Honduras's post-coup president

Patching things up

The new government is doing better abroad than at home

See article

Readers' comments



The Economist's analyses have truly gone down the drain and this article is a prime example. As pointed out above, Zelaya did not "attempt to rewrite the constitution;" he did attempt to hold a non-binding survey asking voters whether or not they would like to have a Constitutional Assembly set up. The result would have been presented to Congress (the only entity with the authority to set up such a body). Had it chosen to take on the issue, Congress could have proceeded with or vetoed the motion. Do not refer to Zelaya's attempt as illegal since that is at question; some considered it legal, others didn't.

Constitutional order did not return with Lobo's inauguration. Had that been the case countries in the region would've resumed diplomatic ties with Honduras and the country would have been readmitted back into the OAS. Elections were held in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation and turnout was falsely reported at 60%, later revised to 49%, a percentage questioned by many since those opposed to the coup widely boycotted the election.

Amnesty was not passed at Lobo's urging. It was passed prior to Lobo's inauguration by Congress in an attempt to acquit the military and Congress itself (after forging Zelaya's signature in a much-ridiculed supposed letter of resignation). Zelaya happened to be an accidental beneficiary of the amnesty. By the way, such amnesty does not cover the thousands of human rights violations that took place in the wake of the coup at the hands of the police, militaries, and paramilitaries (and which include illegal mass arrests, beatings, torture, rapes, and outright assassinations). The brass of the military were indeed appointed to high-profile posts under the new administration, a move seen by many as a pat in the back for their role in the coup.

The Central American Integration System has not readmitted Honduras. At the July 21 meeting referred to in the article, member countries (with the exception of Nicaragua) issued a resolution urging the member countries to vote on such a move (which can only be approved by full unanimity).

Hondurans have accepted the end of Zelaya's term. No one thinks of him as President anymore. What both camps (pro-coup and resistance) wants is Zelaya's return. But for different reasons. After the coup, Zelaya's Liberal Party fractured in two: those in favor of the coup (largely its leadership) and those against (largely its base). The party needs Zelaya to save the party from withering and dying. Leaders of the resistance (which for clarity's sake is a banner that conglomerates a wide range of civil society groups against the coup), recently kick Liberal Party reps out of a leadership meeting. The move has been interpreted as indicative of the Liberal Party's diminished relevance. Lobo's National Party wants Zelaya back as a move to thaw opposition by most of South America, regain access to the OAS and the grants and loans that come with membership, and ultimately avoid general discontent that in 2013 could translate into a loss in the Presidential election.

As for the journalist murdered, by most accounts they are seen as politically motivated given that (1) all but one were critical of the coup and the actors behind it and (2) the assassinations are part of series of systematic assassinations and intimidation tactics aimed at resistance leaders, human rights advocates, and independent media - all critical of the coup.

In short, this is a more complex matter than The Economist's simplistic analysis as well as some of the commenters above has made it look like. It looks like the debate will rage on for the foreseeable future. It might behoove The Economist to become better informed and report more accurately on the matter from now on.


Honduras Culture Politics

I don't know where you get your facts but you are wrong in many counts:

For instance, you say that Zelaya was not attempting to rewrite the constitution yet the very purpose of his so called "non binding poll" was a rewrite of the Constitution.

You also say that the liberal party declined to be a part of the gvernment yet there are several prominent liberal leaders appointed as ministers, ambassadors and so on (for Instance, mr. Jacobo Regalado, Current Minister of agriculture is a prominent liberal and a former minister of Mr Zelaya who disagreed with him). there are also leaders of the resistance movement that are ministers (cesar ham comes to mind and so does Jorge Arturo Reyna, Zelaya´s ambassador to the UN and a very prominent liberal, brother of a now deceased ex president).

You also say that the amnesty was an instrument of impunity for the coup plotters, yet all of Zelaya´s ministers who have filed a legal defence using that decree have been granted said amnesty. I dont know of any "golpistas" covered by the amnesty so far.

Also, although the murder rate in Honduras remains shockingly high, it has actually remained stagnant since 2008,a year in which Zelaya was still President.

The article is wrong in many instances though. The right hasnt been "appeassed" and far more concesions have been given to the left than to the right. Zelaya was a leftist. The article implies that the left dislikes him, yet it's exactly the other way around. Zelaya is the left´s current mesiah.

