Dundee SSP

To the Socialist mind of a certain age, Honduras will conjure up grisly memories from the Reagan era. With the full complicity of the Honduran ruling class, already busy hunting down leftists in their own country, the Contra were allowed to set their base from which to freely terrorise the Nicaraguan countryside. Indeed, Honduras has served over the decades as the spearhead for US imperial interests in the area. Faced with this week’s coup, a question immediately springs to mind: Is this the beginning of a crackdown on Bolivarian revolutions or is it merely a national crisis?

In order to answer these questions I’ll begin with a brief chronology of the events which led to Manuel Zelaya being deposed as democratically elected president of Honduras. After that I’ll briefly touch on Zelaya’s politics over the last 4 years, his relation with the so-called Bolivarian revolutions, and the relation of forces within Honduras. Finally I’ll explore those aspects of the crisis which are of greater interest to Socialists: The reshaping of power relations in the region, both with regards to the US, and the efforts for greater regional integration.

José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, to give his full name, is a most unlikely left-wing politician. So unlikely in fact, as to be almost unique. Manuel Zelaya, or “Mel”, as he is known in his country, was sworn president in 2006 following his electoral victory the previous year as the candidate for the centre-right Liberal Party of Honduras. By 2007, however, Zelaya seemed to have completely transformed his political outlook. From the mainstream politician with a privileged background pandering to law and order rhetoric, and wedded to neoliberal orthodoxy, he went on to join ALBA (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), the Chavez and Castro inspired alternative to the US led Free Trade Treaty. This move made him a dead man walking in the view of his own class. When asked recently about his conversion he replied, half-jokingly:

I tried to make changes within the constraints imposed by neoliberalism. However, the rich never give up anything, not a penny. They want everything to themselves. The consequence that follows is that in order to change things you need to incorporate the people into the process.

It’s not our business as Socialists to examine the state of his conscience as he made this statement, but it’ll suffice to say that his actions have brought him in an open collision course with the Honduran traditional establishment, and made him what some call the ‘oligarch oligarchs hate’.

Joining ALBA meant access to cheap oil, and the possibility of financing social programs. Nevertheless, given his background, he was unable to create an independent and organised political base. He has, however, gained the conditional support of the pre-existent popular movements and its most politically advanced expression, the Popular Bloc.

Earlier this year, on the back of these modest but undeniable achievements Zelaya proposed holding a non-binding referendum on June 28 on whether to call a National Assembly to change the constitution, to take place concurrently with that day’s election, a proposal that had obtained the support of 400,000 signatories. This was keeping with the wind of constitutional change sweeping other Latin American countries ruled by progressive governments. However, the international press, and the opposition, also in keeping with their habits, tried to present the plebiscite as a populist move towards ‘re-election’. A possibility granted to politicians in practically all Western democracies.

The intended referendum was immediately opposed by the country’s Congress and judicial organs and even declared illegal by the Supreme Electoral Court, which incidentally, the international press keeps referring to as ‘Supreme Court’, as to give gravitas to what’s no more than a Congress designated body.

The Congress, having failed to stop the referendum from being called, tried to get Zelaya impeached, but they lacked the legal instruments to do so.

The crisis came to a head when Zelaya sacked army chief general Vázquez Velázquez, a graduate of the infamous School of the Americas, after refusing to distribute the ballots for the coming referendum. The dismissal was declared illegal by the Congress. On June 28, as the referendum was about to be held, the army deposed Zelaya, held him for a few hours and eventually flew him to Costa Rica. Later that day he flew, this time by his own will, to Nicaragua to join an urgent meeting called by ALBA.

Despite the curfew ordered by acting president, Roberto Micheletti, the next two days were marked by increasingly vociferous protests. Two protesters were reportedly killed at the hands of soldiers. The new government has also shut down a number of TV and radio stations, and those that remained on air limited their schedule to broadcasting tropical music and soaps.

You may know from the papers that Zelaya announced his intention to return to Honduras on July 2, after meeting president Obama and the UN in New York. In an unprecedented move, the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Rafael Correa, have agreed to accompany him to Tegucigalpa (the country’s capital). In response Micheletti has announced that Zelaya will be arrested on arrival.

Very much unlike the attempted coup against Chavez in 2,002, the international chorus of disapproval has been practically unanimous. It is too early to assess the full significance of Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s apparent condemnation of the coup. But it is undeniable that the increasing collective strength and independence of Latin American acquired partly through integration in organisation such as ALBA and UNASUR (the Union of South American countries), whose effort was instrumental in thwarting the recent attempted coup in Bolivia, has played a strong part. These organisations are not ostensibly Socialist, but their general aims – independence from the US and integration between equals – and the ideological banner under which these aims are addressed – ambitious social programs and furthering of democracy – are undeniably progressive and as such worthy of our support.

It may well be the case that Zelaya’s conversion was nothing but a strategic gambit upon the assumption of a shifting of power relations. But even this most cynical interpretation of his ultimate intentions pays tribute to the newly found confidence among left-wing democracies in Latin America.