With the next round of voting to be held Tuesday, Radio Globo's David Romero Ellner has brought to light evidence of an elaborate con that funnels funds from the government to a trade association, and there to Congress members from opposition parties allegedly to vote for National Party Projects, including for their slate of candidates for the Supreme Court.
Reporter David Romero Ellner of Radio Globo is no stranger to conflict. He was almost the first to publicize the IHSS scandal and to report its links back to the National Party and the Juan Orlando Hernandez election campaign. He's currently awaiting sentencing having been found guilty of slandering a prominent National Party member in a trial conducted by the Supreme Court.
The con begins with a lawyer, supposedly named José Napoleón Panchamé. He can't be found. He supposedly contracted with the Associacion Nacional de Productores e Industriales de Barrios y Colonias de Honduras to fund projects Panchamé tells them to. Romero has a copy of the contract they signed. Romero alleges the funds come from the Tasa de Seguridad, the Oficina de Obras Sociales, and the 3 percent ISV tax. The funding was actually used to pay Congress members from mostly opposition parties to support National Party projects. In December alone, the Association issued 20 million lempiras ($952,000) in checks to Congress members. However, there is also a check for 700,00 lempiras ($33,333) to Panchamé.
The news first broke last Wednesday (February 2) when Romero told Radio Globo listeners that Congressman Agusto Cruz Asensio of the Partido Demócrata Christiano (DC) and Dennis Sanchez of the Partido Libertad y Refundación (Libre) received checks drawn on the Banco DAVIVIENDA from the account of the Asociacion Nacional de Productores, a group Romero identifies as a front organization that channels funds from the National Party. Cruz Asensio's check was for 99,800 lempiras ($4752) while Sanchez received 224,550 lempiras ($10,692). Each received two sequentially numbered checks from the Association.
Cruz Asensio claims the checks are for services he gave to the Association, but will not explain what those services were. Dennis Sanchez said the funds were a contribution to a fund for a water project for the community of Guacamaya, Santa Barbara, near Gualala, where he was born.
Nor are these the only two Congress members Romero implicates. Today he named a further suite of Congress members, all originally members of Libre: Héctor Padilla, Eduardo Coto, and Audelia Rodriguez. Padilla received two checks on December 22 of 2015 which Romero alleges were for him to vote to amend the Honduran constitution to include the military police as a constitutionally defined part of the Honduran Armed Forces. Padilla left Libre after that vote to join the Democrata Cristiana party. Audelia Rodriguez received two checks, also on December 22, 2015 from the same source totaling $11,405. She left Libre in May, 2015 because "being poor she wasn't welcomed." Rodriguez and Padilla are both now independents, while Coto is a Democrata Cristiana.
Romero says that between 16 December, 2015 and 23 January 2016, that bank account issued at least 23 checks, including one to every member of Libre that has left the party: Eduardo Coto, Jenny Murillo, Omar Rodriguez, Mariano Alvarado, Tatiana Canales, and Audelia Rodgriguez. At least one unnamed member of PAC also received a check.
Suborning the votes of Congress is of course an illegal, if not long standing, practice in Honduras. The OAS's MACCIH will have a long way to go to even begin to disentangle the corruption that is the current government of Honduras.
Showing posts with label PAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PAC. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Supreme Court Elections on Hold
With another round of voting for Supreme Court justices seemingly at hand, lets examine what is preventing the election of a new Supreme Court in Honduras.
A successful candidate needs 86 or more votes. The National Party has 48 members in Congress. The Liberal Party has 27 members. Libre has 31 members. PAC has 13, PINU has 1, the UD has 1, the Christian Democrats have 2, and there is 1 independent.
The first round of voting elected 7 justices: 5 Liberals, 2 National Party affiliates, and 1 independent. No one got the required 86 votes in Rounds 2, or 3.
The National Party has adopted the position that the Supreme Court must be partitioned by political party, and because it is the current ruling party, it should have the majority of members. They want 8 justices. There is historical precedent. That's how the election of Supreme Court justices has worked since 1982. They insist that a particular suite of 8 candidates (6 National Party members, and 2 Liberals) be elected in the next round.
The Liberal Party is allied with the National Party over the election of Supreme Court justices. They want 7 justices to be affiliated with their party. They are settling for 6 justices under their agreement with the National Party. They have also asked that the Chief Justice be a Liberal, just as he is right now.
PAC and Libre have both advocated for electing the best suite of justices. They differ, however, on the qualifications of the current pool of 45 nominees. PAC identified 16 candidates it felt were qualified to be Supreme Court justices from the pool. Libre rejects all of the current pool of 37 remaining candidates. Instead Libre seeks to turn the conversation to legislative reforms, referenda, and plebiscites.
