The single greatest failure of American foreign policy post-Iraq may be in Honduras, where elections four years after the military coup against President Manuel Zelaya seem unlikely to restore order, much less prosperity. This essay is part of an extensive series about that country.
For the tribal among us, elections are about validating our worldview. Nowhere has this seemed more evident than in debates on DK than regarding Honduras, where anti-Zelaya partisans assured us that Zelaya’s removal from office by machine gun was legal and just and that after he was gone, Honduras would settle down to prosperity and peace, with narcotrafficking a thing of the past. In reality, as the American Ambassador stated in a cable to the State Department, the removal was a military coup and not legal. The country’s economic progress was reversed, and not just because of the recession. And, of course, the country has descended into horrific violence and crime, with clear indications that the government is at least partially controlled at the highest levels by narcotraffickers.
The State Department assured us that the 2009 “election” (if one can call a poll conducted under heavy militarization and with threats and bribes being offered by the corporate elite toward their employees an “election”) of Porfirio Lobo would bring peace and calm after the extreme state violence under the strongman installed by the coup, Roberto Micheletti. The world did not agree that this was a legitimate election. The increase in violence that followed, which the press has written off as “gangs,” was entirely predictable. A Constitution is a declaration of the human rights necessary for a peaceful society. When it is abrogated, there is no peace.
Now, with a new election partially complete, the US has prematurely tilted toward the National Party candidate Juan Orlando Hernández, who has promised yet more troops on the street. But there are good reasons to question whether the Honduran people did in fact vote for Hernández. Certainly his main opponent, Xiomara Castro (Mrs. Zelaya) of the Libre Party, has not conceded—indeed, has disputed the election, and many votes remain uncounted. But there are reasons—and not just from the pro-Zelaya camp—to doubt that this is a done deal.
Here are some of the reasons to question the election.
First, of course, the results are (or were until midday Monday) incomplete. Human beings implicitly assume that intermediate results represent a statistically representative sample. This would be a bad assumption because…
Second, the election is being run by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal installed by Micheletti under the dictatorship, a Tribunal which badly misreported the results in the 2009 election, and was forced to greatly revise its estimates of turnout. There are murmurings that there has been a selective count of the votes, and that observers have seen very different results at the local level than are being reported nationally. It is even being said that 20% of votes have been disqualified.
Third, according to human rights observers, there was significant intimidation and bribery during this election. These include the murders of several Libre candidates. There are reports of election observers being intimidated. The country is under heavy military force. Radio Globo reported on Luis Galdames’ show this morning that the Public Ministry was seized under the pretext of a bomb threat to keep them from filing a judicial action. While Radio Globo is quite partisan (in favor of Libre), what can’t be argued is that there is an atmosphere of crisis incompatible with free elections.
Fourth, there are some very puzzling results. Honduras Culture and Politics, a blog run by two academics who specialize in Honduras, say that the province where the second largest city (San Pedro Sula) is located is reporting highly improbable results that favor a minor party at the expense of Libre. An irregularity of this magnitude could, on its own, throw the election into doubt.
Finally, most polls did not suggest a large margin of victory for Hernandez. The current margin, and perhaps the result, are statistically unlikely.
Who Hondurans want to have in office is their business. If they really want yet another mano duro (ironhanded) leader like Juan Orlando Hernández promises to be, that is their right. The economy has done nothing but go downhill under the National Party and the Party’s candidate does not have a credible plan for economic development. But let’s be clear: the last time they expressed their opinion in an undisputably fair election, it was for Manuel Zelaya. He was illegally removed from office. The election that followed was not accepted by many nations as free and fair. Another election that is seen as fraudulent by a large swath of Honduran society portends greater social decay. Our State Department and, to my sorrow, Hillary Clinton, bears much of the responsibility for what has happened.
Honduras is not so far away. Its problems impact the United States. Crime, violence, drugs, and a failing economy in Honduras harm Americans. We need to care that justice is done. We need to insist that this election be transparent, even if transparently unfair.
Previous diaries
1. Whom the gods would destroy, part 1
2. Whom the gods would destroy, part 2
3. Whom the gods would destroy, part 3
4. Whom the gods would destroy, part 4
5. Whom the gods would destroy, part 5
6. Honduras: The human rights crisis intensifies
7. One year of dictatorship in Honduras
8. Serious allegations against US Ambassador and Secretary of State by slain Honduran official
9. Committee to Protect Journalists Condemns Honduran Government
10. US role in establishing Honduran dictatorship
11. The arc of the Honduran coup begins at Ford #cablegate
12.The empire manufactures its enemies: Zelaya responds to Wikileaked Ford cable
13. Wikileaked Brazil cables show reckless US
Other sources
Democracy Now
The Center for Economic and Policy Research
North American Congress on Latin America
Upside Down World
Adrienne Pine, an anthropologist at American University
The Real News Network
HSN Election Watch
_____
Update: The strong showing for Nasralla in Cortes may not be as unusual as first thought, though the matter is not settled one way or another. After all, votes are still being counted--though the TSE seems to have been taking an extended nap Honduras Culture and Politics based its opinion on historical voting patterns and regional character, but of course this is an election that has broken historical patterns by giving about 40% of the vote to parties other than the dominant National and Liberal parties.