts are not an effective political strategy. I wouldn't be blaming them for the undemocratic conditions in Venezuela, any more than I blame Zelaya for the coup, but they are responsible for making poor strategic decisions in the face of declining democracy.
If I was advising a candidate or political party, across the political spectrum, in any country in the hemisphere, I would recommend participating over boycotting. That goes for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, US, or Venezuela.
I would especially blame the Venezuelan opposition...
Sure you would, Boz. And I suppose you'd also lobby for U.S. recognition of a Venezuelan election carried out under Honduran-style conditions as well.
Stop lying, Boz. This is why I don't take you seriously. You try to dress up your positions as if they were based on some principle, but the reality of the situation is that this is just a PR game for you. Your one and only "principle" is that Washington's position is always correct.
This is typical Justin:
boz: I believe x
JD: No, you believe y and you are wrong.
boz: I actually believe x
JD: You lie. You believe y and you're wrong.
You're not able to argue against my logic, so you insist on changing my positions to fit your worldview and standard talking points.
Back to the point, I actually believe election boycotts are an ineffective strategy and politically weaken the people/parties who boycott. In the cases of both Honduras and Venezuela, the evidence seems to back up my position.
Why does anyone take what eternal-student Justin has to say about Latin America seriously? Oh the mysteries of life!
As for Honduras it was clearly a mistake to boycott the elections as it won't stop what's going to happen (new president, Zelaya becoming 'history', recognition from a growing number of nations).
Notice, Boz, that you can't actually bring yourself to say that you would lobby for U.S. recognition of a Venezuelan election carried out under Honduran-style conditions. Yet you lobby for such recognition in the Honduran case. That just confirms my point that you don't have any real standards.
All I can gather from what you say is that you would adopt the completely convoluted position of not recognizing Venezuelan elections under Honduran-style conditions but also encouraging the Venezuelan opposition not to boycott those elections.
You say that you adhere to one or another principle, but, in the hour of truth, you typically change your supposed standards to fit the prerogatives of the Washington establishment.
Boz is his usual fake, anti-democratic, pro-imperialist self.
Might makes right, in this immiserated worldview. The slaves should just accept their domination.
So typical of the effete, imperial intellectual.
No integrity whatsoever, Boz.
The little people being terrorized by the pro-empire Honduran oligarchy are held in utter contempt by the bought-off intellectual whores that massage the balls of those more powerful.
Justin has what is know as honesty and honor--and he scares you fake asses punks.
You punks have been bested, so shut the hell up.
SR,
It's bad enough you spout such silly blather but please don't threaten anyone here. No one cares what you have to say about anything.
I find the argument between Boz and Justin interesting. As an impartial observer, the fact that Justin uses his name lends more credibility, forgive if I'm mistaken to Boz's anonymity.
Generally, the postings by Boz are accurate and fact based, but here I find a clear dilemma: in which we have two sets of actors.
The first, A, is the US government and its lackeys. The second, B, is the latin American consensus, including Brazil, Venezuela, OEA, UNASUR, etc.
In the Venezuelan case, A agreed with the opposition that conditions were not in place while B recognized democratic conditions.
In Honduras, A initially recognized along with B that conditions were not in place, but then changed its mind without justification, and without further mention of the uncomfortable truth.
Setting aside the issue of strategy vis a vis boycotts, it seems logically evident to me that Boz is following the Washington "consensus" to simply wash the undemocratic conditions under the rug, which dissapoints me since I'd say the other 90% of Boz's positions are fact-based and consistent.
There is no "Latin American consensus". Peru, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica all share the US view. Watch how other countries do the same in the future.
Talk of a "Latin American view' makes no sense, as one does not exist. The countries in the region have different views.
Post a Comment