Dr. Ulf Erlingsson's blog

On the occasion of president Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo’s statement yesterday that they are planning a coup d’état against him, I have decided that it may be useful to write a little manual for Honduran presidents. This is a temporary manual awaiting the report from the Truth Commission, due in January 2011, since that report should give instructions on how to avoid another epic fail: getting de-recognized by the whole world after the democratic institutions deposed the president. So hear goes.

Rule 1: You know that piece of paper they call the constitution? Read it! I know it is long, but it is actually important. The courts base their decisions on it, you know. And the prosecutor bases his prosecutions on it, too.

Rule 2: Don’t ever tell the courts, or the prosecutor, what they should or should not do. Whatever they do, just say “it is a separate branch of government and as president I cannot comment on their actions.” Don’t even ask them for information about ongoing cases. That violates the separation of powers.

Rule 3: If the court tells you to do something, do it. If they tell you not to do something, do not do it. It’s rather simple, actually.

Rule 4: If you are told that someone is planning a coup d’état against you, then shut up; do not say a word in public about it. Let the investigative arm of government investigate, and if they find foul play, let the prosecutor prosecute, and let the courts rule. But as president you should stay out of it, and not comment on it while things are ongoing. After the verdict has been passed and the sentence is firm, then you can comment, but not before.

Rule 5: If rule 4 does not apply since it is the prosecutor and courts that are planning a coup d’état against you, apply rule 4 and shut up. You see, there is one legal way to depose of you, and that is if the prosecutor prosecutes you and the court separates you from the office of the presidency. So if they are planning a coup d’état against you, it is no coup d’état. Suck it up, and repeat rule 1.

Rule 6: You can not get around the constitution by overthrowing the constitution. Holding a constituting constitutional assembly to write a new constitution from scratch is not a working strategy, since it violates the existing constitution. Only Congress can change the constitution, and nobody can overthrow it. In fact, if someone was to hold a constituting constitutional assembly and declare the old constitution no longer in force, then the last article of the existing constitution permits every institution and person in Honduras to use basically whatever force is necessary to assure that the existing constitution remains in force. That includes arresting the president. So if the president tries to overthrow the constitution, he is essentially an “outlaw” in the original sense of the word: Totally outside of, and unprotected by, the law.

Rule 7: You were elected to run the country and to improve conditions for the people of Honduras. If you stick to that mission, and refrain from violating the laws in the process, you have a good chance of finishing your term and be allowed to continue living in your country as a free man (or woman, as the case one day may be).

Rule 8: The most important thing for prosperity is investments. The most important thing for investors is risk reduction. Keep this in mind, and try to always act such that you instill confidence in your country among investors, foreign and domestic. This is the most important rule after rule 1.

Rule 9: Honduras can be among the 40 richest countries within 40 years, and if you don’t believe that, then you probably shouldn’t be president.

Honduras president Porfirio Lobo has been openly engaging in “ministerial rule” in that he expressed his opinion that the Supreme Court of Justice should reinstate a couple of judges who had been dismissed for violating the laws. Even though the court was convened in an “Ortega” move, i.e., while some regular justices were absent in the hope that the substitute would vote differently, the court nonetheless upheld the dismissal by a vote of 10 to 5. This apparently greatly upset the president, who must not have heard of the separation of powers – or perhaps he hasn’t bothered to read the constitution.

The latter would explain why he is – just like his deposed elected predecessor Manuel Zelaya – advocating arranging for a constituting constitutional assembly, although that is patently unconstitutional. But if he hasn’t read article 375 (I may be wrong on the number, but the last one anyway), then he doesn’t know that if he proceeds, then all the Hondurans, all their institutions, and all their military, are compelled to use whatever means necessary to defend the constitution.

Perhaps he doesn’t realize it yet, but somewhere in Honduras there is a pajamas ready for him, or for any other president who attempts high treason:

Ceremonial Pajamas of the Republic of Honduras

May 7th will mark the 100th day that Porfirio Lobo Sosa is president in Honduras. So how has he done, and what is the status for Honduras now?

Pepe Lobo started out already before he was sworn in by going to the Dominican Republic, and signing an agreement that the then deposed president Manuel Zelaya would be allowed to leave Honduras for DR on the day of Lobo’s inauguration.

