Refounding the Liberal Party

On July 14, Vos el Soberano published a brief note under the headline "When they expel the dictator then we can talk".

It reported the content of a message sent by ex-president José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the Consejo Central Ejecutivo (Central Executive Committee) of the Liberal Party.

In it, Zelaya reportedly said he would talk with that group when it fulfills three requirements:

• when “the Central Committee announces against the Coup”

• when "They expel the dictator [Roberto Micheletti]”

• when “They demand justice for the intellectual and material authors of the 166 assassinations [by repressive organs of State on account of the Coup]. ”

Zelaya's communique was one response to a proposal by Elvin Santos Lozano, president of the Central Executive Committee (and father of the failed 2009 presidential candidate of the party), that Zelaya return to Honduras and rejoin the Liberal Party in order to unify it (and thus save it). Seems like a rough judgment on his own kid.

As an editorial by Radio Progreso, also available on Vos el Soberano, notes, Hondurans find themselves

with a situation unequalled in the political history of Honduras: a president who was overthrown by a coup d'Etat and sent into exile, and, after one year, is reclaimed by two antagonistic projects and political forces. The president that was proscribed, sent into exile and considered as the cause of the major division and polarization in the life of the country, now his return appears to be fundamental to the exit from the institutional stagnation in which we find ourselves and to make possible national reconciliation.

We have previously explained the outcome of the Tocoa Assembly of the Frente, in which Liberals in resistance were unable to seat additional delegates and withdrew from the provisional governance, explicitly without withdrawing from the Frente itself. This led to a curious sequence of actions by the Liberal Party itself.

Leadership of the Liberal Party came out shortly after the end of the Tocoa assembly of the Frente with an open invitation to the Liberals in resistance to reintegrate in the party. This explicitly included an invitation to Zelaya to return and organize a political "movement" within the party.

First, Marlon Lara, ex-campaign director for the party, currently second vice president of Congress, said the Tocoa meeting showed that the Liberals in Resistance should return to the party and contribute to its unification. Lara

exhorted them to collaborate with the initiative of the Consejo Central Ejecutivo to procure granitic unity of the party for which a commission will travel to the Dominican Republic to negotiate with the overthrown president Manuel Zelaya.

At about the same time, members of the Liberal Party held what was reported variously as a unity forum or a gathering of Zelaya supporters, the latter the way El Heraldo headlined their article. It was said to bring together "a part of the directorship of the Liberal resistance, ex-officials of the deposed president Zelaya, and presidential aspirants", implying that these are all categories of Liberal Party members with reasons to oppose the current governance of the party.

At this forum, Eduardo Maldonado, ex presidential contender, said that "the unity of his party passes by the return without conditions of ex president Manuel Zelaya." Esteban Handal Pérez, another "pre-candidate" for president, called for a special party convention to vote in new leadership.

Edmundo Orellana, who reportedly also participated,

insisted on the need for the authorities of his party to convene, as quickly as possible, internal elections (not primaries) to change all the authorities: central, departmental, and municipal.

As the article notes, the majority of those who would be removed from office belong to one of three major movements within the Liberal Party: those headed by Elvin Santos, Roberto Micheletti and Eduardo Maldonado. Maldonado volunteered to have the occupants of the two seats his movement controls on the Central Executive resign. No one from the Santos or Micheletti camp attended.

Also present and speaking at the forum: Jaime Rosenthal, perennial presidential aspirant and owner of El Tiempo.

According to La Tribuna, all the speakers called for the immediate and unconditional return of Zelaya, hoping he will take a place as a "standard-bearer" in the party, and most of the speakers at the forum endorsed a national constitutional assembly as a the only way to institute social and economic changes. The exceptions to the latter call: Jaime Rosenthal and Esteban Handal

As we write, the Central Executive Committee is reportedly writing a letter to ask whether Zelaya would receive a delegation to talk things over in the Dominican Republic. As reported by El Heraldo, "some political sectors" speculate that Zelaya will receive a delegation if the Central Executive Committee calls the "events of June 28" a coup:

The Central Executive [Committee] has not said if what occurred the 28th of June was or was not a coup d'Etat nor has it condemned nor applauded the situation of which Zelaya, member of the Liberal Party, was victim.

Elvin Santos Lozano ducked the question, saying that the Truth Commission will decide what happened. Not too promising in terms of meeting Zelaya's stated condition. And of course, no reference to the requirement that Roberto Micheletti, honored senior Liberal Party member, be expelled.

Tiempo, in its reporting on the forum by dissident Liberal Party members, underlined that members of the present Central Executive Committee "do not enjoy the sympathy and backing of the majority of the Liberals".

That was inadvertently underlined when presidential hopeful Handal helpfully predicted that the proposed commission to Zelaya would be a fiasco.

Victor Sierra, a director of the Liberal Party movement M-Lider (Movimiento Liberal Democrático Revolucionario), probably had the single most evocative comment.

As reported in Tiempo, he proposed to "refundar el Partido Liberal": refound the Liberal Party.

Now, where have we heard something like that before?

Edmundo Orellana: Return

On July 12, La Tribuna published a commentary by Edmundo Orellana on the topic of the possibility José Manuel Zelaya Rosales could return to Honduras.

Since that has now been framed as the first goal of the Frente de Resistencia, it is worth reviewing what this legal scholar reminds us about: the difficulties that stand in the way of this return.

Contrary to assertions that it is just a matter of buying a plane ticket, the events of the coup and de facto regime are substantial obstacles to resolution: Orellana notes that the Public Prosecutor insists on maintaining a legal case open that should have been covered by the amnesty passed by the National Congress. He notes that the judicial branch and much of the Legislature is still filled with coup participants. He reviews the aggression that Zelaya was personally subjected to, and suggests that without guarantees of security from the government, returning is not feasible.

Return

Edmundo Orellana

The return of ex-President Zelaya Rosales is the news of the moment. But the return to the homeland will not be easy.

He was expelled from his country after his home had been outraged with a raid outside the hours that the Constitution permits, accompanied by machine gun bursts, while his young son listened, hidden in fear of being victim of the bestial action, everything they did to reduce his father to impotence. All this operation, worthy of an episode of a formal war, was designed against a single man that barely three and a half years before had been voted by the Honduran people as their new President.

Later it was made known that the Public Prosecutor had filed an action against the President and that a judge named by the Supreme Court of Justice from among its members, after declaring the secrecy of the process, had issued an order of capture against him and to put it into effect ordered, against the Constitution of the Republic, that the Armed Forces carry it out, alleging that the police could be inclined toward the President, so that they would not be trustworthy. Nonetheless, they, immediately, displayed a persecution against those who protested in favor of the President with a cruelty that the population understood had been in the 80s. The accusations against the police for the violation of human rights of those who protested against the coup d'Etat came from the organizations that make up the inter-American system of Human Rights and surely our country will be newly condemned to the payment of large amounts of money in compensation to the victims, and those truly responsible will enjoy impunity.

The tortures to which President Zelaya, his family and those accompanying him in the Brazilian Embassy were subjected, using high-end technology, putting at risk the life of all those encountered there, stripped before the world the hatred that the conspirators had for Zelaya and the savagery of which the dictatorship and its accomplices was capable.

The National Congress, the system of justice and the organizations responsible for the national defense and public security participated directly in what today is an undeniable fact: a Coup d'Etat. Even the same Chief of State Lobo Sosa has admitted this and more than one functionary of his government has asked pardon for this crime against democracy, the Republic, and history.

The bias of the system is placed in evidence when it leaked out that of the prosecutions launched against the President only one, apparently, is still pending, and, despite the fact that it treats evidently of an act that, in any case, will end up benefited by the amnesty, they insist stubbornly on maintaining it in effect.

Very little has changed institutionally in the country since the President was overthrown. Only the Executive Power and part of the Legislative has been renewed. So that his return in these conditions does not offer any guarantee for his personal security and the tranquility of his family.

Nonetheless, his return is essential to commence national reconciliation. The very political stability of the country depends on the return to the country of Zelaya. It is, then, a question of State. It should guarantee, in consequence, that he will enjoy the protection that his situation so special demands. How to accomplish this, is the responsibility and priority of the first order of the present government.

