On June 28, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was forcibly removed from power in an apparent coup. Unlike many coups, however, this one was relatively unique in that it was not driven by a would-be-dictators power lust but by a desire to stop just such a thing from happening. You see, Mr. Zelaya had for some time been pushing a referendum that would enable him to "reform" the Honduran constitution to allow for re-election. Unfortunately for Mr. Zelaya, the Honduran constitution has sections which are explicitly labeled as immutable, they cannot be changed ever. While this may seem archaically rigid to inhabitants of the United States, the framers of the Honduran constitution had the nation’s former military dictatorship, which ended in 1982, firmly in mind as they crafted a democratic government. 

President Zelaya, like many other leftists such as Hugo Chavez, believes that the end justifies the means. More appropriately, he uses the cover of his impassioned love of the people as an excuse to increase his own power and trample over the institutions which placed him in his position of power. Despite the condemnation of this referendum by the Honduran Attorney General, it’s Congress, and its Supreme Court Zelaya planned to continue with his illegal referendum. He ignored the Supreme Court’s decision that it was illegal. By all reasonable standards, President Zelaya destroyed his legitimacy by planning to violate the constitution.  Sadly, the Honduran constitution does not specify how to remove a President who violates his mandate and is derelict in his duty. 

In a stunning act of bravery, virtually the entirety of the ELECTED government of Honduras authorized a coup which removed Zelaya from power. The order to do so came from the Supreme Court, but it was largely supported by the rest of the government. The President of the Honduran Congress, a member of Zelaya’s own party, was named interim president as required by the Honduran constitution. The military did not threaten the independence or integrity of the Congress nor other branches of the government. In many ways, this incident seems to be the very picture of justice and patriotism. Men elected by the people or appointed by elected officials, acting in accordance with the law to defend the balance of power, took action to defend the constitution of the nation from the whims of a power hungry ideologue. If only the Germans had been so lucky in 1933. 

Astoundingly, instead of congratulating the nation of Honduras, most of the governments of the Western world have condemned President Zelaya’s removal. Most galling of all, President Obama himself has called the action illegal and insisted that change must be accomplished democratically. It’s hard to believe that his statement is anything but an attempt to appeal to the sentiments to the boisterous strongman of the region, Hugo Chavez. The arrogance or stupidity required to state the Mr. Zelaya was still operating inside of a democratic system is ridiculous. Something that progressive such as President Obama have never properly understood is that the end does not justify the means. The legal fabric of a nation only allows for certain acts. There are some actions that are beyond the bounds of law and constitute either the implicit formation of a new government or a criminal act. An elected leader cannot violate the rules of the system in which he or she was elected, even if the people desire it. Indeed, as Obama is fond of saying, the rule of law must prevail. A leader confronted with such a conundrum, that of an electorate desiring an action which is clearly outside of the reach of his power, must acknowledge his limitations or relinquish his power and openly oppose the system if he feels it is inadequate.

Perhaps the reason for the condemnation from Western governments is that they too are guilty of gradually pushing the envelope of Constitutionality? From Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, many President of the United States have blatantly violated the constitution in the name of progress and the people. Their crime is that they deceive the very people who gave them their power. The people, for the most part, were never aware of the liberties that neither FDR nor Wilson took with the law. They were simply aware of the ostensibly good reasons that were given for certain actions, and, being content with the manner in which their leaders were elected as well as their goals, they remained quiet. A good leader, a truly great leader of a Democratic system does not subtly attempt to push the envelope. He must be honest with them for the system to work. If he must come out and say that the system is flawed and a new one is needed, all people should be informed of this and be allowed to participate in what is essentially the formation of a new system of government.

When a leader hides this necessity, however, he usurps from the people what is their right. One man cannot see all the flaws or all forms which a nation’s government can be in the future. It is in his nation’s best interest for him to solicit the input of all men (arguably a referendum is that, but Zelaya’s was designed to remove limits on his power so that he could make further changes as necessary). For such a leader, such as Zelaya, to take it upon himself to violate a system that was agreed upon by a majority of the people in his nation, to violate a system that the working, voting man adheres to every day, he is usurping the rights and power of the people like countless dictators before him. It is the sacred right of the people to decide how they shall be governed and an attempt by one man to decide this for them is an unacceptable violation of that right. 

President Obama should be ashamed of his public condemnation. He should be ashamed of groveling before his rotundity, President Chavez. If only I were a Representative of the United States, I would offer the United States’ most sincere congratulations to the nation of Honduras. Sic semper tyrannis.

–Madas