Last weekend, the leaders of these four parties meet with President Juan Orlando Hernandez to try and negotiate a solution, but all of them stuck with their position, and they left the meetings without coming to an agreement.
Yesterday evening the Honduran Congress yet again failed to elect any justices in a third round of voting. Libre party members largely abstained from voting or filed null ballots. PAC did likewise, though at least one member of this party voted for 3 candidates of the suite put forward as the solution by the National Party. PAC accused that Congress person of betraying the party. During the counting of the votes, several members became upset and apparently punched each other.
Today's Congressional session did not include a vote on the Supreme Court nominations. Instead it dealt with the newly declared national emergency because of the Zika virus which has hundreds of Hondurans ill in the Hospitals.
The issue remains on hold while negotiations continue.
A successful candidate needs 86 or more votes. The National Party has 48 members in Congress. The Liberal Party has 27 members. Libre has 31 members. PAC has 13, PINU has 1, the UD has 1, the Christian Democrats have 2, and there is 1 independent.
The first round of voting elected 7 justices: 5 Liberals, 2 National Party affiliates, and 1 independent. No one got the required 86 votes in Rounds 2, or 3.
The National Party has adopted the position that the Supreme Court must be partitioned by political party, and because it is the current ruling party, it should have the majority of members. They want 8 justices. There is historical precedent. That's how the election of Supreme Court justices has worked since 1982. They insist that a particular suite of 8 candidates (6 National Party members, and 2 Liberals) be elected in the next round.
The Liberal Party is allied with the National Party over the election of Supreme Court justices. They want 7 justices to be affiliated with their party. They are settling for 6 justices under their agreement with the National Party. They have also asked that the Chief Justice be a Liberal, just as he is right now.
PAC and Libre have both advocated for electing the best suite of justices. They differ, however, on the qualifications of the current pool of 45 nominees. PAC identified 16 candidates it felt were qualified to be Supreme Court justices from the pool. Libre rejects all of the current pool of 37 remaining candidates. Instead Libre seeks to turn the conversation to legislative reforms, referenda, and plebiscites.
Last weekend, the leaders of these four parties meet with President Juan Orlando Hernandez to try and negotiate a solution, but all of them stuck with their position, and they left the meetings without coming to an agreement.
Yesterday evening the Honduran Congress yet again failed to elect any justices in a third round of voting. Libre party members largely abstained from voting or filed null ballots. PAC did likewise, though at least one member of this party voted for 3 candidates of the suite put forward as the solution by the National Party. PAC accused that Congress person of betraying the party. During the counting of the votes, several members became upset and apparently punched each other.
Today's Congressional session did not include a vote on the Supreme Court nominations. Instead it dealt with the newly declared national emergency because of the Zika virus which has hundreds of Hondurans ill in the Hospitals.
The issue remains on hold while negotiations continue.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Third Round of Voting for Supreme Court Underway
Something historic is going on in the Honduran Congress. Today they are trying for the third time to elect the remaining seven justices of the Supreme Court. The first round of voting yielded eight elected justices, five affiliated with the Liberal Party, one without party affiliation, and two affiliated with the National Party. Mauricio Oliva tried to convene Congress the next day to elect the other seven justices, but failed because PAC and Libre declined to participate in the election, so no candidate could get 86 votes.
Over the weekend, all of the parties met to try and reach some kind of accommodation, but both the National and Liberal Parties are sticking with a partitioning of court membership allocated to only those two parties, where party affiliation is more important that the candidate's qualifications or independence. This is the status quo. This is how these two parties have conducted the Supreme Court appointments since 1982 when the Honduran constitution was enacted. However, at least as of last Friday both PAC and Libre were rejecting the party quota system being argued by the two older parties. Officially as of this morning there was no acknowledged agreement, though the Honduran press reported that PAC was considering a partitioning of the Supreme Court that included candidates they could support. There are no PAC or Libre candidates in the pool of 37 from which the selection must be made, because the Nominating committee eliminated them and divided the slate of nominations between the National and Liberal party affiliated candidates.
In the voting today, Libre issued a communique in which it rejected the negotiations for the partitioning of the Supreme Court by party, and instead proposed a series of referenda and plebiscites, as well as approval of a suite of laws. If Libre is able to maintain party discipline, its Congressional bench will cast no votes today.
