The Laws of Tyrants in Honduras

Honduras, also known as the original “Banana Republic,” had been governed by military regimes that obtained power by means of coup d’Etats since the 1950s. Social unrest became rampant and a guerilla movement surged from a civil society desperate for stability. In 1981, Honduras was finally able to elect a constituent assembly that drafted a new Constitution. Knowing of Honduran politicians’ thirst for power, the new Constitution limited the presidential term to a single 4-year period, with no re-election and no changes to the length of the term. Determined to protect this new system, the assembly legally labeled the article, along with 6 others, as “rock-solid,” impossible to amend or invalidate. The new Constitution came into effect in 1982, and since then, 8 different presidents have been elected consecutively, the longest period of constitutional reign and social stability in Honduran history.

But in 2009, this impeccable alternation of power was threatened by dangerous ambitions. The president at the time, Manuel Zelaya, publicly questioned why the Executive Office was the only power with term limits. Under the strategic direction of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Zelaya decided to hold a referendum to ask the Honduran people if they wanted a constituent assembly to write a new Constitution. At the time, most of Honduras, including Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and civil society, were adamantly against his campaign. They saw it as a ploy to stay in power. Congress and the Supreme Court declared Zelaya’s actions were illegal and a threat to the country’s rule of law. He was subsequently overthrown in a civil coup, which caused social unrest, an ideological standoff, and both international criticism and acclaim.

Unfortunately for Honduras, the re-election fever had already spread. On March 11th 2015, a group of Congressmen and one of Honduras’ most notorious ex-presidents filed an Appeal of Inapplicability for the Constitutional article that bans re-election. The Congressmen argue that being unable to formally debate the subject of reelection limits their freedom of speech and hinders their due process. Ex-president Rafael Callejas argues that he is no longer an equal citizen under the law, given that he has lost his right to run for office, which other citizens still have. All of these arguments are based on flawed logic.

The articles that prohibit reelection, Articles 239 and 42, state that he who “breaks the disposition [of alternation of power] or proposes its reform, as well as those who it support, directly or indirectly, shall cease their duties immediately (239)…The quality of citizen is lost by inciting, promoting, or supporting reelection, perpetual or otherwise (42).” This of course, does not mean that citizens are not allowed to engage in civil discourse. The articles never specify that the topic cannot be debated in the formal setting of Congress. They do, however, prevent these officials from taking action on the matter. Their ability to speak freely is not affected. Congress’ due process is entirely irrelevant to the debate given that the Constitution itself dictates that only a constituent assembly has the authority to amend or invalidate a “rock-solid” article.

A Constitution gives its citizens rights, but it also sets limits on them in order to protect the interests of the state, its citizens, and prevent the abuse of privilege. Since Callejas has already appropriated the benefits of his presidential eligibility, any attempt to extend his legal right would violate Constitutional order. A similar premise applies to other laws, such as the right to exercise a single vote at a time, rather than an unlimited amount. This is why Callejas’ claim has no merit.

On April 22nd, the Supreme Court announced that it had unanimously voted in favour of the Appeal. And although the Court makes a bold statement on where it stands, their ruling is ineffectual given that regulatory hierarchy dictates its existence is secondary to the Supreme Law. The Court usurped the functions of the very Constitution its Justices swore to serve and protect.

Supported by other minority parties, Liberal Party leader and lawyer Mauricio Villeda recently threatened legal action against the Supreme Court Justices for bribery and corruption. But this is not enough to stop the issue from devolving. This crisis is worse than the one in 2009. It is a direct attack on the Constitution itself, perpetuated by the 3 powers it relies on for protection. And yet, the military leaders and civil society groups that jumped into action back in 2009 are nowhere to be found, and the people of Honduras have yet to organize themselves into a coherent movement that can protect their rule of law.

Callejas has already announced his intention to run in the next election. If Honduras is serious about protecting its democracy, then this cannot happen. The country is not ready to allow reelection. Its democratic institutions are weak and susceptible to manipulation by politicians looking to leverage their money or power. Social programs, run by the Executive office, can be used or withheld to curry political favour. Corruption is rampant from the lowest to the highest levels of government office. If the president is able to run for term after term, and he or she has the power to veto bills, conspire with Congressmen, select the Attorney General and Supreme Court Justices, command the Armed Forces, and appoint Ministers and Secretaries, what differentiates this government from that of a dictator’s? This lack of equilibrium is exactly what the 1981 constituent assembly tried to prevent. South American hero Simon Bolivar once said “nothing is as dangerous as allowing one citizen to remain in power for long periods of time. The people get used to obeying him and he gets used to commanding them, which is where usurpation and tyranny originate.”

So who can save the Hondurans? Only “the people” can. They did it in 2009. Led by an older generation born under a time of stable constitutional reign, inspiring a younger generation to intercede on behalf of democratic turnover, hundreds of thousands marched through the streets in white shirts. After successfully protecting the spirit of their 1982 Magna Carta, international media called Honduras “the little country that could.” The people’s strength was of numbers and of conviction, propelled by the understanding that the Executive chair is not supposed to be comfortable. They demanded the military fulfill their oath “to uphold the system of government, the duration of the Presidency, the alternation of power and the election process.” They supported the politicians who acted swiftly to protect the country’s democratic values. And most importantly, they reminded the world that true democratic power lies not in the hands of those in command, but in the voices of people they serve. The rule of law is only more powerful than the laws of tyrants when the people decide it is so.