More on recognition in Honduras
It appears that a broad demand by countries that opposed the coup is to accept Mel Zelaya's brief reinstatement before Pepe Lobo takes office. From the Ibero-American Summit:
"They consider that the reinstatement of President Manuel Zelaya to the position that he was democratically elected for, until his term ends, is a fundamental step for a return to constitutional normality in Honduras," the statement said.
And specifically from Lula:
"If something new happens, we can discuss it. For now, the (Brazilian) position is not to accept the electoral process in Honduras. A new thing (we could discuss) is for Zelaya to take over for the inauguration of the new president," Lula said.In other words, very brief. I have to wonder whether Zelaya would go for that, but Lula has a powerful voice, especially since Zelaya is living in the Brazilian embassy.
11 comments:
RAJ has a more complete account of the Brazilian government's actual statements and position.
It was surprising and disappointing that you declined to correct your assertion, based entirely on a preliminary announcement of the TSE, that "the turnout question is therefore now answered", or to update with even a mention of the conflicting estimate of the official exit-polling firm.
The implausibility of turnout being almost ten points higher than in the last presidential election also makes it remarkable that you would take one preliminary figure from an interested party as settling the issue.
It's completely irrelevant how many outlets have repeated the TSE figure; did the number of times it was repeated as fact make the "Zelaya tried to change the constitution to extend his term in office" lie canard any more factual?
The actual number of voters and valid vs. nullified ballots is highly relevant to any real understanding of the political situation in Honduras. Unfortunately, the official figures will now apparently be delayed until after Christmas.
Actual turnout might be less relevant to governments in their deliberations on how to relate to Lobo before and after his inauguration, and it may be that that's what you're most interested in. But to say that the question is answered is very like Pres. Obama's saying in his letter to Pres. Da Silva that the Honduran situation would be "starting from zero" after the elections: it's a fact-free assertion made to back up a preferred course of action.
It's slowly dawning on Zelayistas that their hopes for a united front against recognizing the electoral results is not happening. Brazil is sending out signals of what it wants to get this over with. Maybe they'll let Zelaya return for the few days still left in his term? Of course, Zelaya vowed he wouldn't accept that but it's clear his promises have little value.
Things are getting real sticky in Tegucigalpa.
The following information is coming from the National Lawyers Guild and a Congresswoman in Honduras, Elvia Argentina Valle:
Taking the total number of registered voters presented to the Congress prior to the elections, and then comparing that total with the number of voters reported at 9 p.m. on Nov. 29 -- when the military-controlled Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) reported that 98% of the votes had been counted -- Congresswoman Elvia Argentina Valle demonstrates that the real abstention rate -- that is, registered voters who did not vote -- was 62% (i.e., only 38% of the people had voted).
This figure is a far cry from the figure presented in the official declaration by the military-controlled TSE, which, using the exact same official data, reported that the abstention rate was only 38.14% (that is, 61.86% of the Honduran people had voted).
The international news media all reported this official 61.86% participation rate in the election uncritically, not even bothering to check, count, or challenge the official numbers. This figure was used worldwide to show that the majority of the people had voted and that this election marked an "important step on the democratic path toward resolving the political crisis in Honduras," as the U.S. State Department put it.
When Congresswoman Elvia Argentina Valle and others went public to point out the giant discrepancies in the TSE's own official reports, the TSE was in a terrible bind. They met behind close doors for three hours on Nov. 30 to discuss what to do. Indeed, the figures released showed that only 38% of the registered voters had voted, not close to 62%. After three hours of deliberations they went public to announce that ... ooops, the TSE had made a mistake when they announced the vote totals at 9 p.m. on Nov. 29. It turns out that the total percentage of votes counted when the election results were announced the evening of Nov. 29 was not 98%, as reported, but only 56%.
But, as the note from Congresswoman Elvia Argentina Valle goes on to point out, this creates a new contradiction and problem for the regime and for the TSE: How can they officially announce a winner in the election with only 56% of the vote counted?
Her conclusion: The whole election, from beginning to end, was one big farse.
Hmmm... I listened to the TSE live on the 29th, and no, they never claimed 98% of the votes had been counted. Pretty ridiculous as full official number are not expected until end of December.
More lies from Zelayistas?
It was surprising and disappointing that you declined to correct your assertion, based entirely on a preliminary announcement of the TSE, that "the turnout question is therefore now answered", or to update with even a mention of the conflicting estimate of the official exit-polling firm.
Indeed, disappointing. Unfortunately, I think Greg is of the antiquated mindset that a professor never admits his or her mistakes.
The implausibility of turnout being almost ten points higher than in the last presidential election also makes it remarkable that you would take one preliminary figure from an interested party as settling the issue.
Indeed, a very strange thing for a scholar to do.
Very strange indeed. Some don't seem to know what a blog is for.
Some don't seem to know what a blog is for.
Blogs can be for any number of things, but a scholar should be held to a higher standard. Scholarly prestige comes with the responsibility to verify the information that the scholar presents as fact. Greg needs to understand that.
Yep, no clue what a blog is for.
Yep, no clue what a blog is for.
Well, I certainly know what a blog is not for. A blog is not a place for a political scientist to advertise his or her scholarly credentials while simultaneously neglecting to verify the information that he or she presents as fact. I think Greg knows better.
Not only doesn't know what a blog is but now wants to redefine it. Sigh. It's bad enough not knowing but it's worse when one insists others share your incorrect view.
Not only doesn't know what a blog is but now wants to redefine it. Sigh. It's bad enough not knowing but it's worse when one insists others share your incorrect view.
To reiterate, the scenario is as follows:
A political scientist advertises his scholarly credentials on a blog and also carelessly neglects to verify information that he presents as fact on that blog.
What exactly do you find "incorrect" about my view that the aforementioned scenario is not in keeping with a scholarly code of ethics?
Post a Comment