The Resistance Front presents its Executive Committee

[On the road, so without comment, extracts from the recent post announcing the outcome of the National Assembly in Tocoa; please see the official website www.resistenciahonduras.net for more]:

....

This Assembly was composed of 56 delegates, men and women, from all the national territory who were present in the heart of the Valle de Aguan to show the unconditional support to the campesino movements that are confronted with the violence of the army and the businessmen, and at the same time to achieve a historic date in the struggle of the Honduran people.

With this Assembly there was installed the Provisional National Coordination as a first step in the consolidation of the FNRP as a political platform toward the refounding of the country. This space of direction is made up of the representatives elected in the distinct Departmental Assemblies that have been carried out in the last weeks across Honduras, creating in this way a new Democracy that is born and is developed from the base.

The Provisional National Coordination named an Executive Committee that will direct the destinies of this struggle against golpismo, the military regime, barbarity and injustice. The first office selected in a unanimous manner was that of Manuel Zelaya Rosales as Coordinator, recognizing in this way his leadership and putting him at the head of this project that seeks to leave behind the old political practices in which small groups were set above the interests of the impoverished majority.

There will accompany Zelaya in this Executive Committee recognized figures of the popular struggle: Juan Barahona and Carlos H. Reyes (Tegucigalpa), Will Paz (Colón), Leonel Amaya (Olancho), Lucía Granados (San Pedro Sula), Lilí Aguilar (Lempira), María Antonia Martínez (of the movement Feministas en Resistencia), Porfirio Amador (Choluteca), Jaime Rodríguez and Edgardo Casaña (of the Federación de Organizaciones Magistrados de Honduras FOMH), Juan Chinchilla (Juventud Bajo Aguan), Víctor Petit (Comayagua), Teresa Reyes (Organización Fraternal Negra de Honduras Ofraneh), José Luis Baquedano (Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores de Honduras CUTH). There only remains pending the man or woman representing the indigenous Lenca population.

...

The immediate objectives expressed by the Assembly are the return of Manuel Zelaya to the country together with all the persons obliged to go into exile, the development of the work of organization and political formation in all the country, the strengthening of our means of communication to defeat the lies elaborated by the golpistas and collaborators, and to initiate the collective construction of what will be the National Constituent Assembly that for the first time in our history will be Participatory, Popular, and truly Democratic.

Reactions to the National Assembly of the FNRP: From Mel on down

There are so many statements now reflecting, from different perspectives, on the Tocoa Assembly that it would be overwhelming to translate them all.

But one deserves a full translation:

From the desk of the Constitutional President (2006-2010) Jose Manuel Zelaya.

People and Comrades:

I am verifying the contents of the communique and of the first resolutions of the Assembly of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular, that was carried out in Colón this weekend. On first impression it seems good to me that the force to advance was encountered in its own decisions. I have asked Xiomara, my wife, that she present herself tomorrow to the Directorship of the FNRP to speak with Carlos H. Reyes, Juan Barahona, Rafael Alegría and the rest of the comrades, to know the scope of the proposal and so tomorrow itself it will be possible to communicate my acceptance as Liberal-Pro Socialista to integrate in the General Coordination of the Executive Committee of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular.

MEL Z RD 11 de julio de 2010.

In this brief note, Manuel Zelaya effectively supports the actions of the FNRP and the leadership of the sectors that resisted pressure to seat a larger than agreed on number of Liberal Party delegates.

Statements like that of Ollantay Itzamna reiterate that this was a critical achievement in the quest to change the fundamental system, that confirmed "the extreme unction of the moribund 'dedocrátic' system of bipartisanship in Honduras".

The first image is of the administration of the Last Rites of Roman Catholicism, given here to the hand-picking of delegates misrepresented as "democratic" (dedo= finger, which substitutes for hand in the Spanish equivalent to the English figure of speech; so "dedocratic" is approximately "handpickedocrat").

Ollantay Itzamna adds that the naming of Manuel Zelaya Rosales as National Coordinator of the Frente is

also another strategic ratification of popular sentiment. In the Honduran conjuncture, Zelaya is an undeniable national/popular leader. But, this nomination is a sociopolitical strategy. The FNRP needs to articulate to all the cells of the resistance dispersed across the country, and so to construct a sociopolitical hegemony on a national level. And this difficult task, against time, only can be done with a strong and evident national leader. Here we have the strategic reason for the nomination of Compañero Zelaya, but this is not to say that the FNRP is completed in Manuel Zelaya Rosales.

In some ways, the statement by Zelaya negates a curious side comment in the report of the withdrawal of the Liberals in Resistance, when Carlos Reina said

before withdrawing, that in taking this decision he had the endorsement of the deposed Honduran president, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, who had been consulted by [the Liberals in Resistance] by telephone from the Dominican Republic, where he remains exiled since the past 27th of January.

In context, that seemed almost as a claim of patronage, a reclaiming of Mel from the Frente in general.

That some such claim was perceived is made explicit in the response to the assembly by Luis Mendez, described as a "poet in resistance". After rehearsing the details of the attempt to swell the ranks of the delegates with extra appointees recommended by Liberals in resistance, Mendez says that

It is lamentable but the thing is that Carlos Eduardo Reina and the rest that don't add up to ten have the economic resources to move bars, and money to bring a national commission of Liberals in Resistance to the Dominican Republic (as they proposed at the Assembly of Tocoa), and expound to our ex-president Manuel Zelaya Rosales the developments for which they withdrew from the national conduct of the FNRP... well, if they have the economic resources that would be very much their own affair, but we, we do not go to Santo Domingo, but, we go to the villages, to the hamlets, to form the collectives, to accompany to the town fronts, there is where the construction of popular power will be given.

And, without doubt, we expect comrade Manuel Zelaya will personally join the Executive Committee of the FNRP as one of the principal leaders of the movement and it is certain that we can invite the Apparition, there, to where Saint Thomas was the one to say to us: TODAY IS NOT AS BEFORE COMRADES, today we have new visions.

The religious nature of this imagery, again, is somewhat startling, but like the metaphor of extreme unction, it shifts the register from mere politics as usual to redemption, to revelation, and to fervor.

Zelaya, by accepting his appointed role in the FNRP, affirms the new movement as something more than the politics of the past.

The Frente and the Liberal Party

As the previous posts should indicate, there was considerable tension around the assembly of the FNRP that was held in Tocoa this weekend.

Under the headline Second Day of the National Assembly: the debates and the wager on the unity of the FNRP continue, Vos el Soberano provides a report that starts with the following quote:

"Before being a Liberal I am of the people and the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular, that is the future.”

Ubodoro Arriaga Izaguirre, Delegate from the Department of La Paz to the First National Assembly of the FNRP.

While that tells the whole story in a nutshell, the report goes on to specify what happened:

Liberal leaders withdrew from the National Assembly of the FNRP on not succeeding in impose their delegates named outside the Departmental Assemblies of the Resistance.

Specifically cited as speaking for the Liberal Party were Carlos Eduardo Reina, Orfilia de Mejía and Rasel Tome, who "took the floor to explain to the departmental delegates their reasons to self-exclude themselves". According to this report they clarified that they "do not renounce" the FNRP, just participating in the provisional National Coordination to be elected today.

On the one hand, this is not that different from what COPINH and the Feminists in Resistance did. But timing is everything. Making a principled statement in advance that you are not interested in being part of a formal structure you consider dubious, and withdrawing when things don't go your way, are as different as, well, making a principled stand and saving face.

Reporting describes an unsuccessful attempt to install 29 extra delegates representing Liberals in Resistance over and above those elected on a state by state basis:

Yesterday, in hours of the afternoon and night, the leaders of the sector called Liberals in Resistance tried by every means to impose and inscribe 29 delegates in addition to those elected in departmental assemblies of the Resistance...

The trigger for rejection by the departmental delegates was, according to this report, an attempt to appoint the ex mayor of Tocoa, Adán Fúnez. The latter participated in open resistance to the coup up until one week before the November election, when, Vos el Soberano (citing news reports in El Heraldo) says

with the intention of relecting himself in office, he appeared in a center of the golpista sector of the Liberal Party to ask, publicly and on bended knee, pardon for having participated in the activities of the Resistance.

One can see why he was an unwelcome person. It is almost unbelievable that experienced party politicians would have such a tin ear as to think this would go down without choking.

