| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caribbean-Latin America |
| Zelaya's 'poll' more than that |
| 2009-07-03 |
| by Eduardo Gamarra Media coverage on Honduras this week has been filled with opinions condemning the coup that overthrew President Manuel Zelaya. I include myself among those who oppose any form of violent and/or unconstitutional change of government. Nonetheless, President Zelaya's speech at the United Nations this week has left me pondering whether this man was overthrown for violating the Honduran constitution or because he simply thought that Hondurans were not intelligent enough to believe his justification for conducting an unauthorized referendum. Its outcome might have enabled him to remain in office beyond January 2010, when his term is scheduled to end. President Zelaya explained to the world this week that he was overthrown by a military coup for simply attempting to conduct a public opinion poll. He added that he was about to perform nothing more than what a regular polling firm such as Gallup does on a regular basis when he was violently escorted out of the country by machine-gun-wielding soldiers. Zelaya also explained that 37 countries and the Organization of American States had sent observers to see how he conducted the poll. Finally, he said that the poll was nonbinding and that it was simply intended to ask Hondurans a couple of questions, including whether he should be allowed to stand for reelection in November and whether a Constituent Assembly ought to be called to modify the constitution. As someone who has been involved in public opinion research throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I am disconcerted by Zelaya's attempt to justify a dubious referendum by claiming that he was doing nothing more than any reputable research firm might conduct. If Zelaya wanted to conduct a public opinion survey he would have been better off hiring one of the many good Central American or Honduran firms that regularly survey public opinion in Honduras. Or, he might have even gone back to the prominent Washington firm that ran his campaign in 2005. The cost in either case would have been less expensive in both the financial and political sense. Even if one were to give President Zelaya the benefit of the doubt regarding his public opinion poll, he could stand for a basic refresher course in the ethics and mechanics of survey research.
It is true that some governments around the hemisphere have bought part of Zelaya's explanation and were even in on the scheme. It is also true that other governments understand that Zelaya did attempt to pass off a cat for a rabbit, as the old Spanish saying goes (gato por liebre), but like me they were not about to justify a military coup of any kind. Given the international condemnation of the coup that toppled Zelaya, it is very likely that he will return soon to Honduras and that he will probably be allowed to resume his duties as the only real constitutional president of that impoverished country. In the final months of his mandate it would be wise for Zelaya to leave the polling to professional pollsters who don't require teams of international observers and the direct intervention of foreign governments to deliver credible and professional results. Eduardo Gamarra is professor of political science at Florida International University. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 The jackass author of this is a PROFESSOR? And yet he cannot be bothered to read the constitution of Honduras, which is the basis for ALL the actions taken legitimately by the Honduran Congress, and Supreme Court - and the military under their lawful order in expelling Z. Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed." So when will this idiot be educated as to the CONSTITUTION of Honduras and that the current president it the ONLY constitutionally elected president of Honduras, not the criminal would-be dictator he proposes to illegally restore to power? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-03 13:58 |
| #5 Obama is with Castro and Chavez - juntists - on this one. Posted by Andy Thrirong7408 This is an area where "Change" cannot apply. Any destabilization or disruption of the cartels or their leadership has the potential of creating a corresponding negative impact on the "creation" and saving of jobs" in urban America. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-07-03 13:38 |
| #4 I lived in Central America during the heavy coup period. Zelaya's conduct is consistent with the juntists that I remember. It is the Supreme Court and the military that is acting to preserve a constitutional order. The editorial nonsense on this issue has been sickening. There hasn't been the slightest evidence that the armed services intended to form a military dictatorship. Obama is with Castro and Chavez - juntists - on this one. |
| Posted by: Andy Thrirong7408 2009-07-03 13:30 |
| #3 editor: please insert "military" for "government" in the first sentence between "If the" and "acts". Thanks. Going for coffee now. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2009-07-03 08:20 |
| #2 If the government acts on the orders of the Judiciary (legal in Honduras by their constitution), and the military stands down, returning the presidency to the civilian authorities, it is the shortest military coup in known history. Or it is the military acting legally under the framework of the existing constitutional regime. The latter is simpler. Occam's Razor. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2009-07-03 08:19 |
| #1 Sounds like a typical crook's whine, "I din't do nuttin wrong" |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-07-03 01:40 |