Unlike Libre which officially adopted the position of not voting for any of the candidates, PAC had identified a slate of 16 candidates it considered qualified, of which one was elected in the first round of voting. National Party operatives felt there was still a possibility of an agreement with PAC over a partitioning of the remaining justices, but officially, PAC said nothing publicly.
The voting is underway as I write this.
Over the weekend, all of the parties met to try and reach some kind of accommodation, but both the National and Liberal Parties are sticking with a partitioning of court membership allocated to only those two parties, where party affiliation is more important that the candidate's qualifications or independence. This is the status quo. This is how these two parties have conducted the Supreme Court appointments since 1982 when the Honduran constitution was enacted. However, at least as of last Friday both PAC and Libre were rejecting the party quota system being argued by the two older parties. Officially as of this morning there was no acknowledged agreement, though the Honduran press reported that PAC was considering a partitioning of the Supreme Court that included candidates they could support. There are no PAC or Libre candidates in the pool of 37 from which the selection must be made, because the Nominating committee eliminated them and divided the slate of nominations between the National and Liberal party affiliated candidates.
In the voting today, Libre issued a communique in which it rejected the negotiations for the partitioning of the Supreme Court by party, and instead proposed a series of referenda and plebiscites, as well as approval of a suite of laws. If Libre is able to maintain party discipline, its Congressional bench will cast no votes today.
Unlike Libre which officially adopted the position of not voting for any of the candidates, PAC had identified a slate of 16 candidates it considered qualified, of which one was elected in the first round of voting. National Party operatives felt there was still a possibility of an agreement with PAC over a partitioning of the remaining justices, but officially, PAC said nothing publicly.
The voting is underway as I write this.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Electing a Supreme Court, Badly.
The Honduran Congress is responsible for electing a new Supreme Court every 7 years under the Honduran Constitution. Yesterday the National and Liberal parties tried to carry on as they have for the last 34 years, nominating a suite of 8 National Party members, and 7 Liberal Party members. Mauricio Oliva, the president of Congress and a National Party member, then forced the procedure of voting on the entire slate, rather than approving each justice individually. He was certain he had the votes because of the alliance between the crumbling Liberal Party and the ruling National Party. He needed 86 votes. He got 82 (or 84 depending on which Honduran newspaper you read). Congress failed to appoint a new Supreme Court.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg of corruption around the election of this Supreme Court in Honduras. Lets turn to the candidates themselves. Last October, American Bar Association joined the Centro por la Justica y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL), the Fundacion para el Debido Proceso (DPLF), and Impunity Watch to form an international oversight committee reviewing the election of justices in Honduras. They met with the nominating committee and held workshops for them on international standards and best practices for selecting justices. It mostly seems to have been in vain.
The master slate of some 200 candidates was formed by the Nominating committee in a procedure that privileged some institutions, such as the business community, labor unions, and civil society, with making their own nominations. Others candidates self-nominated. The list of 200 candidates filled out questionaires, underwent drug testing, answered questions about affiliation or participation in drug trafficking with a polygraph. Each candidate received a numerical score, and all of this information was supposedly used to winnow the list down to the 45 "best" candidates, if by "best" you include 12 who failed the polygraph test, and some whose legal qualifications are suspect. During the process, the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa twice submitted lists of candidates that it said required more investigation or that should be eliminated outright, supposedly based on an FBI evaluation of candidates.
In the end, the Nominating committee submitted a list of 45 candidates to the Honduran Congress, including candidates that failed the polygraph portion of the test, and those that had numeric scores less than 50%. These are the ones the Nominating Committee said were the "best" candidates, but they refused to make public the selection criteria.
On January 21, the Human Rights Center of the ABA issued a 9 page report on the work of the Nominating committee, saying that it failed to meet international standards for transparency and follow the best practices for the selection of justices. So much for those workshops in October. The ABA said the Nominating committee had made an effort, but had not gone far enough to investigate the candidates, and that the whole process lacked transparency. They pointed out that the "election" of the Nominating committee itself was problematic. They made a long list of suggested improvements to the process.
Once Congress had the list, Mauricio Oliva appointed a review committee of 10 Congress people to review the nominations and recommend a slate of candidates. The committee was composed of members of the 5 political parties which have Congresspeople, with a majority of the positions going to the National and Liberal parties and the supporting Christian Democrats. All committee members were selected by Oliva, not their parties.
Monday started badly for transparency when Congress blocked most of the press corp in Honduras from entering to cover the election of the Supreme Court. Blocked press included Padre Melo of Radio Progreso.
