The Honduran presidential election takes place today. Attention is focused on the process and its transparency, and on the level of voter participation. If the process unfolds in a free and transparent fashion, then the election's legitimacy could perhaps begin to be considered valid. In the end, it is only Hondurans themselves who can resolve their crisis.
The continent’s history provides many examples of de facto governments holding elections and, by so doing, opening a process toward democracy. In the majority of these cases, the existent government used the elections as a strategy of last resort after their other options failed. In this case, the election was the original goal of the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, and because of this, recognition of the process and its outcome rewards the coup d’etat that exiled the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya.
This is the reason that Latin America’s democracies are divided in terms of recognizing the election as a way out of the crisis. The White House unfortunately opted for a pragmatic strategy of recognition when faced with its inability to influence Micheletti. This sends a disturbing message of hypocrisy to the rest of the continent.
One doesn’t have to be a "Chavista" to disagree with the undemocratic conditions that brought about this election. One simply needs to believe in democracy and respect for the electorate's vote, even when the results are unpleasant.
The Honduran election and the presidential candidates were constitutionally designated prior to the coup, but the military’s actions changed the political landscape and polarized the nation. Removing Zelaya didn’t follow a constitutional process. In fact, the rules themselves were changed in the moment under the guise of respecting Honduran law. Legitimacy is never achieved by force of repetition and intimidation doesn't create an appropriate electoral climate.
What happens on election day may provide a way to normalize the Honduran political situation and the country’s relationship with the rest of the world. It could also turn out to the contrary. Hondurans will have the last word.
The election’s outcome and what happens between now and when the new president assumes power in January will determine if this Central American nation returns to democracy or if it only engaged in a single election day act, period.
The Honduran presidential election takes place today. Attention is focused on the process and its transparency, and on the level of voter participation. If the process unfolds in a free and transparent fashion, then the election's legitimacy could perhaps begin to be considered valid. In the end, it is only Hondurans themselves who can resolve their crisis.
The continent’s history provides many examples of de facto governments holding elections and, by so doing, opening a process toward democracy. In the majority of these cases, the existent government used the elections as a strategy of last resort after their other options failed. In this case, the election was the original goal of the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, and because of this, recognition of the process and its outcome rewards the coup d’etat that exiled the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya.
This is the reason that Latin America’s democracies are divided in terms of recognizing the election as a way out of the crisis. The White House unfortunately opted for a pragmatic strategy of recognition when faced with its inability to influence Micheletti. This sends a disturbing message of hypocrisy to the rest of the continent.
One doesn’t have to be a "Chavista" to disagree with the undemocratic conditions that brought about this election. One simply needs to believe in democracy and respect for the electorate's vote, even when the results are unpleasant.
The Honduran election and the presidential candidates were constitutionally designated prior to the coup, but the military’s actions changed the political landscape and polarized the nation. Removing Zelaya didn’t follow a constitutional process. In fact, the rules themselves were changed in the moment under the guise of respecting Honduran law. Legitimacy is never achieved by force of repetition and intimidation doesn't create an appropriate electoral climate.
