Democracy in Honduras and Niger - as seen in the eyes of the US

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot

July 4, 2009

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 Niger’s parliament and the courts to extend his stay in office. 

However, in Honduras, the US flipped to condemn her parliament and courts for using the constitution and the army to stop President Zelaya's illegal attempt to extend his term in office.

The US, in a statement, said Niger's President Tandja “has undermined a decade of good government in his attempts to stay in power beyond the legal limit.”

For Honduras, the US, however, had nothing similar to say about President Zelaya's attempt “to stay in power beyond the legal limit,” which attempt caused his ouster.

President Tandja was in his last term in office in 2009.  Up until then, he had promised to leave office after his last term.  But then came a sudden change, when a proposal was floated by his loyalist for him to continue in office for three more years.

Then, in early May 2009, Tandja announced he would seek a third term in the coming elections of that year, stating that, "the people have demanded I remain; I cannot ignore their call."^[

Thereafter, he suspended parliament and the courts to enable him to conduct a referendum to extend his rule.  For this reason, 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 normal retirement age for the average in Ghana by 11 years.  But, here he is on his way to use his presence as the president to help change the law.

Certainly, this is a bold move for power.  But this is Africa.  Such political happenings are prevalent.  And attitudes on this continent are more compliant to allow dictators to flourish 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 movement in condemnation. The AU has responded in its usual lackadaisical manner and the loss of the constitution in Niger has stirred little passion among the other constituencies in Africa.

Understandably, this is Africa, a continent that is used to the concept of the big man and where acts of political bullies in the office are, therefore, always non-events.

It seems Zelaya ouster in Honduras 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.

After failing to have his proposed referendum declared legal by parliament, Zelaya, nevertheless, asked the Army to distribute the ballots. The Army chief refused and was fired.

The courts and the parliament decided on behalf of the Army chief’, and, therefore, declared his 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.

Zelaya's attempt to extend the presidential term was illegal 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 a similar political incident was being scorched by America, in Honduras, the other president, despite the similarity, was being upheld as an icon of democracy by America and the OAS.

Zelaya's act, before his removal, was illegal and is proven so by the demands of the laws of Honduras. The US, in the name of the democracy that it preaches daily, should have respected Honduras constitutional demands.

Instead, the US wanted the constitution and its attendant institutions to be idled to allow a rogue President Zelaya to rule; using his moment in popularity as the reason, popularity that can be purchased easily at the expense of the constitution.

But how did the US draw the line as to who to support, in Niger or Honduras and why the double-standard?

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 constitution has won because its demands are still intact. 

The problem for the US is it is obvious that she is not on the side of the constitution in Honduras, while she pretends she supports the spirit of the constitution in Niger.

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 for the Honduras constitution?

Both Tandja and Zelaya sought to change their terms of office in a manner and condition seemingly made convenient by their presence in the highest offices. There was once an autocrat in Zimbabwe, called Mugabe, who had similar grace and popularity can be likened to Zelaya’s. The consensus was that Mugabi 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 Zelaya to ” respect the constitutional order" and to stop the referendum.

 
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 on a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all.