Slashdot Mirror
Computerized Election Results With No Election
_Sharp'r_ writes "In Honduras, according to breaking Catalan newspaper reports (translations available, USA Today mention), authorities have seized 45 computers containing certified election results for a constitutional election that never happened. The election had been scheduled for June 28, but on that day the president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted. The 'certified' and detailed electronic records of the non-existent election show Zelaya's side having won overwhelmingly."
They did exactly what their constitution called for and removed him from office after their Supreme Court decided he had violated their constitution. That should have been the end of the story but everyone wants to call it a coup which it wasn't. The leader of his own party called for his ouster.
This was different from what one normally thinks of as a junta. I don't know if the Honduran constitution has a mechanism to remove a sitting president from office, but it was pretty clear that he was absolutely on his own. His own party told him to back off, and that they didn't support the referendum. As was reported by the media, the legislature had passed a law banning referenda within the 180 days prior to an election. The Supreme Court ruled the pending referendum illegal, and issued an injunction preventing the military from making preparations for it. The military was clearly ready to comply with the Supreme Court, but Zelaya was pushing ahead with the referendum anyway, and fired the head of the military. This action was reversed by the Supreme Court the next day. The attorney general issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya, and the day after, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest; whether or not that is constitutional, I don't know. Wikipedia's article on the matter suggests that by even trying to hold the referendum, the constitution required that he was to be removed from office.
Presumably, much of this could have been handled better, particularly the removal of Zelaya from the country. But Zelaya seemed to be intent on doing things in a way that is at best gray; that the original ballots were taken possession of by Zelaya and his backers, and would be issued and counted by the same, shows that he had no intentions of having a fair election. If these election computers can be absolutely tied to him, it will at least complicate negotiations for his return.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
He proposed its reform, which means there WAS a basis for removing him.
I have actually counted ballots and tampering with them is not at all hard. The fact is that I live in a country that wouldn't stand for this. If there was a government behind it though, fraud is quite easy.
No.
First of all: how many ballots could you have tampered with anyway? What if you had 20 friends helping in other polling stations? Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.
And if there is large-scale tampering going on by government agents, how likely is it that they are caught out by representatives from other political parties manning the polling stations? Especially if someone suspects tampering and demands a recount.
Our country wouldn't stand for tampering with ballots. But it certainly shouldn't stand for any ballot count done by one institution, without any oversight. And that is effectively what you have with computerised voting. Any half-wit can visually observe paper voting and certify that nothing untoward is going on. But with computer voting, even experts might be hard-pressed that no nefarious bit of code slipped past the overseers.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Yes he did. If you read their constitution, you'll see that there's a section that cannot be changed or amended about the president serving only one term (too many dictator presidents clinging to power) and that it's even illegal for a government official to talk about changing it. According to the constitution, that person would lose his position and be barred from the government altogether for a period of 10 years.
Therefore, he did break the constitution and the moment he did so, wasn't president anymore.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
AIUI, their constitution not only forbids removing the term limits, it specifies that any elected official who submits a bill to chage the constitution in that way be removed from office. If so, Zelaya had, in fact, violated their constitution and was properly removed from office.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution.
The Honduran Constitution prohibits the consideration of any amendments aimed at changing terms or eliminating term limits. In effect, by advocating and campaigning on that topic, Zelaya was violating the constitution in his capacity as president.
Not to mention that Zelaya sacked the head of the military for refusing to carry out his illegal referendum, and then tried to have his supporters carry it out on their own contrary to the declarations of Hondura's congress and supreme court, leading a mob to break in and steal the necessary ballots which he had had sent by none other than Hugo Chavez.
And now we see why he was eager to carry it out despite its illegality and his having become rather unpopular--it was always going to be cooked in his favor.
Personally, I don't see how the removal of the president by the congress and the supreme court for his illegal actions and temporary replacement by an elected official from the same party, with no alteration to plans to hold the upcoming election, can be considered a "coup." It didn't change the political landscape at all. It just kept one power hungry president from fraudulently creating a permanent throne for himself.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
I have found an article where a constitutional lawyer, who hails from Honduras, explains what happened and why it happened. My best guess analysis mirrors just about exactly what he is saying. There is fault on both sides, but their constitution clearly states not only is it illegal to try and change the one term limit, but it is a crime to even propose it! I didn't know that part.
His own political party, who control the legislature there, voted overwhelmingly for his ouster. Their attorney general ordered the referendum halted, but he was trying to go ahead with it anyway, just by calling it "an opinion poll", just some weasel words. By their law, he shouldn't have been deported (that's the only thing they did technically illegal), but immediately should have been jailed, but they decided it was better to break that one law to avoid mass bloodshed. They estimated if he was still in-country, there just would have been a big bloody mess, and they didn't want that, the rock and the hard place scenario, or what I called picking the lesser of two suckages.
Here is the article Miguel Estrada: 'Honduran Ouster of Zelaya was Constitutional'
I see you missed the part were he was found guilty by the supreme court of Honduras.
