|
|
Democracy in Honduras
and Niger - as seen in the eyes of the US
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
The occurrences at the same time of two similar political
crises, in Niger and Honduras, must prompt one to ask the US
to state clearly her standards for support of democracy in
the Third World.
In Niger, the US has condemned President Tandja for using
crude steps to rid himself of parliament and the courts in
order to extend his stay in office whereas in Honduras it
has condemned parliament and the courts for using the
constitution and the army to stop President Zaleya’s illegal
attempt to extend his term in office.
The US issued a statement that said Niger's President Tandja
“has undermined a decade of good government in his attempts
to stay in power beyond the legal limit.” The US, however,
said nothing similar about President Zaleya’s attempt “to
stay in power beyond the legal limit,” which attempt has
caused his ouster.
Mr. Tandja seized power in Niger under the pretext that
“Niger's independence was under threat,” and has proceeded
to rule with emergency powers. He has suspended parliament
and the courts to enable him to conduct a referendum to
extend his rule. In this regard, the US disapproval of his
acts was correct.
President Tandja has already ruled Niger for ten years, two
years longer than a US president and at 71 would have
exceeded the retirement age in Ghana by 11 years. But, he is
on track to use his presence as the president to help change
the rule.
Certainly, this is a bold move for power; except, it is
happening in Africa where political attitudes are more
compliant and dictators come at a dime a dozen. Tandja will
win the referendum.
America has correctly called Tandja’s move a coup against
democracy. Elsewhere, there is very little uptick in
condemnation. The AU has responded in its usual
lackadaisical manner and the loss of the constitution in
Niger has stirred little passion among constituencies in
Africa.
Understandably, this is Africa, a continent that is used to
the longevity of the big man in office and where acts of
political bullies are always non-events.
In South and Central America, the Zeleya ouster has become a
big political event and the leaders of the Organization of
American States (OAS) are reacting accordingly. Hugo Chavez
of Venezuela, a presidential term limit removal enthusiast,
is championing Zeleya’s cause.
The constitutional crisis started when Zelaya's, after
failing to have his proposed referendum declared legal,
nevertheless asked the Army to distribute the ballots. The
Army chief refused and was fired.
The courts and the parliament declared the Army chief’s
dismissal illegal. Yet, Zaleya pursued his goal. Shortly
before the polls were to take place the Armed Forces removed
Zelaya from power. The next in the presidential line of
succession, the President of Parliament, was sworn in as
President with approval of the National Congress and courts.
Zaleya's
attempt to extend the presidential term is seen as criminal
because the presidential term is one of seven articles of
the Honduran constitution that cannot be repealed or
amended,
according to Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer and a former
presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture
(2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.
He went on
to explain the term " Continuismo – the tendency of heads of
state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the
lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The
Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound
draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much
of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo
presents."
There was a
"continuismo" attempt in Honduras just as there was in
Niger.
Curiously, the happenings in both Niger and Honduras were
taking place as parallels in an unplanned moment in history.
As one president in Niger, caught in similar political
incident was being scorched by America, in Honduras, the
other president, in spite of the fact that his failed goal
was similar, was being upheld as an icon of democracy by
America and the OAS.
Zaleya’s act, before his removal, was illegal according to
the laws of Honduras. There was nothing the US could have
done or should do about those laws. But that did not mean
institutions in Honduras should be idled to allow a rogue
president, using a moment popularity that can be purchased
easily in the Third World, to have his way.
So how and where did America draw the line as to who to
support in Niger or Honduras? Fortunately for Honduras it
had stronger institutions in its courts and parliament.
Regrettably for Niger it had none.
In Niger, Tandja has trounced the constitutional setup. He
is still in power, will stage manage the referendum and will
predictably win. In Honduras, President Zelaya had no such
luck. He has currently been booted out of the country,
The White House concern over "rule by ordinance and decree
(that) ….undermine Niger's efforts over the last 10 years to
advance good governance and the rule of law" was not allowed
to happen in Honduras, thanks to efforts by Honduras’
parliament and courts . So why was America withholding its
support?
Both Tandja and Zeleya sought to change their terms of
office in a manner and condition seemingly made convenient
by their presence in the highest office. There was once an
autocrat in Zimbabwe, called Mugabe, who had similar grace.
The consensus was that he ended up ruining his once
beautiful country.
There would have been no crisis in Honduras now if the US
and the OAS had convinced President Zaleya to ” respect the
constitutional order".
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher
www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC,
July 4, 2009
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website,
email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.
|
