Honduras "Coup" and The Plebiscite

Many of the news reports about the Honduran military's decision to remove President Manuel Zelaya have failed to explain clearly the context and timing of the removal. Zelaya was an elected president. But he was removed because of his abuse of democracy -- specifically Honduran direct democracy.

Zelaya called an unconstitutional referendum to lift the rule limited presidents to one, four-year term. The constitution of Honduras permits a national referendum, but only if it is approved by Congress. Zelaya pursued his plebiscite despite the opposition of Congress and a clear decision from the Honduran supreme court. The military, in removing Zelaya, was acting on the lawful orders of that court. This was not a coup -- it was a defense of the constitution -- and specifically its provisions on direct democracy. 

The condemnations of Zelaya's removal are largely nonsense, and it's hard not to see the work of Zelaya's ally Hugo Chavez -- himself a devotee of plebiscites. President Obama's statement, in particular, is at best vague and at worst wrong-headed. In its full text, it read: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."

That's precisely what happened. Honduran democratic institutions were respecting democratic norms and the rule of law. The Honduran Supreme Court, Congress and military removed a president who trampled on both.