tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post2945642906670937381..comments2023-09-12T01:15:08.356-07:00Comments on Honduras Coup 2009: How many ways can we charge you for the same deeds? Goodbye to the "June 26" legal filingRAJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-1591971272887772822009-09-28T14:45:02.301-07:002009-09-28T14:45:02.301-07:00Always fine to reproduce any content; please do al...Always fine to reproduce any content; please do always include a link back, if possible, and attribution to this blog.<br /><br />While I have not figured out how to post the Creative Commons license yet, all content is available under Creative Commons licensing, providing that attribution is maintained and the content is not commercialized.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-40292949483255679472009-09-28T14:30:28.882-07:002009-09-28T14:30:28.882-07:00Dear RAJ,
Thanks for this post. It was the most c...Dear RAJ,<br /><br />Thanks for this post. It was the most clear explanation about what happened I've found. In Brazilian newspapers, people make no distinction and call Zelaya's initiative a plebiscite. Even worse, people simply assume it was a plebiscite which could, in fact, allow him to be reelected.<br /><br />I would like to reproduce part of your post in my own blog. Is that fine for you? I think that because Brazil is somehow involved in this process, is our responsibility to get to know the facts.<br /><br />In solidarity with the Honduran people,<br />Raphael NevesRaphael Neveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09578722870594137609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-53637989519188405452009-09-03T13:56:33.747-07:002009-09-03T13:56:33.747-07:00Actually, I agree on the lack of a word clearly eq...Actually, I agree on the lack of a word clearly equivalent to poll, and also on the well-differentiated meanings of <i>encuesta</i> and <i>consulta</i>.<br /><br />The point I am trying to make-- badly due to being preoccupied with a turn for the worse for colleagues in Honduras-- is that the coup apologists have tried to use Article 5 to claim that the only forms of "consulta" are the plebiscite and referendum. But it actually says that these are the mechanisms of "consulta" that are specific to the Congress. A less perverse reading, I think, is that Article 5 is concerned with reserving the differentiated and well defined forms of <i>voting</i> to the Congress.<br /><br />It was to regulate the plebiscite and referendum that the Congress passed a law on June 23. Not to regulate the meaning of the word "consulta".<br /><br />Honduran legal scholars discussed in blog entries here previously have, among many other things, argued explicitly that it was problematic for Congress to try to define the plebiscite and referendum as identical to, and thus the only meanings of, "consulta".RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-36820338424148570552009-09-03T11:22:30.929-07:002009-09-03T11:22:30.929-07:00Thanks for adding those points, RAJ. I think that ...Thanks for adding those points, RAJ. I think that these are critical elements to bring forward, elements that are essential to properly understanding the dispute between Zelaya and the rest of the Honduran government. I don't think that there's any point on which we disagree except perhaps on the translation of the word "consulta" as a "poll." The word "consulta" has historical resonances relating to sovereignty, while "encuesta" has a closer affinity to the word "inquest" with its overtones of scientific investigation. English tends to blur the meanings between surveying opinion and electing candidates or enacting referenda. One can, for example, say that a candidate "polled" 55% and mean that he was elected with that percentage of the votes <i>or</i> that a survey indicated that he <i>would</i> receive that percentage of votes. But Spanish seems to me to be more fussy. At least as of my 1961 Velasquez, there is no single word that translates as "poll" in the sense of surveying opinion and "encuesta" and "consulta" have well-differentiated meanings. <br /><br />That's a fascinating interpretation that the delay in publishing the order may have been to deny the Congress/Supreme Court the ability to find other reasons to cavil. It's ironic that it should have given the opposition room in which to stir up a tempest. But it does seem that Zelaya has consistently been much too optimistic about the people with whom he was dealing. <br /><br />--CharlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-56056685278219602712009-09-03T00:43:13.354-07:002009-09-03T00:43:13.354-07:00For Charles, Part II:
We both agree that Zelaya&#...For Charles, Part II:<br /><br />We both agree that Zelaya's change from consulta-- even though the word cannot be taken automatically to mean plebiscite or referendum-- and use of the more opinion-oriented <i>encuesta</i> was intended to conform to the requirement that he not intrude on congressional territory. <br /><br />That decision was made earlier but not published until just before the scheduled June 28 event. The interpretation made of this by coup apologists is that there was a nefarious plan to change the question at the last minute. Since that did not happen when the order was published in the Gaceta, I think the simpler explanation is that they expected the publication-- an act, not an intention-- to trigger a legal challenge, and they wanted to leave too little time for the court to hear a challenge. That may seem like dirty pool, but it is politics. <br /><br />What no one expected was the over-the-top reaction that happened. Legal charges, more demands in Congress, more drama, yes.<br /><br />I should clarify that the court of administrative-contentious law <i>had</i> issued its (administrative) ruling. What it gave Zelaya until June 23 to do was confirm how he was going to comply with it. Zelaya's government had tried to appeal the ruling with no success. This lower court was in a position to impose sanctions for this administrative offense, but the sanctions were fairly mild and one can see the Zelaya government ignoring the requests as a kind of immense game of chicken. Again, not an unknown political or bureaucratic strategy. "Oh, sorry we are late with our filing where do we pay the fine?"<br /><br />In this entire confrontation, the thing that remains fascinating is how deeply invested both sides got in a struggle over a completely symbolic action (a non-binding poll) which was likely to face great obstacles even if passed, and was (by most social science measures) unlikely to pass. Both sides dug in their heels. <br /><br />You can either take the Hillary Clinton approach and chide Zelaya for starting this (although it would be nice if she were a more even-handed parent when she takes that posture, and she also let the other side know they were out of line). Or, you can consider why this symbolic gesture was important enough for President Zelaya and his cabinet to knowingly take the risk of being prosecuted. Which I think they clearly did expect might happen.<br /><br />Maybe they all thought it mattered in ways that went beyond mere political or governmental effects.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-81467375771547852102009-09-03T00:41:14.945-07:002009-09-03T00:41:14.945-07:00For Charles, Part I: I decided to cut out a piece ...For Charles, Part I: I decided to cut out a piece about the word "consulta".<br /><br />"Consulta" in Article 5 actually is open to two legal interpretations. The most conservative is that every <i>consulta</i> is under congressional control. <br /><br />The other interpretation, which is actually better founded, is that Article 5 is identifying the specific forms of polling that are reserved to congress as the plebiscite and referendum. The implementation of this specific definition of congressional control over plebiscites and referenda is then the purpose of the Ley Especial que Regula el Referéndum y el Plebiscito, which was passed on June 23 by the National Congress. <br /><br />The general point is a critical one: the Constitution is interpreted via the passage of laws. Article 5 doesn't on its own define terms or otherwise clarify if it means to say that the only possible "consultas" are these two mechanisms. A number of Honduran legal scholars have argued that it is not possible for the constitution to be resd this way.<br /><br />A "consulta" that would be illegal would be one that meets the definitions in the regulatory law. Which did not exist until Tuesday before the scheduled poll. One of the key features of this late-breaking law was a requirement that no consulta of any kind-- not just plebiscites and referenda-- could be held within 180 days of a scheduled election. That suddenly made the already-scheduled June 28 poll illegal. There was no provision for grandfathering this in, needless to say, since it was transparent that the whole exercise of finally implementing a law on these forms of consultation, which constitional amendment in 2004 called for implementing as a means to increase participatory citizenship, was intended to block any consultation whatsoever, arguably not what the law of citizen participation was intended to accomplish.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-63491233955826429982009-09-01T17:15:18.011-07:002009-09-01T17:15:18.011-07:00RAJ, I am not sure you bring out the issue on refe...RAJ, I am not sure you bring out the issue on referendum vs. poll clearly enough. Article 5 of the Constitution reads: "A efecto de fortalecer y hacer funcionar la democracia participativa se instituyen como mecanismos de consulta a los ciudadanos el referéndum y el plebiscito para asuntos de importancia fundamental en la vida nacional." It puts the Congress in charge of consultas. <br /><br />So, a consulta includes means that *would* have been illegal for Zelaya to use, which is presumably why he changed to an encuesta on May 26th. <br /><br />Once he had made that substantial-- and reasonable-- concession, it was time for the Court to back off. I agree that Zelaya had demonstrated respect for separation of powers by this step.<br /><br />I also think that because of the timing of the survey, expecting Zelaya to make formal response by June 23rd was not unreasonable. That would give the court only about a week to issue a ruling. It's puzzling that it took a month for the order to change from a consulta to an encuesta to be published. Can you add any clarity to that? <br /><br />As usual, you've made a terrific post, but on these points, a little more explanation would help. <br /><br />--Charles of MercuryRisingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com