The vote failed because Oliva did nothing to court the opposition party members into supporting the slate of hand picked candidates. He did get 9 votes from opposition party members, but clearly expected more. After the vote, Salvador Nasralla said that only 5 of the 15 candidates were qualified in his opinion. PAC, Libre, and PINU have together called for an open, public vote for the Supreme Court candidates, but Mauricio Oliva has instead imposed a secret vote, using paper ballots rather than the electronic voting system in Congress. Its far easier to manipulate the results of paper ballots, as both the Liberal and National parties have done in the general elections for the last 34 years.
Congress meets again at 4 pm to reportedly reconsider electing the same slate of 15 candidates again, only this time with a secret vote instead of a public one, using paper ballots instead of the electronic voting system installed in Congress.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg of corruption around the election of this Supreme Court in Honduras. Lets turn to the candidates themselves. Last October, American Bar Association joined the Centro por la Justica y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL), the Fundacion para el Debido Proceso (DPLF), and Impunity Watch to form an international oversight committee reviewing the election of justices in Honduras. They met with the nominating committee and held workshops for them on international standards and best practices for selecting justices. It mostly seems to have been in vain.
The master slate of some 200 candidates was formed by the Nominating committee in a procedure that privileged some institutions, such as the business community, labor unions, and civil society, with making their own nominations. Others candidates self-nominated. The list of 200 candidates filled out questionaires, underwent drug testing, answered questions about affiliation or participation in drug trafficking with a polygraph. Each candidate received a numerical score, and all of this information was supposedly used to winnow the list down to the 45 "best" candidates, if by "best" you include 12 who failed the polygraph test, and some whose legal qualifications are suspect. During the process, the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa twice submitted lists of candidates that it said required more investigation or that should be eliminated outright, supposedly based on an FBI evaluation of candidates.
In the end, the Nominating committee submitted a list of 45 candidates to the Honduran Congress, including candidates that failed the polygraph portion of the test, and those that had numeric scores less than 50%. These are the ones the Nominating Committee said were the "best" candidates, but they refused to make public the selection criteria.
On January 21, the Human Rights Center of the ABA issued a 9 page report on the work of the Nominating committee, saying that it failed to meet international standards for transparency and follow the best practices for the selection of justices. So much for those workshops in October. The ABA said the Nominating committee had made an effort, but had not gone far enough to investigate the candidates, and that the whole process lacked transparency. They pointed out that the "election" of the Nominating committee itself was problematic. They made a long list of suggested improvements to the process.
Once Congress had the list, Mauricio Oliva appointed a review committee of 10 Congress people to review the nominations and recommend a slate of candidates. The committee was composed of members of the 5 political parties which have Congresspeople, with a majority of the positions going to the National and Liberal parties and the supporting Christian Democrats. All committee members were selected by Oliva, not their parties.
Monday started badly for transparency when Congress blocked most of the press corp in Honduras from entering to cover the election of the Supreme Court. Blocked press included Padre Melo of Radio Progreso.
The vote failed because Oliva did nothing to court the opposition party members into supporting the slate of hand picked candidates. He did get 9 votes from opposition party members, but clearly expected more. After the vote, Salvador Nasralla said that only 5 of the 15 candidates were qualified in his opinion. PAC, Libre, and PINU have together called for an open, public vote for the Supreme Court candidates, but Mauricio Oliva has instead imposed a secret vote, using paper ballots rather than the electronic voting system in Congress. Its far easier to manipulate the results of paper ballots, as both the Liberal and National parties have done in the general elections for the last 34 years.
Congress meets again at 4 pm to reportedly reconsider electing the same slate of 15 candidates again, only this time with a secret vote instead of a public one, using paper ballots instead of the electronic voting system installed in Congress.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Permanent Parallel Police Forces?
Juan Orlando Hernandez would like to make the Policía Militar de Orden Público (PMOP) a permanent part of Honduras by modifying the Honduran constitution. He seems to be having problems convincing anyone outside of his party that this is either necessary or a good idea.
In August, 2013 the Honduran Congress, led at that time by Juan Orlando Hernandez, passed a bill (decreto 168-2013) creating the PMOP as an added branch of the Honduran armed forces. Their mission, as defined, is essentially the same as the National Police. Rather than being Military Police, that is a police unit located in the military, policing military bases, they are a Militarized Police, soldiers policing the civilian population of Honduras. The argument urging their creation was that they were needed because one could not have confidence in the National Police because so many of them were linked to organized crime or corrupt in other ways. At the time the PMOP were created, it was going to take 5 years to review and vet the 12,000 National Police officers.
