I noticed this is in the news yesterday:
Nicaragua: Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called on the White House to hold firm against the Honduras coup.
Ortega recalled that after two months as president, Barack Obama suspended all forms of cooperation with the de facto government in Madagascar.
The least we can expect of Obama is to act with the same firmness now, he pointed out.
http://www.dailynews.lk/...
In fact, the US reluctance to even officially admit the military coup in Honduras was, indeed, a “military coup” is in dramatic contrast with its reaction to events in Madagascar in March. Does anyone here actually know about those events? The comparison is enlightening. On the one hand, the amazing speed with which what we like to call “international community” imposed sanctions on Madagascar, after the army refused to continue shooting at people protesting the government's plans to sell a large piece of their country to a foreign multinational. On the other, the strange reluctance of the US, at least, to impose similar sanctions on Honduras. It tells us a lot about what’s going on in the world today.
It’s impossible understand political events in Madagascar without first understanding one key fact that sets Madagascar apart from the vast majority of countries on earth: the Malagasy army, and security forces in general, have since 1991 made it a policy to refuse all orders to shoot unarmed civilians. This means that street protests, general strikes, and even non-violent civil disobedience and direct action (blockades, occupation of government buildings…) have become part of the normal way of conducting politics. There have been three such uprisings since 1991, each taking the same form: the opposition sets up its own shadow government, usually over accusations of a rigged election, declares itself the real government of the island, and gradually marshals popular support to drive the other one out.
The man who was until recently President, Ravalomanana (R8 in the Malagasy shorthand), an evangelical, free-market loving former yoghurt magnate, got his start that way. He was mayor of the capital when he probably won the election against then-President Ratsiraka; he marshaled street support, and took over most of the government buildings. Ratsiraka then decided to use non-violent civil disobedience tactics back against him, blockading the highways and not allowing fuel into the cities, until the whole thing was resolved in a kind of mini-“civil war”, though in fact, the only real battle involved 30 people on one side, 60 on the other, and maybe 3 casualties.
At any rate R8 took power and was reelected with 54% in 2006 (in an election in which half the opposition candidates were excluded from the ballot on legal technicalities.) After that, matters soon began going downhill. He dissolved the National Assembly, and seemed to recognize no difference between the government and his own private business empire. Things became so bad even the IMF and EU refused to deal directly with his government, labeling it flagrantly corrupt.
Shortly thereafter he surprised everyone by announcing he was negotiating an agreement to sell a large chunk of his country (1/2 the arable by some accounts, though this seems hard to imagine) to Daewoo, the South Korean conglomerate, who wanted it to provide food reserves for Korea (and also grow corn for ethanol. Korean friends tell me this has much to do with a wild scheme by the current Korean president to build a huge canal across the country which will destroy vast amounts of farmland. They were going to compensate by simply buying up a large portion of Madagascar.)
Such an agreement crossed all sorts of Malagasy red lines, starting with the question: Who exactly was going to kick off all the peasants currently living on this land? The Malagasy army was not happy – especially when they discovered R8 was talking to South African mercenaries (Blackwater types) to create his own private security forces willing to actually do all the things the Malagasy army and police were traditionally refuse to do.
Massive street protests began, led by the then-mayor of the capital, a young politician named Rajoelina—nicknamed TGV after the French super-fast train, since he was only 34 and had been been a a popular DJ only a few years before. They set up a shadow government with him as President and began occupying government buildings. Actually, this time there was an unusual amount of bloodshed by Malagasy standards. Protestors looted buildings; security forces were drawn in. Matters really came to a head on 7 February, 2009 when perhaps 180 unarmed protestors were shot down in the streets when they marched towards the Presidential Palace (where there is a special Presidential Guard that actually does shoot). About 50 of them died. This caused great shock and outrage throughout the country—where things like this almost never happen—and set off a dramatic chain of events (this isn't a quote, I'm just setting it off for ease of exposition):
• 9 February - the Defense Minister resigns in protest (declaring that “as a woman and a mother” she could not accept this violence). She is followed by all the other women in the cabinet.