Rasel Tome is given the principal responsibility for the attempted to expand delegates:

Within hours of yesterday it was possible to confirm that Rasel Tome had unilaterally ordered his sympathizers to expand the departmental delegates from two incumbents and an alternate to four incumbents and an alternate (two additional hand-picked delegates) against the decision of the last Assembly of the Resistance celebrated in Siguatepeque that established the number of delegates at 56 for logistical and budgetary reasons.

The report emphasizes that with the departure of the Liberal leaders, debate continued, underlining that the FNRP is not about winning traditional elections:

the political wager of the FNRP will not be the electoral processes, so as not to continue accepting elections Honduras-style, and it was decided that the fundamental task of the moment is the installation of the National Constituent Assembly with the conditions that the popular movement proposes.

In addition, it was made clear that the guarantors of this political process unleashed by the coup d'Etat are not the political parties, but the popular and social movement.

Undoubtedly there will be political analysts willing to argue that the activists of the Frente are being unrealistic and should have trimmed their ambitious project to fit into the goals of the Liberal Party faction.

But the message the Frente is conveying is that politics in Honduras is completely broken: if the system is dysfunctional, taking it over will not help.

"How Democractic Should Democracy Be?": Oscar Estrada

Note: The original in Spanish was posted today on Quotha, with the first half translated there in a comment by Charles II and the second half in a comment by me. In the following translation, I make slight changes to the original translation of the first half.

For those of us who didn’t go to the national assembly of the FNRP in Tocoa because we weren’t elected as delegates by our organizations or simply because we weren’t active in any organization other than the Frente, the accomplishments of this week still seem unclear. In the afternoon, the assembly will have ended and we hope that everything will be more broadly known. Meanwhile, various ideas occurred to me which I think are important to explore to better understand the “conflict” which we live internally.

The Liberal Party, which historically had a moderately progressive origin, has been controlled by the right for at least the last 60 years. I previously wrote on the 17th of June, about the role which the Liberal Party played in the most key stages of Honduran history, such as the ‘54 strike, the coup d’état of ’63, the different military governments of the ‘70s, the dirty war of the ‘80s, the neoliberalism of the ‘90s, and about how always, with rare individual exceptions, it bent itself to the interests of the national oligarchy and transnational capital. And while the labor code, voluntary military service, and certain legal changes were given in Liberal administrations, it would be remote from history to try to say now, that the changes that have been achieved in social matters correspond to the political will of the Party alone, making invisible the social and popular movements which drove those changes. One should understand that in Honduras, nothing is ever done except through pressure.

The crisis which the Honduran people lives in actuality originates in essence in a struggle of classes [class war]. It is the product of the erosion of an economic and political model which favors the most wealthy, displacing from wealth a broad sector of the population which lacks representation within the power structures.

The Liberal Party as a an institution never, through its individual leaders, owners, and caudillos, will be able to understand the urgencies of the dispossessed classes of the country, simply because they belong to another class, and therefore to another Honduras. This is not to say that there aren’t Liberals who belong to the popular classes. It’s clear that there are such and that they understand very well what it is to be poor in Honduras. But those who take decisions, those who today urge the rescue of the party, because without it they are nothing politically, those are NOT of the same class which filled the streets in repudiation of the coup d’état.

This is the basic contradiction of the Liberal Party in Resistance. To form a part of the FNRP and to propose to “rescue” the Liberal Party which amounts to rescuing the bipartisanship reigning for more than 100 years. To rescue the Liberal Party, the same Liberal Party would have to seize the Party. [To rescue the Liberal Party they will have to seize the Party, the Liberal Party itself.]

It has not been clear up till now what would be the strategy for the Liberals in Resistance to rescue their party. At times they can be seen seated in the gringo embassy, then in the office of Rosenthal and their goal seems remarkably similar to that of Elvin Santos or Micheletti: to return to power in the next elections.

They, the Liberals in Resistance, now accuse a faction of the left of the Frente of not being “inclusive” on blocking them from “storming the assembly,” placing 29 delegates more than those which by agreement they had obtained in the previous assembly in Siguatepeque. This strategy reminds me a great deal of the assemblies of the 90s in the UNAH, when it was a common practice to bring 100 delegates from another campus, normally from the north of the country, to flip the results and to impose a directive according to the interests of the caudillo of the student front and it was naive to think, that with all those years of experience, we would not have learned.

The ideological separation within the Frente has been evidenced basically among what the Liberals call "los bloqueros", in reference to the bloque popular, but that is composed as well by the parties of the left (PSOCA, TR, MND, OPLN, CNRP, BP, unions, guilds and social movements) on one side and on the other the Liberals, who independently of the name that they use continue being a party of the right with all the practices and vices of traditional politics.

We have all always said that the FNRP is a diverse and pluralistic organization. And although pluralism as a concept can seem sound to us, what is certain is that this has pushed us to accept, on some occasions, actions contrary to the will of the base, both by political organizations as well as by individuals, that far from unifying in their political pragmatism have weakened us.

I would put as an example the decision of the UD to participate in the elections of last November, legitimating the same and their inflated results, and later to participate in the Government of National Unity of Lobo Sosa, permitting him to say internationally that his government is of Reconciliation since he counts among his ministers one that is "of the resistance". This action, accepted by that mistaken sense of plurality, has brought a great political cost for the Frente and will continue doing so.

On the other side, and as a prelude to the assembly, the COPINH launched a communique that has had a certain replication, both by the Feminists in Resistance, as well as by some independent authors. The basic propositions of the public communique of COPINH, far from representing differences in the objectives of FNRP, show a discussion that sooner or later it will be necessary to have.

What those communiques demand, more than representation in the leadership of the Frente, is a different vision of power. It is a call to attention to the traditional left that continues thinking about democratic centralism, the political bureau or the negotiations of realpolitik distant from the will of the base. It is a questioning about the concept of popular representation and democracy as an expression of the will of the majority (denying voice to minorities). It is a demand, to the entire FNRP, that it see power as something that is constructed from the base, from below, because the history of the peoples has demonstrated to us that in the end, a revolutionary government without popular power is nothing more than a reactionary government with a populist discourse.

While all this happens, the machinery of terror does not stop. Lobo journeyed to Miami on a lightning visit to meet with Insulza in relation to the return (in August, according to CODEH) of the expresident Manuel Zelaya, as a prior requisite for there to be total recognition of Lobo Sosa in the extraordinary Assembly of the OAS at the end of July.

"We are near a solution, but I don't believe that it is possible to speak of a solution still nor to be overly optimistic", said Insulza.

And that's something the un-government understands very well, because its master Colombia has demonstrated it, that international recognition is one thing and internal legitimacy is another very distinct thing.

In Tocoa, the same municipio where the Assembly was carried out, "various police and military commandoes advanced toward the land where more than 190 families in the Bajo Aguan are found" according to a report of COFADEH, violating in this form the accord signed by the president with MUCA the past month of April, throwing fire on the powder keg of the national agrarian conflict.

And the repression continues and while this week in Tegucigalpa we say goodbye to two known fighters of the Bloque Popular (dead of natural causes), Luis Morel and Oscar Padilla, on the north coast they assassinated in front of his house Julio Fúnez Benítez (57), union member of SANAA and member of the frente, and Jorge Alberto Castro Ramírez, of 41 years, horchata vendor in the numerous marches of 2009.

Oscar Estrada
11 de Julio de 2010

Not quite a reply from the FNRP

But the statement posted on Vos el Soberano today may show some effects of the public positioning of COPINH and the Feministas en Resistencia.

Titled In installation of its first National Assembly the FNRP recognizes its diversity and strengthens unity, the statement starts

Recognizing the diversity of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular (FNRP) there was initiated this day in Tocoa, Department of Colón, the act of installation of the First National Assembly of the Honduran Resistance.

That "recognizing the diversity" is, obviously, critical to many constituent parts of the Frente.

Choosing Tocoa as the site of the Assembly is itself symbolic: Tocoa is in the region of the Bajo Aguan, where the confrontation of campesinos and landowners has not yet been concluded, and where tensions continue.

The statement goes on to say that

delegates, militants and sympathizers of the FNRP coming from all Honduras participated actively in the Forum of installation.