Juan Orlando Hernandez now wants to make them permanent, called for from within the constitution, the same way the constitution mandates the existence of the Honduran Armed Forces. This would make it harder for future legislators to dissolve the PMOP, because a constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 vote of Congress two years in a row. Hernandez stated:
Hernandez has portrayed opposition to this as either being unmotivated, or linked to support for the drug traffickers. But Hernandez faces a lot of opposition on this issue.
There's never been a unified opposition in Honduras, especially not since the 2009 coup, but on this issue the political parties not in power, PAC, Libre, PINU, and the Liberals, have all stated their opposition to this move. Its not that they're against the PMOP, they all have emphasized, its that they are against there existing two parallel police forces in Honduras with the same mission. Mauricio Villeda, who was the Liberal Party's Presidential candidate in the last election, argues that the PMOP does not need to be added to the Honduran constitution, that as part of the Military it already has all the status it needs. Villeda pointed out that creating a mandate for the PMOP within the constitution would be like creating a second armed forces, equal to the existing armed forces. He suggested that this move has more to do with Hernandez wanting to continue in power after his term runs out.
Manuel Zelaya (@manuelzr), leader of Libre, responded on Twitter:
Salvador Nasralla, leader of PAC responded on his TV program saying:
The opposition has said it would welcome Hernandez putting this measure to a public referendum, as Hernandez said he might do if Congress fails to act.
The National Party is completely behind Hernandez, but lacks sufficient members in Congress to make this happen without some participation by those in other parties. Oscar Alvarez, head of the National Party caucus in Congress, claimed on Sunday that they had 80 solid votes for the change. Since there are only 76 National Party members in Congress, that must mean he's managed to convince 4 members of the opposition to vote with them. However, this bill needs 86 votes to pass to become law.
The current Congress has until January 24, when their session ends, to act.
In August, 2013 the Honduran Congress, led at that time by Juan Orlando Hernandez, passed a bill (decreto 168-2013) creating the PMOP as an added branch of the Honduran armed forces. Their mission, as defined, is essentially the same as the National Police. Rather than being Military Police, that is a police unit located in the military, policing military bases, they are a Militarized Police, soldiers policing the civilian population of Honduras. The argument urging their creation was that they were needed because one could not have confidence in the National Police because so many of them were linked to organized crime or corrupt in other ways. At the time the PMOP were created, it was going to take 5 years to review and vet the 12,000 National Police officers.
Juan Orlando Hernandez now wants to make them permanent, called for from within the constitution, the same way the constitution mandates the existence of the Honduran Armed Forces. This would make it harder for future legislators to dissolve the PMOP, because a constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 vote of Congress two years in a row. Hernandez stated:
"For me its important that the Militarized Police be permanent, because today I am the President, but if tomorrow someone else comes along and for ideological reasons dissolves the Militarized Police, we will fall back into the pothole that we all suffered; the Honduran people are not mistaken, if you ask the people who know the subject of security, in which they live all their days, they will tell you of the enormous support that the Militarized Police have."
Hernandez has portrayed opposition to this as either being unmotivated, or linked to support for the drug traffickers. But Hernandez faces a lot of opposition on this issue.
There's never been a unified opposition in Honduras, especially not since the 2009 coup, but on this issue the political parties not in power, PAC, Libre, PINU, and the Liberals, have all stated their opposition to this move. Its not that they're against the PMOP, they all have emphasized, its that they are against there existing two parallel police forces in Honduras with the same mission. Mauricio Villeda, who was the Liberal Party's Presidential candidate in the last election, argues that the PMOP does not need to be added to the Honduran constitution, that as part of the Military it already has all the status it needs. Villeda pointed out that creating a mandate for the PMOP within the constitution would be like creating a second armed forces, equal to the existing armed forces. He suggested that this move has more to do with Hernandez wanting to continue in power after his term runs out.
Manuel Zelaya (@manuelzr), leader of Libre, responded on Twitter:
"We are not opposed to the PMOP; yes to them having a parallel mission"
Salvador Nasralla, leader of PAC responded on his TV program saying:
"The Armed Forces are already in the constitution which clearly establishes their obligations, PAC is not against the Militarized Police who should work until the problem of insecurity in this country is resolved. We are against including [the PMOP] in the constitution and that they convert into a branch loyal to the President to defend him in his eager desire to continue in power clearly expressed in all the media."
The opposition has said it would welcome Hernandez putting this measure to a public referendum, as Hernandez said he might do if Congress fails to act.
The National Party is completely behind Hernandez, but lacks sufficient members in Congress to make this happen without some participation by those in other parties. Oscar Alvarez, head of the National Party caucus in Congress, claimed on Sunday that they had 80 solid votes for the change. Since there are only 76 National Party members in Congress, that must mean he's managed to convince 4 members of the opposition to vote with them. However, this bill needs 86 votes to pass to become law.