• R8 replaces her with a loyalist willing to suppress the protests
• As protests spread beyond the capital, several more marches are fired on, several killed. After R8 orders the DJ removed from office as mayor, the latter is forced into hiding
• 10 March, the Army rejects the R8 flunky Defense Minister, and a number of high-ranking officers issue a statement that since their sworn duty is to protect the people, not to kill them, they will no longer accept orders from the current President.
• The Army chief of staff also announces that if R8 and the DJ didn’t sit down and reach some compromise in 72 hours, he will take over and impose one himself
• 11 March, some colonels who have hidden tanks in the capital remove the Army Chief of Staff, saying they were outraged by the suggestion that the army might take over the government, that this was undemocratic – but they also suggest the President step down and call new elections
• R8 refuses, puts out a warrant on the DJ, and demands the Army intervene, offering to turn over power to a military directorate “until order is restored”
• In army in effect reply “we’ll intervene if you insist, but you might not like it very much,” and finally, after much maneuvering on each side, on March 16, drive their tanks to the Presidential palace, force R8 to sign resignation papers, and hand power over to the DJ
• R8 flees to Swaziland, the DJ and with his shadow government is sworn in by the Malagasy Constitutional Court, which formally legalizes the transfer of power. The new government’s first act is to annul the Daewoo deal, but they also suspend parliament, and declare they will begin all-party talks towards a constitutional convention, leading to new elections in 2011
Now, some of this is obviously pretty sketchy: suspending parliament, waiting so long before elections... One can’t know how much popular support they have outside the capital until elections are held (though they surely have a lot of support in the places about to be sold to South Korea!) Still, the new government has been willing to accept international mediation for reconciliation talks, moved up the date of the upcoming elections, and TGV (the DJ) has even offered not to run in them if R8 agrees to do the same.
The reaction of the international community however was instantaneous. This was an unconstitutional “coup.” All countries, including the US, and all organizations like the EU and the African Union, refused to recognize the new regime, suspended all aid and diplomatic ties, and imposed economic sanctions.
What’s so striking is that this is despite the fact that this is obviously not a regime imposed by force: they are a broad coalition involving most Malagasy political parties who came to power through mass popular mobilization. They have not themselves used force in anything like the way the previous government has against subsequent protests by R8’s loyalists. There have been no mass arrests.
All this is in dramatic contrast with the previous “constitutionally legitimate” government that was perfectly happy to massacre civilians, and was planning to force probably hundreds of thousands of farmers off their land. In fact, the army’s crime, in the eyes of the “international community”, is ultimately that they refused to take part in such atrocities, to the point of finally flipping sides and joining the protestors when the President insisted that they do so.
Consider here that the security forces in Kenya have probably killed at least 25,000 people in recent years. No one is talking about imposing sanctions on Kenya. Even Zimbabwe has not seen anything remotely like this level of international condemnation and rejection.
"This change of power was brought about by street protests and is not a democratic way to change a government," a spokesman for Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a regular briefing.
"We expect from the new authorities a return to Madagascar's constitution and a return to democratic order in the country as quickly as possible," the spokesman, Jens Ploetner, said.
http://www.google.com/...
So the official German reaction, which was pretty typical. The new Malagasy Prime Minister, Monja Roindefo, in contrast, argues that he considers the protests “a direct expression of democracy,” made necessary by the temporary breakdown of representative institutions.
SO WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?
Actually, this is a really interesting philosophical question. What is the basis of the legitimacy of a constitutional order? We are all supposed to believe that states are sovereign; that is, they have independent governments that maintain the powers once held by kings (sovereigns), but since the British and American and French revolutions, the power once held by kings now belongs to an entity we call “the people.” As numerous German and Italian political theorists have continually pointed out, there’s a bit of a logical problem here. A government has a monopoly of the legitimate use coercive force (aka, violence against its own citizens). It justifies this because it only uses force to enforce the law. Laws are legitimate because they are constitutional. The constitutional order gets its legitimacy from “the people” (i.e., its own citizens.) Yet how did “the people” originally create these constitutional orders? Well, actually, by revolutions (British, American, French…). That is, by illegal violence. Since after all Cronwell, Jefferson, Danton, all those guys were guilty of treason, and all sorts of violent criminal acts, according to the constitutional order under which they’d actually been born.