I agree with the post "Opposition Faked it to ciminalize [sic] him", the coup plotters are doing what the can to discredit the Zelaya administration. In the two weeks that they have taken control of the executive branch of the government (they already had control of the legislature and judicial system) they are finding out all kinds of things that the Zelaya government supposedly did. None of these things are being done in a transparent or internationally valid manner. What those in power are trying to do is to obfuscate any possibility of a negotiated solution. While it is mentioned that all this was precipitated by a survey to see if a question could be included in the general election ballot regarding the creation of a constitutional assembly sometime in 2010 (there was no possibility of modifying the constitution prior to the end of Zelaya's term since the elections for president would have taken place well before the constitutional assembly).
What many of us who study Central America suspect (and with good information from many of the principal players on the ground) is that this was an excuse for the ruling elites of Honduras to allow the military to deport the president and many around him, including the minister of foreign affairs, Patricia Rodas who might very soon be a presidential contender, and more importantly, has openly advocated for a weakened military that at the moment operates largely as an autonomous institution. The military has been in the business of running Honduras for decades after deposing the Liberal government of Villeda Morales sending him into exile along with the president of the congress Modesto Rodas, father of Patricia Rodas (Mr. Rodas occupied the same position Mitcheletti held until a few days ago, except that the military did not see him as an ally and sent him to Costa Rica, much in the same way they sent Mr. Zelaya. btw. the "hat" Mr. Zelaya wears is a symbol that represents Modesto Rodas, who died in 1979, but is still a strong presence in Honduran politics).
But how does the military operate with the elite families? Who is in control? The military high command is in tight association with the elite families that have the greatest share of the economic interests in the country (and plenty of bank accounts and investments overseas). These families and the military have business relationships in common--in fact they are undistinguishable since not only are they linked through economic interests, they are tightly integrated through family ties that overlap different sectors (public, private and military). And who are these families?
From what I can discern they are: Canahuati Larach: textiles, pharmaceuticals, banking, soft drinks and media [La Prensa, El Nuevo Dia, El Heraldo]. Facusse: textiles, pharmaceuticals, agro, telecom, banking, construction, media [La Tribuna]. Nasser: telecom. Kafati: agro, pharmaceuticals, coffee and casinos. CarriÃn, commerce (shopping malls). Ferrar: media. Agurcia: hotels, telecom and shipping. Faraj: banking, television, and commerce. Arévalo: electricity. Kafie: milk products and electricity. Rosenthal (who are pro-Zelaya): airlines, banking, media [Tiempo]. Goldstein banking. Kawas Sikafie: construction, cement, media, commerce. Andonie FernÃndez: real estate, pharmaceuticals.
The above list is only a very partial listing of their holdings. Also one has to keep in mind that the coup was leadered by a number of individuals with quite checkered pasts, including Billy Joya, who is now a security advisor to Mitcheletti, but in the 1980s was a founding member of the 3-16 battalion, a death squad, responsible for the disappearances of over 184 individuals. He has also been rumored to be connected to the Cali cartel (though this last allegation is a bit hard to prove since they don't leave much of a paper trial).
This is just a small bit of the story, it gets really strange as one finds out more about the details.
Here is a link to the Constitution. It is extremely ant-dictator, and pro-democracy. Since there doesn't seem to be a translation in English on the internet, I will translate some relevant parts:
......leaders of the armed forces.....the spouse of the military chiefs......the familia of anyone who might have become president or vice president in the previous election (including second and third cousins).
Chapter 1 article 2: The sovereignty belongs to the people, from whom emanates all the powers of the state, which are exercised by representation.
Supplanting the popular sovereignty and usurping the constituted powers are considered betrayal of the homeland. The responsibility in that case is imprescriptible [ed. love that prose] and can be alleged by an officer or a petition of any citizen.
Chapter 1 article 3: No one has a duty of obedience to an usurperous government nor to those who take office or public employment by armed force o using means or proceedings that break or ignore what the constitution and laws set forth. The actions performed by such authorities are void. The people has the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the constitutional order.
Chapter 1 article 4: The alternation* in the exercise of the president of the republic is mandatory. Infracting this rule constitutes the crime of betraying the homeland.
Chapter 6 article 239: Any citizen who has served in the office of the Executive Power shall not be President or Vice President.
Whosoever breaks this law or proposes its reform, along with those who support him directly or indirectly, shall immediately cease the service of their respective offices, and for ten years shall remain unable to hold any public office.
Chapter 6 article 240: The following cannot be elected president of the republic: Vice presidents, Secretaries and subsecretaries of state, Members of the national election tribunal, judges and magistrates of the judicial power,
So the supreme court seems to have acted correctly in removing him from the country. In fact, they gave Zelaya a second chance by initially prohibiting him from trying to hold the election. It seems they would have been in good legal standing already at that point to remove him.
Qxe4