The current Congress has until January 24, when their session ends, to act.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Denial, Anger, and Bargaining: The Liberal Party of Honduras and the Stages of Grief
The Kubler-Ross model of grief has five stages: denial, anger,
bargaining, depression, acceptance. The Liberal Party in Honduras is
somewhere between denial and anger after the November 24, 2013
elections. It seems poised to fragment more as it attempts to come to terms with its losses-- of party members, and of the offices of president and head of congress.
Let's start with denial. The Liberal Party wants to blame LIBRE (and to a lesser extent PAC) for all of the problems that beset Honduran society. This despite the fact that the National Party has ruled Honduras for the last four years, and the Liberal Party ruled it for seven months after the coup of 2009, in which Liberal party members illegally removed from office the last Liberal Party president.
Which brings us to anger. The 2009 coup ripped apart the Liberal Party. A particularly conservative part of the party took control. The more liberal members of the party largely abandoned it and went on to form the Frente and LIBRE. As the election results from November 2013 show, about half of the supporting electorate left it as well. That has the remaining Liberal Party angry at others who it blames for its diminished position in Honduran politics.
If Kubler-Ross is right, the party needs to move on, and we can expect to see bargaining and depression before they finally reach acceptance.
Bargaining does seem to be the order of the day.
Since 2009 the Consejo Central Ejecutivo del Partido Liberal (CCEPL), which runs the party, has been in conservative hands, with Elvin Santos Lozano, and more recently Mauricio Villeda Bermudez, serving as President of the Executive council.
The Party leadership has not delivered a consistent message to its newly elected Congressional delegation about what it should be doing vis-a-vis the organization of the upcoming session of Congress.
Mauricio Villeda, the losing presidential candidate for the party, told congress members to wait and consult with the people, represented by the municipal mayors who were also elected in November. The municipal mayors have now spoken: they told the Congressional delegation to negotiate with the National Party for a Liberal president of Congress, in return for acting as allies (which would give back to the National Party the voting majority, but not the ability they have had to amend the constitution).
Today, another conservative member of the Party, Benjamin Bogran, who was its coordinator for the past election and is Secretary of the party, advised the party members in Congress to make no alliances, except with the people of Honduras.
Rumors have been flying suggesting that some Liberal Party Congressmen are following the mayor's wishes and talking with the National Party leadership about maybe having a Liberal Party president of Congress in exchange for an alliance between the two parties.
Other factions in the party, such as that represented by Yani Rosenthal, current head of its Congressional delegation, see that as death for the party.
However, the conservative faction that currently controls the Liberal Party blames LIBRE and PAC for all their problems, and sees this as a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't know. Bogran said that he could not support an alliance with LIBRE or PAC because "the two of them were conspiring to destroy the Liberal Party".
That's strong, and clearly angry language, but it is also misplaced anger. It is the current leadership of the Liberal Party with its swing to the right of the political spectrum that is responsible for its current loss of significance, but they cannot see it. They're in denial.
As it struggles to stay significant, and remain a viable party that can attract voters, the best political strategy for the Liberal Party would probably be to not form any alliance, denying both the National Party, and the opposition block formed by LIBRE and PAC the required majority to pass legislation. That would allow the Liberal Party to effectively be the swing vote in policies from all sides.
Bogran seems to be suggesting that something like this actually is the leadership's position when he instructed the Congressional delegation to make no alliances except to do what is best for the Honduran people. The party seems to be struggling to control its Congressional delegation, with Bogran's words an attempt to reign them back in and under party control.
Will it work?
It hasn't so far. Almost half the Liberal Party delegation reportedly has had some kind of talks with Juan Orlando Hernández and the National Party directorate about leadership positions for Liberals in Congress.
Villeda seems to have lost control of the directorate of the Party. Vos El Soberano reports that Carlos Flores Facussé (ex-president, owner of La Tribuna) has taken control of the party behind the scenes, comparing it to the coup Flores Facussé's father staged against Villeda Bermudez's father in 1963. Reportedly, Flores Faccussé wants the party to be a viable platform from which to launch his daughter on a future presidential campaign. Villeda Bermudez has remained silent, and has been out of the country since before the New Year.
Congress meets to organize on Tuesday, January 21. The new Congress will be sworn in and elect a provisional directorate. That provisional directorate then will name the permanent directorship of Congress, those who will run the body for the next two years. This must be done by Saturday, January 25.
It should be an interesting week.