This wording raises the question, what constitutes a delegate, versus a sympathizer? The statement goes on to describe the assembly as including

men and women, youths and adults of all the political currents that have expression in the country and that have space in the FNRP.

Near the end of the statement tensions are finally openly acknowledged:

At the end of the act of installation and previous to the mobilization various doubts were clarified that have to do with the character of the Resistance, it was clarified that "the objective that the FNRP has is the National Assembly. What matters now, is not if we will be a political party, the important thing is that we are the principal social and political force of the country and that we have succeeded in reconfiguring the map of power in Honduras".

The "big tent" rhetoric, especially given the specification that it concerns "all the political currents", hints at the tensions between traditional political parties and the more revolutionary groups in the Frente.

So who did attendees hear from to represent the diversity of the Frente?

The three speakers mentioned by name in the article are Marcelino Borjas, Pavel Núñez, and Gloria Oquelí.

Borjas is described in the statement by the Frente as a retired teacher with a Master's degree in sociology and a doctorate in economics. His remarks at the Assembly reaffirmed the anti-imperialist posture of the Frente, and argued that the coup "would not have been possible without the participation and the help of officials of the highest level of the North American government".

Pavel Núñez, a member of the musical group Café Guancasco "spoke in the name of Honduran youth".

But the really interesting choice here is to give a great deal of print to Gloria Oquelí, described as "recognized leader of the Liberal Party, member for Honduras of the Parlamento Centroamericano (PARLACEN), and until recently President of that regional organization".

In March, Oquelí was listed as part of a group called the "encounter of progressive Liberals", one of seven factions within the Liberal Party that El Heraldo claimed would "promote the overthrow of the Liberal Party and even ask for the disappearance of that party". In May, El Heraldo augmented its count of factions of Liberals in Resistance to include what it called three "zelayist" factions, for a total of ten separate movements within the Liberal Party organizing against the dominance of Roberto Micheletti and Elvin Santos.

So, whatever other role she has, when Oquelí speaks, one of the tensions she voices is that between Liberals in the Resistance and those suspicious of the party system itself.

Oquelí is quoted as saying that

the rules of democracy are simple: one of those affirms that the majority rules and a second reaffirms that the majority can change any rule that might be established in a democratic system, except for the first.

Sounds uncontroversial, right? Majority rule = democracy.

But in fact, COPINH and the Feminists in Resistance each have articulated different rules of democracy, which stem from a minority position that understands that majority rule may actually end up being majority command. COPINH builds on a tradition of indigenous organizing in which consensus is the goal. A consensus is a majority; but it is a majority without significant dissent. To arrive at consensus, you have to take time to thrash things out, and you may well need to abandon some things that are objectionable to a determined minority.

Feminist organizations often strive for consensus as well. They also may advocate, as the Feministas en Resistencia did in their statement, for parity between men and women in governance.

Minority groups, including traditional parties that have strong agendas but are not popular enough to win a majority (such as the Liberal Democrats in the recent UK elections), often advocate an alternative to majority rule: proportional representation. Unlike the more familiar winner-takes-all approach, in proportional representation, minority positions can emerge with representation equal to that of their supporters. In pluralistic societies, proportional representation is probably more truly democratic.

So, the rules of democracy are not so simple after all.

But back to Gloria Oquelí. The report on the Assembly says she argued that "it is important to consolidate the political project known as Resistance". Again, not all participating segments of the Frente would agree that the Resistance is a "political project", and if they did, they would disagree on what kind of "political project" it is; and they may well continue to politely disagree with the claim that it has to be "consolidated".

Oquelí is a good politician, a progressive one, and she clearly feels the Resistance has a once in a lifetime opportunity. According to the report,

Recognizing the wide character of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular and the traps of empire she declared that "if they push us, if they corner us, so that we will be an institution of a homogeneous ideology, we could fall into error. In the FNRP we all fit, therefore it is not true what Hugo Llorens says, that we are a small group of the extreme left and of the extreme right facing off. It is the ideas, the ideals and all our dreams, not the ideologies that mark our way".

While it isn't entirely clear here who "they" are who want to corner the Frente into a homogeneous ideology, the juxtaposition with US Ambassador Llorens' regrettable dismissal of the Frente as an "extreme left" group tends to suggest Oquelí is concerned about the Frente being pushed to remain ideologically pure by the left. While it is hard to reduce feminist or indigenous activism to right/left terms, if you have to choose one position, it would indeed be left.

So, perhaps "they" who are trying to corner the Frente into an "ideology" in place of simply "ideas" and "ideals" includes those who recently expressed their uncertainties about the goals of this weekend's assembly. Since no one from indigenous or feminist networks is quoted in this first report, it is hard to say what they thought of how the event was opened.

Feminists in Resistance also caution about FRNP elections

In response to the public position statement about proposed selection of difectors of the Frente de Resistencia this week issued by COPINH, the Feminists in Resistance have come out in solidarity with that statement, calling it a "wake-up call" [literally, sound of knocking at a door] "so that the errors that have been committed can be corrected if we are actually committed, men and women, to the Refounding of Honduras".

In the second point of their ten point statement, the Feminists in Resistance say that

our diversity of expressions confronts us with different forms of oppression, for reasons of class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, land tenure and damages to the environment, among others. The FNRP cannot ignore this situation, at the moment of forming its organic structures, because otherwise it will be over-valuing some movements and organized groups with participation and representation that is majority masculine, above others in which we women participate under a different philosophy as is feminism.

They argue that

in all the organisms of direction of the Frente, women in resistance should participate in a joint form together with the men, in this way it will be putting into practice the exercise of a full citizenship, to which all women aspire, that is to say, to participate in the taking of decisions.

As with the statement by COPINH, the Feministas en Resistencia reiterate their stance against neoliberalism, patriarchy, neocolonialism, and related tendencies. They go to state firmly that

we consider that our actions within the FNRP should be totally divorced from old exlusionary practices, set-up and opportunistic, proper to the oligarchic parties that lamentably have permeated some of the social and political organizations that make up the Frente, which obligates us to be permanently vigilant and in particular, in this moment in which processes of election are being carried out of our structures and national conduct, in which we hope will exist parity between men and women and that the principles of equality, liberty and autonomy will be put into effect, understanding this as the possibility to take collective and individual internal decisions without interference, nor external pressures of any nature.

The group Feministas en Resistencia has published regular blog posts since August of 2009 with a focus on the impact of the coup and de facto regime on women's issues, and on actions taken in resistance. Like COPINH, it has participated in all the forums of the FNRP.

According to a description of its birth, Feministas en Resistencia was formed by "a collection of Honduran organizations and activists against the coup". With their tagline of Ni golpe de Estado, ni golpe a las mujeres! (Neither a coup d'etat nor violence toward women") they conjoin these forms of repression and underline the fact that women, as ever, pay a particular price for speaking up.

As the profile of the organization (written during the de facto regime, and thus referencing what then was a key demand, the return of the constitutional president) pointed out, for the Feministas en Resistencia

resistance signifies a fight for a substantive democracy that will transform existing relationships of power and generate a new and egalitarian social pact. This goes far beyond Manuel Zelaya’s return. From their perspective, struggling for the restitution of the constitutional president to his office is a condition for democracy and a point of departure for the process of re-establishing the Honduran State by recognizing diversity, citizen participation, gender equality, and human rights.

Incorporating explicit statements of women's rights in a new Constitution is as much a motivating force for these activists as incorporating guarantees of indigenous rights is for COPINH.

Like COPINH, this means they are not interested in converting into a traditional party or political organization.

And even more explicitly, they are pointing the finger at traditional party operatives now in the Frente who they suspect would like to convert it into something that will not achieve the revolutionary goals they seek as feminists.

Representation, Resistance, and Indigenous Organizations

This weekend, the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular is reportedly holding elections for regional and national directors.

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the proposed election of representatives in an organization dedicated to advocating for participatory democracy.

One of the participating movements, COPINH, has gone so far as to publish a public position paper on the topic, declaring their intention to abstain from the interim organization of FNRP leadership, and asking that the Frente publish a description of the mechanisms for selecting directors.