So insofar as “the people” are sovereign, and constitutions derive from that popular sovereignty, it’s because they have at least the potential to ignore the existing laws and constitution
There’s a right-wing and a left-wing solution to the problem. The right says really even in revolutions, what you are seeing is strong leaders who embody the will of the people (i.e., the Founding Fathers), and they wield sovereign power, which is the power to set the law on hold, to declare a state of emergency or “sovereign exception.” As Lincoln did when suspending habeas corpus. But also as Hitler did when his legal theorists declared concentration camps lay outside of any legal jurisdiction, or Bush did with, well, you know…. Obviously the question is, how do you know when you’re dealing with a Lincoln, or with a Hitler? But the left-wing solution, that revolution is still possible if enough of the population supports it, and laws then become irrelevant, also has problems: “how do you know when you’re looking at The People, and when, a mere rampaging mob?” In both cases, the answer seems to be: only retrospectively.
Anyway, the Malagasy army, unusually, seems to be taking the left-wing view of constituent power. They’re saying “ultimately, we answer to the Malagasy People. We don’t care what the law says—we don’t shoot them, and if enough of them turn out in the streets and create a new government, we consider that legitimate.”
Now there’s obviously problems with this but the position of the “international community” is much scarier. They say they cannot recognize the new government because it’s “unconstitutional.” But remember the Malagasy constitutional court legalized the transfer of power. Now, you might say they’re craven, probably that’s true, but so what? So was ours in Bush v. Gore. It’s not like Madagascar got to tell us they didn’t accept it and our government was not legitimate. What the “international community” is basically saying is: yes, governments have a monopoly of coercive force. And the guys with the guns are answerable to laws and constitutions. But we are the ones who get to say what’s legal and what’s constitutional—not the Malagasy constitutional court and certainly not some entity called “the Malagasy People.” No, lawyers in Zurich, Brussels, or Washington now make such determinations, and “the Malagasy people” are limited merely to periodically choose between candidates within the parameters those lawyers select.
SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE?
But what is it about a constitutional order that’s really sacrosanct? Especially considering most of the constitutions that are now being treated as more important than the will of the people in countries like Honduras, Bolivia, or Venezuela can’t really be said to have been created by “the people” in the first place. And crucially: the “international community” has absolutely no problem removing planks from national constitutions if the initiative is top down, and not bottom up. That is, if it comes from them. To take an notorious example: Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution. It once guaranteed communities access to inalienable, communal ejido land. It was also one of the principle achievements of the Mexican Revolution. (In other words, it really was created by bottom-up popular initiative. Indeed, thousands of Mexican peasants fought and died for it.) It was annulled in 1994 as a condition for Mexico to join NAFTA, a treaty signed by a President everyone knew had actually lost the election and come to power through fraud. The elimination of Article 27 in turn was one of main factors that sparked the Zapatista rebellion.
In the age of global neo-liberalism, of the “Washington consensus” and free-market orthodoxy in the ‘80s and ‘90s, we saw all sorts of constitutional changes like this. None were bottom-up initiatives; never, to my knowledge, were the population allowed to weigh in with their opinions with any sort of referendum. Usually they were the fruit of regimes that, if they were elected, pulled a R8 – ran on one platform, then turned around and signed some international treaty that imposed conditions no one would ever have voted for. Or such changes were demanded by the IMF as a condition of structural adjustment loans. Many rights enshrined in national constitutions (for instance, rights to universal free education) were effectively or legally nullified as conditions of structural adjustment policies.
In other words, what’s important to the powers that be in the world—and “international community” of course means first and foremost the US, secondarily the G8 or perhaps possibly G20 countries—is not constitutions per se, and certainly not popular sovereignty, but what has become a global legal-administrative order, involving institutions like the G8, WTO, IMF, World Bank, regional groups like the EU or NAFTA, the largest NGOs, the largest transnational corporations (like Daewoo) and so on, that presently seem, in however loose and haphazard fashion, to run the world. They can write and change constitutions (where are the lawyers who write constitutions trained anyway? What institutions do they come out of?) Any idea that “the people” however defined should play a significant role in this process meets opposition on principle. And above all, it must be established that the security forces are ultimately answerable to that global legal structure. After all, if there is not some kind of uniform global legal system and there aren’t people with guns willing to enforce it, how can companies like Daewoo buy up huge chunks of other countries to begin with?