This decision was politically necessary. Honduras was virtually bankrupt due to (1) Zelaya’s disastrous policies and corruption, (2) the global recession, and (3) the harsh economic sanctions from the world against Honduras for having defended itself against the coup d’état that Mel Zelaya was carrying out in 2009. It was politically necessary to get Zelaya out, and end the military siege on the former Brazilian embassy (which had become necessary under interim president Micheletti, when Zelaya engaged in sedition from its roof, without Brazil stopping him, even though it is a violation of international law).

However, no matter how politically necessary it was, it was very unpopular in Honduras, where they wanted to see Zelaya in prison for his crimes. Micheletti stepped back from the stage at that moment, expressing no opinion about the action taken by Lobo, but deferring to the president elect. This was a wise move, and it clearly demonstrated that Micheletti respected democracy.

Lobo went on to have a Congress dominated by his party pass a law with a long term plan for Honduras. However, from before the election there has been an element on the extreme left that refuses to recognize him as the legitimate executive of the country. And after his trip to DR, many who supported Micheletti and had great hopes for Lobo, lost their faith in him. The only side from which he has got support is the United States. That is not a desirable seat. History is full of regimes that have had a strong support from USA, but not from their countrymen. It usually does not bode well.

So why is the US ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, acting as a proconsul in Honduras, a viceroy? During the political crisis that started March 23, 2009 (when Zelaya decreed that a poll on holding a referendum on creating a constitutional assembly would be held June 28, 2009), to June 26th, 2009, the democratic institutions of Honduras acted appropriately. However, on June 26th, in the middle of a very tense situation when it was perceived that Zelaya was carrying out a coup d’état that had to be stopped, and the US backed Zelaya rather than democracy, the democratic institutions started taking decisions that were not entirely legal, according to the report from Human Rights Foundation.

Specifically, the arrest order for Zelaya was not formally correct in all details, they claim. Also the acts by Congress on June 28, and the Court on the following days, were not formally within the law, according to the report. However, the report does conclude that the Supreme Court had every right and justification for removing Zelaya from office – they just didn’t follow the proper protocol.

Since it is precisely this failure to follow protocol that caused the legal act to be interpreted as a military coup, and this had disastrous consequences for Honduras’ economy, as well as for Obama’s foreign policy, it is easy to see why Obama would like to offer advice to Honduras so that they avoid making such – for him – embarrassing formal mistakes. I am the first to admit that it is a good thing that the democratic institutions receive competent advice.

However, to have the US ambassador provide that advice is very detrimental for peace and reconciliation. It’s like sieving mosquitos and swallowing elephants. It is disastrous for the US image in Latin America and the Middle East (think Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the US is helping those regimes). It is also disastrous for Lobo, since it severely undermines his credibility among his own constituents.

The advice should be provided, but not through a political method. It should instead be provided via academic channels, from a foreign university via a Honduran university, for instance. Academic conferences, workshops, networking; that is the appropriate method for this kind of assistance. In my opinion both Obama and Lobo – not to mention Llorens – are counterproductive in how they go about this business.

In his defense, it may well be that Lobo doesn’t feel he has much choice but to accept the dictates from Big Brother Obama. The one who is in debt is not free, as Swedish PM Persson said.

As if this was not enough, the high crime wave from 2009 shows no sign of decreasing. There is seemingly indiscriminate killings of journalists, and there is obviously not a single reason behind them. Most of the crimes are certainly committed by street gangs and drug cartels, two kinds of organized crime. The justice system, including the police, is for sure corrupt, making it hard to stop this wave of crime. This is a serious problem, in fact, more serious than the calls for an illegal constituting constitutional assembly.

The first quarter of this year there were no foreign investments in Honduras. It completely dried up. Some believe that investments are the first step to turning the economy around, but the first step has to be taken by ordinary Hondurans.

Investors seek to minimize risks. The lower the risks, the lower return on investment they can accept. In Honduras today, the risks outweigh any reasonable expectation for ROI. These are some of the risks:

1. Revolution (i.e. that the constitutional assembly is held and is successful) since that would most likely result in private companies being nationalized without compensation, as in other countries that Chavez controls;

2. Criminality: murders, kidnappings, extortion, burglary, corruption;

3. Strikes, blockades, civil unrest, terrorism;

4. Infrastructure failure like electricity cutoffs, if the country cannot afford to buy oil, since much of the electricity is generated from diesel-powered plants;

5. Unexpected government mandates, such as Zelaya’s sudden raise of the minimum salary by 60%.

How could any board justify to the shareholders investing in Honduras in the present situation? The economy is in the tanks, and nothing will improve until there is stability. But here is the thing: This stability cannot be imposed from the outside (no foreign troops in the world can create stability in a country, because occupation is the opposite of stability). Nor can it be created top down alone.