Writing on Vos el Soberano, sociologist and activist in the Frente Ricardo Arturo Salgado voices his support for the statement by COPINH, and outlines his own concerns about the planned elections. He urges that the FNRP not forget that its "vertebral column" is in

the popular movement, whether that is feminists, writers, intellectuals, union organizers, LGBT groups, artists, politicians (not parties, individuals), professionals, campesinos, all the Honduran men and women; this should be the base of its construction of power as well.

At issue, as it has been continuously as the Frente evolves, is the relationship of the Frente to traditional forms of party politics in Honduras. Salgado asks that the Frente

demonstrate why we are different. We should stop conspiring, we should not permit an assembly in the style of a "united front" this weekend. Please publish the methodology adopted so that we militants can see clearly the process.

The Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas (COPINH) is a major partner in the FNRP, serving as the sponsor for the II Encuentro Nacional por la Refundacion de Honduras held in La Esperanza in March, which advocated a strongly participatory dialogic process to arrive at proposals for a new constitution.

The existence of COPINH as an activist group long predated the coup of June 2009.

On their official website, COPINH records their formation in March of 1993 to bring together "the popular movement in the Department of Intibucá, the battle in defense of the environment, the rescue of the Lenca culture, and to raise the conditions of life of the population in the region" of southwestern Honduras, and with a national visibility on these issues. Their statements of history, policies, and programs culminates in this description:

We are an indigenous and popular organization, anti-patriarchal, anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberal, sensitive in the face of the problems, needs, and rights of the indigenous, campesino, and urban communities of the Honduran people and the world.

As early as spring of 2009, COPINH spoke out in favor of a consulta of public opinion about a new Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution. Salvador Zuñiga of COPINH wrote

The new constituyente should not be a personalized project around a caudillo, the new constituyente should be a project of the Honduran people for the construction of a true democratic institutionality that will end the disorder of manipulation, of lies, of social inequalities, of discrimination, of violence, of impunity and of corruption in which the powerful laugh everyday at our people who each time lose more of their hopes in all men and women.

The statement enumerated that the new constitution should be a document

in which the country is declared a multilingual country and the indigenous languages, Tol, Pech, Garifuna and others, are recognized as official, in which the equitable distribution of natural resources is declared, in which therapeutic abortion or abortion in case of rape is declared legal, in which the exercise of direct democracy is expedited, in which national sovereignty is rescued by ordering the dismantling of foreign military bases, in which gender equality remains clearly established and it puts and end to discrimination and violence against women, in which the wealth of the corrupt who for years have been enjoying impunity is expropriated, a new constitutional assembly that will leave clear the functioning of the organizations that should impart justice with the aim of guaranteeing a true administration of justice, a constitution that guarantees liberty of expression through communication media that will be independent and not supernumeraries of the powerful groups that do enormous business selling publicity and their role of manipulators of consciousness.

In other words, COPINH has long-standing, consistently articulated and substantive positions on the central issue of "refounding" Honduras via a new Constitution.

In their public position statement on the planned elections of this weekend, COPINH reiterates their dedication to forming part of the Frente, but insists that the principles they espouse be honored:

it is necessary to make clear that the struggle of COPINH transcends the conjuncture of the oppressor golpismo, to project itself in a permanent manner against all forms of domination that repress the people. The communities of COPINH will continue resisting the capacity of the colonialist system that wants to put an end to the peoples and leave them without their water, their forests and their territories. Therefore the struggle will continue in the path of our martyrs of the colonialist invasion: Lempira, Mota, Iselaca, Etempica.

We are convinced, men and women, of the role that we should play in this historical crisis, in this form, we hold ourselves to reason to command obedience and to the construction of socio-political power from below, from the base itself. Power and reason should emanate from the people from below and on the left. We are inspired, in that sense, by:

• Political practices that will be democratized and not concentrating of decision-making power.
• Political practices that make decisions, resources, actions and discussions transparent.
• Political practices that include, diverge, and multiply both reasoning as well as responses to the historical urgencies of our people.
• Political practices that spring from the collective and not individualities. Principles and not slogans, actions and ideas and not pamphlets pre-designed as epitaphs. Practices that will be congruent with collective discourse and organizational reasoning.

Against these principles, COPINH warns that

Groups, persons, parties and phantom organizations, with no social base, pretend today to get shares of power and of decision within the FNRP, behind the back of the people, and that will throw away the liberatory struggles by the social organizations before, during, and after the coup d'Etat.

COPINH reiterates that they

maintain ourselves in resistance against the oligarchic oppressor's boot, but as well against all those behaviors that would lead the FNRP to positions that attempt against the interests of the people and popular dignity and against all those decisions that pretend to bargain the blood of our martyrs.

This is a strong challenge to the would-be leadership of the Frente.

As it moves from a stage of opposition to the coup and the de facto regime, to a campaign of mobilization, there will be pressure on the Frente to follow a conventional course to gain recognition and a modicum of political power.

From the point of view of COPINH, though, the stakes are higher than merely being admitted into Honduran politics: their position requires them to demand new forms of political organization, or risk being swamped as a minority in a majority-rules democratic system yet again.

One Year of Resistance: What Could Porfirio Lobo Sosa Do?

As I write this on June 26, one year has passed since the day we left Honduras. We had tickets to return in a couple of weeks to continue our work. We also knew we would be returning later, in August or September, for another event.

The political situation was tense enough that we told the students who were staying to be careful. In particular, despite any interest they might have, we suggested they stay away from the central square in San Pedro Sula on Sunday, when the polling for the cuarta urna initiative would take place. We were concerned there would be violence, given the passion and at times, frenzied irrationality, of those protesting Manuel Zelaya's proposal to test the depth of support for constitutional reform.

But despite conversations about rumors of a coup with Honduran colleagues, we did not believe, truly believe, that Honduras could turn back to that past. So when we were wakened on June 28 by a call from one of our students with the news of President Zelaya's kidnapping and expatriation, the disruptions of media and internet service, and cut-offs of electricity, we struggled to come to terms with this failure of democratic process.

We are still struggling to understand it, and the events that followed under the de facto regime, and continue under the administration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa. We have, with many others, found the actions of the United States disappointing, and determinative in breathing new life into the de facto regime at points when it seemed that a restoration of the elected government might be possible. Instead, Roberto Micheletti held on to his delusional "presidency", destroying any chance for elections to be held that would allow for participation by dissenting politicians and that might have honestly acknowledged the level of nonparticipation and open repudiation of elections held after such a breach of public order.

One of the things we struggle with constantly is the question, what could a real leader in Honduras do at this point to begin a process that might allow the country to come to terms with these events sooner rather than later? We have, like others, been horrified at the cynicism of the US position that ticks off a list of gestures in order to claim that the coup is behind us. We think there is ample evidence that the gestures Porfirio Lobo Sosa is performing satisfy no one except the US, and have further weakened Honduran government and civil society.

So we debate, constantly, the question: what might Lobo Sosa do now that could genuinely make a difference? Is Honduras doomed to spend an entire presidential administration in this state of suspended animation? In commemoration of one year of Honduran resistance to this coup and its aftermath, we offer the following list of actions that a Honduran president who truly wanted to start a process of national dialogue would have to take:

(1) Declare officially that the coup d'etat was an unconstitutional disruption of the rule of law. We know from his candid statements to Spanish media that Lobo Sosa admits that a golpe took place. But Lobo Sosa not only was incapable of leading the members of his own party to repudiate the coup after the November elections, he assented to the Congressional resolution reaffirming the illegitimate actions of June 28, 2010. As long as the official line in Honduras is that what happened was legal, there is no possibility of coming to terms with what happened.

(2) Recognize the existence of the FNRP as a legitimate voice of opposition, respect the insistence of the FNRP on determining its own structure and leadership, and acknowledge its communications as legitimate political statements of an autonomous public opinion that cannot be dismissed as "radical". This one is complicated. Honduran politicians want to neutralize the FNRP by drawing attention to its internal debates (as if such differences in opinion are absent in other political groups), by characterizing it as radical, and if those attempts do not work, by suggesting it is simply a typical political movement that will be converted into a conventional party. It will be a challenge for Lobo Sosa to craft a statement that accepts the legitimacy of the Frente without also attempting to redefine it or minimize its importance. But it is critical that he acknowledge that the conventional political parties whose presidential candidates he drafted into his cabinet do not represent the opposition to the coup, and thus, that his government is not one of "reconciliation and unity".