Let's start with denial. The Liberal Party wants to blame LIBRE (and to a lesser extent PAC) for all of the problems that beset Honduran society. This despite the fact that the National Party has ruled Honduras for the last four years, and the Liberal Party ruled it for seven months after the coup of 2009, in which Liberal party members illegally removed from office the last Liberal Party president.
Which brings us to anger. The 2009 coup ripped apart the Liberal Party. A particularly conservative part of the party took control. The more liberal members of the party largely abandoned it and went on to form the Frente and LIBRE. As the election results from November 2013 show, about half of the supporting electorate left it as well. That has the remaining Liberal Party angry at others who it blames for its diminished position in Honduran politics.
If Kubler-Ross is right, the party needs to move on, and we can expect to see bargaining and depression before they finally reach acceptance.
Bargaining does seem to be the order of the day.
Since 2009 the Consejo Central Ejecutivo del Partido Liberal (CCEPL), which runs the party, has been in conservative hands, with Elvin Santos Lozano, and more recently Mauricio Villeda Bermudez, serving as President of the Executive council.
The Party leadership has not delivered a consistent message to its newly elected Congressional delegation about what it should be doing vis-a-vis the organization of the upcoming session of Congress.
Mauricio Villeda, the losing presidential candidate for the party, told congress members to wait and consult with the people, represented by the municipal mayors who were also elected in November. The municipal mayors have now spoken: they told the Congressional delegation to negotiate with the National Party for a Liberal president of Congress, in return for acting as allies (which would give back to the National Party the voting majority, but not the ability they have had to amend the constitution).
Today, another conservative member of the Party, Benjamin Bogran, who was its coordinator for the past election and is Secretary of the party, advised the party members in Congress to make no alliances, except with the people of Honduras.
Rumors have been flying suggesting that some Liberal Party Congressmen are following the mayor's wishes and talking with the National Party leadership about maybe having a Liberal Party president of Congress in exchange for an alliance between the two parties.
Other factions in the party, such as that represented by Yani Rosenthal, current head of its Congressional delegation, see that as death for the party.
However, the conservative faction that currently controls the Liberal Party blames LIBRE and PAC for all their problems, and sees this as a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't know. Bogran said that he could not support an alliance with LIBRE or PAC because "the two of them were conspiring to destroy the Liberal Party".
That's strong, and clearly angry language, but it is also misplaced anger. It is the current leadership of the Liberal Party with its swing to the right of the political spectrum that is responsible for its current loss of significance, but they cannot see it. They're in denial.
As it struggles to stay significant, and remain a viable party that can attract voters, the best political strategy for the Liberal Party would probably be to not form any alliance, denying both the National Party, and the opposition block formed by LIBRE and PAC the required majority to pass legislation. That would allow the Liberal Party to effectively be the swing vote in policies from all sides.
Bogran seems to be suggesting that something like this actually is the leadership's position when he instructed the Congressional delegation to make no alliances except to do what is best for the Honduran people. The party seems to be struggling to control its Congressional delegation, with Bogran's words an attempt to reign them back in and under party control.
Will it work?
It hasn't so far. Almost half the Liberal Party delegation reportedly has had some kind of talks with Juan Orlando Hernández and the National Party directorate about leadership positions for Liberals in Congress.
Villeda seems to have lost control of the directorate of the Party. Vos El Soberano reports that Carlos Flores Facussé (ex-president, owner of La Tribuna) has taken control of the party behind the scenes, comparing it to the coup Flores Facussé's father staged against Villeda Bermudez's father in 1963. Reportedly, Flores Faccussé wants the party to be a viable platform from which to launch his daughter on a future presidential campaign. Villeda Bermudez has remained silent, and has been out of the country since before the New Year.
Congress meets to organize on Tuesday, January 21. The new Congress will be sworn in and elect a provisional directorate. That provisional directorate then will name the permanent directorship of Congress, those who will run the body for the next two years. This must be done by Saturday, January 25.
It should be an interesting week.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Congressional Maneuvers
On the same day on which the National Party Congressional delegation announced it will let Juan Orlando Hernandez choose its Congressional leadership, the Congressional delegations of the Anti-Corruption Party, LIBRE, and PINU signed an accord to work together on certain projects in Congress.
Wilmer Velasquez, a National Party Member elected to Congress in November, told the Honduran press that the National Party Congressional Delegation had met and decided to let Juan Orlando Hernandez select its candidates for Congressional leadership.
This is supposed to be a sign of unity, though he admitted there were several names being floated for president of Congress. Velasquez told the press that Hernandez was in the best position to choose who was best for Honduras.
