Over the past few months, Honduras has been heard all over the world along with the words “coup de tat” and “crisis”. The former president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, is still demanding to be once again in control of the country that elected him while Roberto Micheletti opposes and accuses him of being a traitor and an agitator. But even though Roberto Micheletti claimed that Manuel Zelaya was a threat to Honduras and its people, he has proven to be wrong. Micheletti’s actions and plans are more dangerous than Zelaya’s could have been.
Since the Honduran Constitution forbids even proposals to make any changes to it (United Press International, 2009) and Zelaya certainly wanted to make some changes to it, his plans caused the rejection of the Congress that ended up sending him to Costa Rica and installing a new president. The Congress feared that his changes were made in order to try and get reelected and that this decision, in the future, may derive in a perpetual reelection just as was has happened in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez. But even when it is true that Manuel Zelaya wanted to change the Constitution of his country in order to allow reelection, the way he was expelled from it was not a wise decision. At the beginning this measure was taken in order to prevent unrest among the population, but then the de facto government realized that it was a mistake (Malkin & Lacey, 2009). The Congress should have arrested and put him into trail accused of treason instead of sending him to another country. If they had planned it more carefully they would not have gained international disapproval (the international community does not approve of Micheletti being Honduras’ president because of the way he became leader) and, also, they would have prevented the social outbursts than led to some deaths, three according to the government and ten according to protesters (The Associated Press, 2009).
In addition, Micheletti seems to base his actions on whims instead of reason. He decided to limit civil liberties in Honduras and to close some radio and television stations because they “were calling for violence, for guerrilla war, and that had [people] in the government super worried” (The Associated Press, 2009). Moreover, he thought that by restricting people from gathering or by enacting a curfew he would ensure national safety, but in truth these actions backfired. The international community condemned his acts as well as former president Zelaya’s for returning to Honduras by his own means (The Associated Press, 2009). Besides, protests in Honduras have remained relatively peaceful. So, is force really the way to handle the country? A rational person would have known that there is always someone who will oppose the decisions taken in such extreme situations. Thus, he/she would have known that violence generates more violence and that a real solution is to be found by means of dialogue.
If Micheletti agrees to start talks with Zelaya with or without help of an international mediator he would take a big step. Also, Micheletti should terminate the chaotic state of the country by reinstituting the social rights he took of the people. In addition, he should talk things over with Zelaya in order to, at last, come to an agreement until the new president is elected. In this way, not only the Honduran people but also the international community will be at ease.
Silvia Chacon
No comments:
Post a Comment