(3) Fund Sandra Ponce, the Fiscalia de Derechos Humanos (who has the investigative and prosecutorial authority for responding to complaints of human rights abuses) and direct her to immediately investigate the human rights abuses documented by the IAHRC. State clearly and in public that he accepts the IAHRC's findings and acknowledge that abuses continue today.

(4) While we doubt Lobo Sosa has the political power to do it (and we question whether he has the support to accomplish even the first three items we list) if he could, he should remove from executive branch offices those proponents of the coup d'etat appointed by Micheletti who are still to be found throughout the Honduran government.

(5) Acknowledge formally that he cannot guarantee Manuel Zelaya Rosales that if he returned to Honduras, which is his legal right, he would be free of politically-motivated prosecution. By insisting that Zelaya can return anytime, without admitting that the judicial branch, full of adherents of the de facto regime and complicit in the coup d'etat, is primed to pursue prosecution of a frivolous list of charges, Lobo Sosa is being disingenuous. Hondurans were encouraged in the months leading to the coup to be afraid of political differences, and were inspired to call for adherence to narrow orthodoxies of thought, belief, and action. Zelaya is one of the most powerful symbols of the purging of political diversity, and if Lobo Sosa would acknowledge that the country cannot tolerate his presence, he would be acknowledging that the country is not capable of healthy political debate.

(6) Finally, we would hope that Lobo Sosa could find the courage to reject the utility of the artificial performance of the steps outlined for Micheletti in the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. He needs to be the one to admit that having politicians from other parties in his cabinet is not "a government of unity and reconciliation". He should be the one to say that Honduras is not ready for a "Truth Commission" constructed simply to give cover to a few powerful international allies that want to stop having to deal with Honduras. He could do more good by saying clearly what everyone in Honduras knows: the truth of what happened on June 28, 2009 is well established. There is nothing about the events that is unclear. It is how people in support of the coup justify those events, in contrast to how the opposition understands them, that is separating Hondurans. And those are not matters of truth: they are matters of interpretation. If Honduras needs to move on, what it needs to move on from is precisely the terms of the Accord, which never worked, never really stemmed from Honduran intentions, and stands in the way of the country beginning to confront the fissures that broke open one year ago today.

"I am a liberal in resistance": A letter from Manuel Zelaya June 11

As we have previously noted, former President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales occupies an awkward position in the politics of resistance in Honduras.

As a symbol, he can be used against the resistance by politicians who dismiss calls for fundamental restructuring by labeling the resistance as "zelayistas", reducing what is happening in Honduras to a repeat of caudillismo-- the cult of a strong leader that permeates Latin American political history. Since the resistance includes groups and individuals who were and are critical of Zelaya, this over-simplifies and misrepresents reality, even if it does make it easier to digest Honduran reality (and thus return to the international status quo of ignoring it).

Yet repudiating Zelaya would alienate large segments of the Honduran population for whom he was not simply a symbol of change, but an actual agent of change-- making petroleum affordable, increasing the minimum wage, and giving opportunities for people to voice their own opinions and tell their own stories. The cuarta urna campaign gained its popularity from the sense it gave to these people that the system could be changed to allow their votes to actually count for something.

And then there is the specific quandary that Zelaya presents for the Liberal Party. As has been stressed numerous times, Zelaya and Micheletti were both members of the same party. Their differences dramatized the range of opinions contained within that party. Liberals in resistance are a major group, although again, politicians interested in dismissing the wider significance of calls for constitutional changes use that to claim that the resistance is simply a within-party movement.

From these differences have come a number of tensions, which sometimes rise to the surface in statements by resistance movement members and segments, some openly acknowledged in writing, others taking place in less public media. A good sense of the debates is being provided by ethnographer Adrienne Pine's posting of field notes from her ongoing research in Honduras. In a recent post, she points to a letter from Zelaya himself published by Vos el Soberano as an intervention of particular importance in the current situation.

In contrast to previous statements that have been criticized for collapsing Zelaya's own situation with the broader goals of the Resistance, this new letter is a straightforward exhortation to keep focused on the campaign for the constituyente; notably, it is addressed to the Resistance, the Liberal Party, and a broader group that might not identify with either but may have become politically conscious. It states clearly that the Liberal Party has destroyed itself and that liberals need to work within the Resistance Movement. It cautions against premature identification of candidates for office under the current system, and places support firmly behind the Resistance and the assemblies it is holding to formulate proposals for a new constitution.

While it does not entirely avoid the personalization of the coup and its aftermath that has made previous statements by Zelaya fodder for critics, it is a powerful distillation of the themes of the present movement to reformulate the Honduran constitution. It makes it clear why Zelaya is an important political actor, even in exile.

Dominican Republic June 11, 2010

Comrades (men and women) of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular,

Correligionaries of the Liberal Party,

Compatriots with liberty of consciousness,

With the good intention of contributing to fortifying the unity of the diverse political forces that make up the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular allow me to express [the following]:

The military coup d'Etat that we suffered together with the people the 28th of June 2009, when they expatriated me by the force of arms, produced the worst tragedy for Honduras in this century, but at the same time, it engendered the birth of the force of the Resistance, which today is obliged to remain united in the face of the enemies of democracy.

Since I was subjected to tortures and abuses in the diplomatic seat of Brazil in Tegucigalpa, we warned in a missive to the people about this necessity when we said:

“… The Resistencia is the new belligerent force in Honduras, and it should be the axis to coordinate and bring together the progressive political forces, that without losing their own identity, will oblige the dominant elite to recognize that the Hondurans do not have bosses and that we want to be free ”

In respect to the actions of the political forces, I reiterate what I said on that occasion:

“I am a liberal in permanent resistence and I will continue being so, of those that practice their true doctrine, opposed to military dictators and antidemocratic regimes, those that forged this coup d'Etat ceased to be Liberals and the people punished them at the ballot box, the National Party never would have been raised from the defeat that we delivered in 2005, without the leadership of the Liberal Party, conspiring with the oligarchy and the Pentagon, arming the military coup to remove me from the political stage…”

The Liberal Party only has an option for power within the Resistance, outside the resistance it is weak and is condemned to failure. To not be united in the Resistance is newly to deliver to the oligarchy the country and power.

We must be alert, the enemies of the people cause to circulate items with tricks and lies, with the goal of dividing us. The promotion of premature candidacies is part of their strategies to divide the Resistance from the Liberal Party and so liquidate the opportunity for liberty that today is presented to us after fifty years.

The homeland in this moment calls us to struggle for unity and for the Constituyente, and we should say without fear:

“Elections Yes… for delegates to the Constitutional Assembly”

Our struggle today is for true independence, and for the refounding of Honduras, where the worker and the poor will be freed from those who oppress them.

We should struggle without respite for a new Constitution that will guarantee democratic liberty.

The new Constitution should have clear contents that arise from proposals presented in the Assemblies of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular, and that gather the aspirations and needs of all the sectors.

By the 15th of September, anniversary of our Independence, we should have these proposals and broaden the period to that date for the collection of signatures for the sovereign declarations to demand the National Constitutional Assembly and my return.

The suffering of the victims of this crime against humanity, with the loss of lives of our martyrs who condemned the coup d'Etat, cannot be in vain, nor pass into oblivion.

Without justice there is no reconciliation, No to impunity!

“Coups d'Etat, never again”

“Everyone for the constituyente”

Manuel Zelaya Rosales

Zelaya to Correa: Proposal for a Route to Reconciliation

In a letter dated May 9 directed to Ecuador's President, Rafael Correa, former Honduran President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales took a step forward as an agent in the ongoing process of working out a way forward for Honduras.

Zelaya occupies a critical but ambiguous position in Honduran political struggle after the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa. Many members of the opposition were and continue to be inspired by the unprecedented number of steps taken to improve conditions for all Honduras by Zelaya's administration.

Yet the Frente de Resistencia cannot afford to be identified as solely supporters of Zelaya, a depiction used to dismiss their current political aims. Nor is that an accurate characterization of its membership, which includes skeptics about all traditional Honduran politics.

It is impossible even for skeptics to ignore the symbolic value Zelaya has achieved by virtue of having been forcibly expatriated in reaction to steps he had taken to challenge the system that benefits only a small proportion of Hondurans.