Any nominees will still have to gain a majority of the votes of all Congress members.
At the same time, the Congressional delegations of the Partido Anticorrupción (PAC), Libertad y Refundacion (LIBRE), and Partido Innovación y Unidad (PINU) came to a meeting organized by PAC's presidential candidate, Salvador Nasralla, and agreed to work together to achieve certain goals. The full pact can be read here.
Election law changes are one of these goals. The allied parties will seek to mandate electronic voting to disrupt the traditional forms of election fraud.
Also among the agreed-upon goals:
This does not mean they will always be working as a bloc with a combined roster of 51 members of Congress, but that they will work together on the specific issues agreed upon.
Notably missing from either announcement was the Liberal Party, which declined to participate in the PAC sponsored meeting.
Yani Rosenthal, current head of the Liberal Party Congressional Delegation (until January 20) said the party was between a rock and a hard place. He faulted internal party decisions for the Liberal Party not having a clear position on the new Congressional leadership, citing Mauricio Villeda's call ordering Liberal Party Congressional Delegates not to participate in Congressional leadership discussions.
Villeda's order came after twelve party members had held conversations with Juan Orlando Hernandez on the topic. Rosenthal said that there were problems for the party no matter what it does. If they ally with the National Party in Congress, for many that would be a death knell for the party. An alliance that includes LIBRE would mean joining with a party that damaged the Liberal Party. Another possibility would be to not ally with any party, but according to Rosenthal that, like all the other possibilities, would mean rejecting some of the current party values in order to maintain viability as a political party.
Separately, Manuel Zelaya Rosales announced he was stepping down as coordinator of LIBRE as part of the separation of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia and LIBRE. He has occupied this office since July 2010. Zelaya will remain part of the Frente, and is part of LIBRE's new Congressional Delegation.
All of these moves are crystallizing the new political landscape in Honduras, against a background of furious legislative action by the current, National-party dominated, lame-duck congress, intended to give Juan Orlando Hernández as much as possible before he faces a Congress that will not automatically do what he wants.
Wilmer Velasquez, a National Party Member elected to Congress in November, told the Honduran press that the National Party Congressional Delegation had met and decided to let Juan Orlando Hernandez select its candidates for Congressional leadership.
This is supposed to be a sign of unity, though he admitted there were several names being floated for president of Congress. Velasquez told the press that Hernandez was in the best position to choose who was best for Honduras.
Any nominees will still have to gain a majority of the votes of all Congress members.
At the same time, the Congressional delegations of the Partido Anticorrupción (PAC), Libertad y Refundacion (LIBRE), and Partido Innovación y Unidad (PINU) came to a meeting organized by PAC's presidential candidate, Salvador Nasralla, and agreed to work together to achieve certain goals. The full pact can be read here.
Election law changes are one of these goals. The allied parties will seek to mandate electronic voting to disrupt the traditional forms of election fraud.
Also among the agreed-upon goals:
- a rollback of the tax package the current Congress just put into effect
- try to regulate the salaries of government employees
- work to democratize the Congressional rules and reform the election law
- an overhaul the anti-corruption law
This does not mean they will always be working as a bloc with a combined roster of 51 members of Congress, but that they will work together on the specific issues agreed upon.
Notably missing from either announcement was the Liberal Party, which declined to participate in the PAC sponsored meeting.
Yani Rosenthal, current head of the Liberal Party Congressional Delegation (until January 20) said the party was between a rock and a hard place. He faulted internal party decisions for the Liberal Party not having a clear position on the new Congressional leadership, citing Mauricio Villeda's call ordering Liberal Party Congressional Delegates not to participate in Congressional leadership discussions.
Villeda's order came after twelve party members had held conversations with Juan Orlando Hernandez on the topic. Rosenthal said that there were problems for the party no matter what it does. If they ally with the National Party in Congress, for many that would be a death knell for the party. An alliance that includes LIBRE would mean joining with a party that damaged the Liberal Party. Another possibility would be to not ally with any party, but according to Rosenthal that, like all the other possibilities, would mean rejecting some of the current party values in order to maintain viability as a political party.
Separately, Manuel Zelaya Rosales announced he was stepping down as coordinator of LIBRE as part of the separation of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia and LIBRE. He has occupied this office since July 2010. Zelaya will remain part of the Frente, and is part of LIBRE's new Congressional Delegation.
All of these moves are crystallizing the new political landscape in Honduras, against a background of furious legislative action by the current, National-party dominated, lame-duck congress, intended to give Juan Orlando Hernández as much as possible before he faces a Congress that will not automatically do what he wants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
