Much like George W. Bush after 9/11, we don't pay a lot of attention to the countries to our south unless something's going on with the cocaine supply. But there were a couple of interesting things that happened this weekend which you might want to know about.
Argentine President Christina Fernandez saw her ruling party lose its majority in the country's lower house amid discontent over the economy and what is widely considered to be her ineptitude and recalcitrance in the handling of same. Even more embarrassingly, her husband Nestor Kirchner-her immediate predecessor as president and the George Wallace to her Lurleen-was defeated in a Buenos Aries congressional race. The Kirchners are part of the leftish faction of the country's Peronist party; even though voters reacted mainly to local issues, expect to see this spun as some kind of repudiation of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez by the American right.
Also expect to see yesterday's coup in Honduras spun the same way. (The Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, who makes it difficult for even those of us who are sympathetic to the Venezuelan anti-Chavists to offer our full support, is already on the case.) They've got a better argument here: President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a referendum aimed at allowing him to serve a second term; the army and the Supreme Court rejected it. With tensions mounting, the army stormed the presidential palace and exiled Zelaya to Costa Rica; he was still in his pajamas. The coup has been condemned pretty much everywhere but in the pages of the Journal, but it's too early to tell how this one's gonna play out.
Okay! Feel smarter? Good. Now we can go back to talking about Michael Jackson.
I'm still unsure of what to think about this one. (Sure, I could click on one of the links you so helpfully provided, but I didn't get much sleep last night because the drunks at the neighboring bar's garden woke me up so I don't have the necessary clarity of mind to parse all that information.)
Instead, I'll ask you (or whomever) to tell me what to think: Since Hondura's Constitution, Congress and Supreme Court were all against Zelaya's referendum and he still insisted on holding it, is it really so unreasonable that he got kicked out of office and his country?
I think it raises an interesting question about the rule of law. If the Constitution/Congress/Court negate the possibility of a referendum, while a clear majority of the population would vote for such a referendum due to their desire to extend the term of a popular-with-the-masses president, are any military actions taken in concert with the technically-legal-though-arguably-undemocratic ruling kosher? (Note: my familiarity with the facts here is very shallow, so take all this with much salt.)
All I know is that if George Bush had put forward a referendum to run for office a third time, I would have been very grateful for the military to kick his ass out of the country, no matter how many million God-fearing Americans would have voted for it.
It doesn't subtract but adds to the ambiguity of the case: majority rule is not the same as democracy. Latin America is the Michael Jackson of regions: "talented but troubled." Great week to practice ambivalence.
Agree with most of this. I'm nowhere near well-enough informed about politics in Honduras to voice some firm opinion on the issues, but I do tend to instinctively side against institutions that have been historically oligarchic, which is the case in most Central and South American countries. That said, Zelaya seems maybe a little crazy? Not, say, Bucaram crazy, but again, I really don't know. Ambivalence will have to do.