Zelaya cannot be ignored; but it has been unclear how he could build on the symbolic position he holds, and in particular, do so in a way that would be productive for the entire Honduran opposition.

With this letter, Zelaya has made his move to try to mobilize his symbolic stature and political experience to push for a voice for the victims of the coup in the face of the Truth Commission, whose legitimacy he challenges centrally.

Sr. President Rafael Correa: I address you with the goal that you will know the agenda that I have proposed for national reconciliation of the Honduran people and to contribute an acceptable peaceful solution for the people to the effect that it would include the recognition of Honduras in the international community.

I present you for your information the following proposal:

PROPOSAL FOR A POLITICAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL RECONCILIATION IN HONDURAS

From an obligatory exile originated by the military coup d'Etat of the past 28th of June, that today is prolonged through the judicial persecution set loose against me for political purposes, added to the violations of human rights against the people, and considering the coherent and solidary position of UNASUR in defense of the Honduran people, I present to you a proposal that would permit the return of the Honduran state to the bosom of the international community and the national reconciliation of the Honduran people.

Allow us to highlight the following facts:

• The Supreme Court of Justice absolved, with a final dismissal of charges, the military command, executor of the coup d'Etat and responsible for crimes against humanity

• The National Congress decree an amnesty solely applicable to the authors of the coup d'Etat, leaving with impunity the most abominable crimes and violations of human rights committed against a defenseless population.

• The Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Justice, co-authors of the coup d'Etat, executing actions of judicial persecution with political purposes against President Zelaya and his ministers, remain in their positions and enjoying impunity.

• No organization, nor system of the international community, not the UN, nor the OAS, nor the Sistema de Integración Centroamericana (SICA), the Rio Group, among others, has repealed its resolutions and sanctions against the coup d'Etat since the circumstances that originated this deed, that has menaced our democracies, have not been overcome.

• The "Truth Commission" has been put together in a unilateral manner and without consultation on the part of the government excluding us totally from the entire process, in a misunderstanding that we victims do not have the right to a voice nor representation. This puts us in position of helplessness in the face of the impunity of the executors of the military coup d'Etat.

It is due to the preceding that, very conscious of the position of the UNASUR group and of Ecuador, that occupies the Presidency pro tem, I pose for you the possibility of a political agreement to resolve the crisis derived from the military coup d'Etat, that might contemplate at least the following elements.

1. That the National Congress of Honduras should decree an amnesty, full and sufficient for the via judicial filed by the officials who together with the dictator Micheletti acted in the coup d'Etat and that today are found directing with impunity the institutions administering justice, venting their wrath against ex-President Zelaya and high officials of his government.

This agreement would guarantee the return to the country of ex-President Zelaya and others who today are found in exile, in the full enjoyment of their civil and political rights, a petition supported by the people and the Frente de Resistencia Popular for national reconciliation.

2. That there be given guarantees for the exercise of DEMOCRATIC LIBERTY in the country, that would permit there to be debate and to decide about the necessity for the establishment of participatory democracy and the right that society in Resistance against the coup d'Etat has to state an opinion, to have recognition as a belligerent force, and to demand a new Constitution.

3. To guarantee the end of repression and respect for human rights of all the citizenry, men and women, putting an end to crime, assassination, judicial persecution and repression on the part of the dependencies of the Police and Armed Forces.

4. To remove from their positions the principal people responsible for the civil-military coup d'Etat, that are found occupying the operative organizations of justice and ministerial positions.

5. That the integration of the citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales in the Central American parliament should proceed, a position that corresponds to him following his constitutional investiture and by his own right.

6. That an end be put to impunity for violations of human rights and that there be presented to the International Criminal Court the authors of the crimes against humanity that are already sued for those offences and that refused to appear in court. For example: the Attorney General refuses to proceed and to present himself to the international courts although knowing that Honduras is part of the International Criminal Court, and that the suits have been accepted by the CIDH and by the same Criminal Court.

I reaffirm to the government of Ecuador and to UNASUR our disposition to promote this political accord in SICA, CARICOM, the Rio Group, and ALBA, so that in the bosom of the next Assembly of the OAS this plan would be accepted and supported and that Honduras would obtain international recognition, and we all could commit ourselves to this agenda, prior to the development expected for such a great event.

"Are you deliberately avoiding the word 'coup'?"

Our headline comes from a question the Los Angeles Times asked in a Q/A with Eduardo Stein today.

His response?

"That is precisely what we want to clarify. ... There are people here who argue it was a constitutional succession, with minor mishaps along the way. I went on record [shortly after the coup] saying that a forced expulsion of a popularly elected president, taken by military people and thrown out of the country, is a coup. ... Here, I have been reprimanded for taking sides. So now we are calling it an alteration of political institutionality, and we will examine whether there was a constitutional framework and if rights were respected." [emphasis added]

"Here" is Honduras, where Stein was in Tegucigalpa while being interviewed.

If anyone is in doubt as to why members of the Frente de Resistencia doubt the potential for this "Truth Commission" to help resolve the conflict that continues in Honduras, let this be a moment of clarification.

Holding open the possibility of supporting the spurious argument that the coup d'etat that occurred was actually a "constitutional succession" means starting by having already yielded to the faction that was responsible for disrupting constitutional government in Honduras.

And there is more to sustain the suspicions of opponents to the coup:

"there are some things that happened that have antecedents of not just weeks but maybe months or years. Eruption was a date and time, but it took a long time to cook."

Through the repressive rule of the de facto regime, a repeated claim was that the world-wide repudiation of the coup d'etat was unfair because international agencies would not listen to their interpretation of events throughout the term of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as evidence justifying the coup. Well, it sounds like they will get their way on this one as well.

Not that Stein actually cares that progressives in Honduras will not cooperate with him:

"Among the Zelayistas and the resistance, they see us as just an extension of the coup, only window-dressing."

I suppose that we should be grateful that Stein at least differentiates between personal supporters of Zelaya and the broader resistance. But on the downside, he equates progressives and the extreme right, and thinks that by refusing to acknowledge those with the most at stake in the conflict, the Truth Commission will somehow be able to make a difference:

"We are not worried about the extremes. We have found enough interest among groups who want to come forward. And we have to be surgically careful not to allow ourselves to be sucked into the political squabbles."

Well, I hate to tell him, but the Truth Commission has already been sucked into "political squabbles". That should be the whole point, surely: to clarify the issues that surround differences in power and the exercise of authority about which stake-holders disagree.

And when you think you are avoiding being drawn in, you actually are in danger of accepting the premises offered by one side or another. Such as that it may not actually have been a coup, and the "causes" (read: justifications) may have developed long before the decision was made to kidnap the legally elected president, expatriate him unconstitutionally, and appoint a member of Congress as "president" without legal justification.

Jose Manuel Zelaya: Symbolic Exile

Articles in the Honduran pro-coup La Tribuna and the Spanish Europa Press today report that Porfirio Lobo Sosa has invited José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to return to Honduras, supposedly without fear of being arrested on outstanding warrants. The offer by Lobo Sosa was spurred by President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala

Lobo Sosa is quoted as saying that the officials of the Judicial branch-- over which the Executive of course has no direct power--

"know that any decision that would be to go and order jailed the ex-president Zelaya would be a great problem for Honduras, that would not be right for Honduras."

"The Supreme Court of Justice has said to me: 'we understand the law, justice, but we also understand the actual political situation that we Hondurans confront'."

Sounds good, right? well, not so fast: Lobo Sosa also is quoted as saying that the justices

"are not going to generate any type of conflict over this; they are not going to more than what is incumbent on them in accordance with the law and that allows people to be heard in liberty." "Without me being the Judicial Power, what I have discussed with the president of the Court (Jorge Rivera), is that they have a real recognition that there are things that simply have to be given all the facility so that that do not generate a great conflict for our dear Honduras."

Not quite so clear now, is it?

Lobo Sosa is playing a risky card here: if Zelaya accepted this offer and came back, the Public Prosecutor and courts would have to maintain what he says is their understanding of the political repercussions for Honduras of pursuing the charges that were put together in the wake of the coup. The amnesty passed by the Honduran Congress was limited to "political crimes", meaning it wiped the record clean for the authors of the coup; but among the charges the Public Prosecutor developed against Zelaya are a series of so-called "common crimes" not covered by the amnesty.