The resistance movement has indeed stagnated thanks to the hardliners amongst it whoseem to think that excluding anyone who doesn´t hold extremist communist views should be kicked out. Hence the division into the "popular resistance movement" and the "liberal resistance movement". The first has a revolutionary view and the other believes in using political means.

Both you and the Economist should get your facts right.


Zelaya most definitely was intent on prolonging his term. He allocated zero funds to hold the November election, which was the regularly scheduled, constitutional election, with candidates who had been chosen in normal primaries that had been held prior to Zelaya's treason. The election budget was important, because if there were no ballots printed, no voting machines in place, no election, he would still be president(in his grand scheme). His associates stole two million dollars of Honduran money from the bank to hold the 'referendum' with ballots printed by Chavez. See Article and video in Washington Times

That was money that could have gone to Honduran hospitals, schools, roads, etc. One reason he can't come home is that he isn't trying to return that money and stand trial for bank robbery.

The first thing Micheletti did was to restore the budget to the Electoral commission so that the election could go on.

By the way, the 'resistence' thinks they want to change the constitution so that a President can run more than one term. They think that will get them Zelaya back, but it would also allow Micheletti, or Flores or any other former President to run again. The results might not be what they think, although they will never get that ammendment. Honduran patriots are determined to keep their one term rule to save them from chavistas.


Relative to the journalist's deaths, which are tragic, some of them were reporting on corruption, organized crime and matters other than political. Both pro-zelaya and pro-government sides have had people killed and threatened.


Honduras, Culture Politics

If you are going to condemn the economist for incurring in serious errors of fact (I will concur that the economist as of late has err on poorly researched journalism) and present your personal impression of the facts put your little ideological bag on the side and try to be objective and not misleading.

Thank you and be happy

Honduras Culture Politics

There are serious errors of fact in this article that should make readers cautious about accepting the "analysis" provided.

(1) Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales did not "attempt to rewrite the constitution". He attempted to hold a non-binding public opinion poll about whether the citizenry wanted to convene a Constitutional Convention.

(2) The Lobo Sosa "unity" government cannot include "five opposition parties" because there are not five such parties. It includes members of the UD, PINU, and Christian Democrats as well as his own National party. The major opposition Liberal party declined to participate.

(3) Lobo Sosa was not responsible for the amnesty law which passed before he took office-- e.g. under the de facto, dictatorial regime of Roberto Micheletti. That amnesty was aimed at members of the regime, not Zelaya, and has created impunity for them.

(4) SICA's "readmission" of Honduras has been challenged by Nicaragua, a member state not present nor in agreement with the meeting. SICA's charter calls for unanimous agreement. Lobo Sosa signed the statement saying Honduras was "readmitted", which would imply Honduras voted on it while suspended.

(5) There is no group of Hondurans that thinks Manuel Zelaya is "still president". There is a group that thinks Lobo Sosa was illegitimately elected, but that is quite a different point. Rejecting Lobo Sosa means saying Honduras currently has no legitimate president. Zelaya's term ended this January, and he and his supporters know that.

(6) The Resistance has hardly stagnated. It is collecting signatures on a citizen petition for a Constitutional Assembly, and reportedly has more than half a million. It recently elected interim governance. Zelaya, while elected to the coordinating council, is not the "leader" of the resistance.

(7) In addition to not noting that most of the journalists killed were anti-coup, your report implies the death rate for journalists is similar to that for the country as a whole (which has risen shockingly). Actual figures exist that show journalists were killed this year at rates vastly higher than the population at large, and there is no way to argue that is accidental.

For real information about Honduras see our blog: Honduras Culture and Politics


You forgot to mention that most of the journalists that have been murdered or attacked were anti-Zelaya or worked for anti-Zelaya outlets. Leaving the comment unqualified as you did gives the impression that the government is doing the killing.


I just returned from Tegucigalpa, and witnessed the march on June 28th. I was surprised that the turnout was as numerous as it was. From what we saw it was a peaceful demonstration. Of course, it is ridiculous that some people still want Zelaya back because he is a crook who does not truly care about the poor at all. The 'resistence' is naive to think that if they were to prevail in taking all the money away from the rich and give it to the poor, that would improve anything. The rich would just leave the country and take their money with them, as they are in NY. Where there is revolution, there is no tourism, no industry, no investment, no jobs. Just look at any communist country, like Nicaraugua. No development at all. No roads, no infrastructure. BTW, the Hondurans are improving their roads.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter 57 mins ago
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