So what Lobo Sosa is engaged in here is a kind of bait and switch. He is careful to make clear that he is not the Judicial authority; and so he does not guarantee anything, actually.

But this kind of statement gets blurred when reported in the international press.

Lobo Sosa is actually doing something much subtler than it appears on the surface: by focusing on Zelaya, he is able to advance the idea that international pressure not to grant Honduras easy return to the OAS and SICA, represented most recently by the protest of UNASUR countries against his attendance at the summit in Spain, is just about the treatment of the former president. And this allows him to make a politically popular claim in Honduras, that it is unfair for the international community to make a demand that Zelaya return, and even that Zelaya is simply being an obstructionist:

"President Zelaya does not come because he does not want to come, he is Honduran and he has the legitimate right to come when he wants; I feel more that it is a political matter."

What this claim echoes, of course, is the attempt by the Honduran right to dismiss broader issues by equating the Frente de Resistencia with the liberal party, by labeling public demonstrators in favor of a Constitutional Assembly as "zelayistas", and by ignoring the broader set of concerns that UNASUR governments, and others, have expressed about continuing human rights abuses against those who opposed the coup d'etat and continue to oppose Lobo Sosa's government.

In fact, as a fascinating post by Adrienne Pine, and editorial opinions reproduced at voselsoberano demonstrate, there is active debate in the opposition movement about what place former president Zelaya has and should have. It serves a conservative purpose to reduce the complexity of positions to a more familiar narrative that treats Zelaya as a would-be Peron. The opinions of those in opposition range from endorsements of Zelaya as the one president who actively took up popular causes, without direct benefit and paying the ultimate political price, to those who are skeptical of all would-be political leaders.

Zelaya has become a potent symbol in the post-coup universe of Honduras. So it is probably worth giving the person, Mel Zelaya the last words here, rather than let him remain a symbolic pawn debated by those on the left and right in Honduras and abroad:

"Señor Porfirio Lobo, I am grateful for your good intentions but your own Minister of Security contradicts them, the prosecutor contradicts them, the magistrates contradict them." "Lift the orders to capture me, annul the penal cases presented by the golpistas, and I assure you that tomorrow by noon I will be in Honduras."

May Day: a Constitutional Assembly is "the final objective"

May first, traditional date throughout the world for demonstrations by organized labor, this year presented a particular opportunity in Honduras for the Frente de Resistencia to make visible popular support in the face of a Honduran government and international community determined to ignore the existence of an organized popular opposition.

Reports and photography by participants in the marches leave no doubt that anti-coup, pro-constitutional assembly messages were critical to the marches that took place in the major cities of Honduras.

What is harder to know is the scale of the marches. Pro-coup newspapers chose to portray the presence of Resistence participants as usurping the events, displacing "authentic" laborers. El Heraldo continued to equate the Frente de Resistencia with the Liberal Party, taking advantage of slogans by some Resistence marchers calling for the government to allow José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to return to Honduras, to portray this as the main demand of the marchers. The newspaper also claimed, without any evidence, that marchers displayed "more Cuban and Venzuelan flags than Honduran", although the photograph captioned with this provocative claim actually showed Doña Xiomara Castro de Zelaya giving a speech in a crowd holding a poster entirely occupied by Honduran imagery-- including the Honduran flag.

El Heraldo gave no overall estimate of the crowd in Tegucigalpa, only claiming that the speeches given by people it condemned as "political" were heard by 5,000 people, while the speeches of union leaders were heard by only 3,000, as part of its argument that the Resistance illegitimately took over a workers' march, ignoring the substantial overlap between the Resistance and unionized labor and campesino groups.

However, even the pro-coup newspaper, La Tribuna, was forced to acknowledge a strong turnout, reporting that the march in Tegucigalpa

did not bring together the 150,000 people that the organizers hoped for, but it was sufficiently massive to paralyze the city with the closing of nearby commercial centers and to alter vehicular traffic in the perimeter that the route embraced. A caravan of motorcycles headed the protest, followed by dozens of union members and campesino organizations, with large placards on which could be read messages like "We want a Constitutional Assembly", "Neither forget nor forgive the authors of the coup d'Etat".

In another story in La Tribuna, the number of marchers is estimated at "more than 100,000".

Meanwhile, El Heraldo reported that in the southern city of Choluteca, marchers-- again described as the "liberal resistance" and portrayed as "inserting" themselves inauthentically into the occasion-- took over the Panamerican Highway for an hour and a half.

While again no estimate of the size of the crowd was provided, the effective ability to block the main highway for that long suggests a substantial body of demonstrators. In its coverage of this demonstration, El Heraldo described the demand for a Constitutional Assembly, oddly, as having been a defeated campaign point of the UD party in November 2009, rather than admit that the call for the Constitutional Assembly is not merely the policy of a particular political party.

Separate reporting on marches in San Pedro Sula, again lacking any estimate of crowd size, noted the presence of marchers representing the Frente de Resistencia. But it also makes clear what other stories tried to confuse: that the Frente and the unions worked together to advance a shared set of themes, including calls for greater economic justice but also the demand for a Constitutional Assembly.

Israel Salinas, president of the Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores de Honduras (CUTH), is quoted as saying that workers will join in demonstrations called for June 28:

“the people are and will continue to be in the streets until there is a national Constitutional Assembly, because this is the final objective"...

Misrecognition

As we previously noted, supporters of the government of Porfirio Lobo Sosa and the government itself are desperate to find any indication of "recognition" that they can. So pro-coup Honduran news media claimed that Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega had "recognized" Honduras by signing an accord to reauthorize a border dispute commission.

Now, Danilo Valladares writing for IPS notes that Nicaragua officially disclaimed such an interpretation:

In a statement issued by Managua after their meeting, representatives of leftist parties, including the governing Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) headed by Ortega, said they had decided "not to recognise the de facto government of Honduras."

The IPS article also includes comments from Ángel Edmundo Orellana Mercado, who resigned his post in the Zelaya cabinet days before the coup, then refused to participate in the post-coup Congress in protest against its illegal actions on June 28. Orellana was the author of a series of important editorials contesting the innovative attempts by the de facto regime to retroactively cleanse the coup of the stain of illegality.

IPS notes that Orellana argued against too-easy agreement to reintegrate Honduras in regional organizations like SICA and the OAS. Commenting on the Truth Commission set up by the Lobo Sosa government as part of its attempt to gain re-admission into OAS, Orellana said

"A bad precedent could be set if the commitments outlined there are not fulfilled and everything that happened is simply pardoned".

This is, of course, precisely what has been set in motion by the Honduran Congress passing a decree granting amnesty for "political crimes", which has been criticized by legal experts.

The IPS story repeats the claim seen in most recent articles that only 30 countries world-wide have recognized the Honduran government. This is far less than the number of countries claimed by the Lobo Sosa administration.

Among the Central American countries, as it properly points out, only Nicaragua has so far refused to recognize Lobo Sosa's government. The newly elected president of Costa Rica, Laura Chinchilla, has gone even further than Oscar Arias, saying

"We will be advocating, as we have up to now, the full and total reincorporation of our beloved sister republic of Honduras in all of the region's bodies".

Mauricio Funes, president of El Salvador, is reported to have stated that "Honduras will be fully integrated in SICA" by its scheduled July 20 meeting.

Renzo Rosal, described as assistant director of the Central American Institute for Political Studies, is quoted in the IPS article as saying that before Honduras is re-admitted to SICA,

"Issues that should be discussed are the role of the Honduran army in a democratic society; the historical two-party system in Honduras; the reconstruction of the social fabric; and the role that the OAS and SICA should play to help solve conflicts like the one in Honduras".

That would seem a very ambitious agenda to complete before July 20. Notably, it is not within the charge of the Truth Commission, which has been explicitly warned off such fundamental areas of Honduran political life.

The closest approximation to this agenda is, in fact, the manifesto issued by the Frente Popular de Resistencia following the meeting it convened in La Esperanza earlier this spring, which also called for reconsidering the role of the army, the place of the historical two party system, and the reconstruction of the social fabric. Good ideas; maybe someone should invite the authors to the table for real dialogue.