While Pepe Lobo can try to improve the justice system and the police – and he is trying very hard in those fields – it will not be enough unless the people take responsibility, too.

The first step to economic progress is personal responsibility.

Personally, I am convinced that Honduras can be among the top 40 richest countries in the world within 40 years, if the Hondurans embrace this goal and starts working for it. It requires a concerted effort, it requires inspiration, but what will make it happen is that the masses start taking responsibility for their country, for their laws, for their development.

Personal responsibility means doing the right thing all the time, not just when someone is watching. It means rejecting corruption, and not protecting criminals even if they are family. Perhaps this is a foreign concept, but the law has to come before blood if the circle of corruption is to be broken. (It may also take a reconciliation process in which past corruption is forgiven in exchange for testimony, so that a fresh start becomes possible and the risk of revenge against the one who breaks the circle is eliminated.)

The challenges are thus great, but not insurmountable. What it does take is more than a political process; it is more of a spiritual awakening that is required. Meanwhile Pepe Lobo seems to be doing the best he can under the circumstances, and one can only hope that the Obama administration does not trip the wagon.

The apparent targeting of supporters of the “Popular Resistance Front” in Honduras continues after the new president was sworn in. It comes as no surprise to me, since I have always been convinced that the government of Honduras has nothing whatsoever to do with those criminal and reprehensible acts. First, because they have nothing to win from it, and second, because staffers in the Micheletti administration were as appalled by it as I was.

However, there are a few people who are under the false assumption that the method, used during the military junta in the 70’s, actually worked and actually was good for the country. They also believe that they would be doing the country a favor if they implemented the methods, and furthermore, they believe that the government tacitly appreciates if they do it in spite of condemning it officially.

They are sadly mistaken. It is seriously hurting the country, and it is not in any way sanctioned from the top.

However, I doubt that those who are under this erroneous impression really are the culprits. In my opinion, they are just sofa analysts who lack the resources and determination to do anything more than opine.

To find the real culprits, I would first look at the personal economic gain, the motive. There is one sector and one sector only that stands to gain significantly from these murders: The drug cartels. Furthermore, apart from motive they have the resources, and murder is an everyday part of business for them.

This is how it works in my opinion: By murdering members of the “resistencia” for no apparent reason, or even leaving a greeting from “Pepe”, the new president, they divide the country against itself. They undermine the faith in the government, and they tie up police resources.

They also tie up police and military resources when the “resistencia” is taking to the streets, like the other day. The large amounts of dollars paid to the demonstrators throughout the crisis (tens of thousands per day) clearly shows that someone has a large economical stake in it. Consider that Honduras has a large number of bush airfields, typically with no guards, and that the country has turned into the favorite landing-place for drug planes from South America. The cocaine continues to Mexico over land or sea from Honduras. The country’s radars are inadequate, and luckily for the drug smugglers, the US decided to turn theirs off as a “punishment” for the “coup” when Zelaya’s auto-coup attempt was stopped on June 28, 2009.

What would you do in that situation if you were a big-time cocaine smuggler? Wouldn’t you gladly pay Hondurans a few dollars each to take to the streets in the thousands, the more violent the better, so that all the police and military resources of the country would be overwhelmed? At the price of a few tens of thousands of dollars, the whole country would become a free-for-all drug-plane landing strip. In that situation perhaps a dozen of flights or more per day could come in, with tens of tons of cocaine, representing a value of perhaps a hundred million dollars. To spend some million dollars on fomenting unrest and destroying society seems like a good investment, if drug trafficking is analyzed from an economical perspective.

Indeed, that is the only reasonable way to analyze it. It is all a matter of business decisions. Supporting the people in Honduras and elsewhere who have legitimate grievances that are not being addressed by their corrupt governments, is easy. All you need to do is to throw some money at them and encourage them to pursue certain political goals, that are chosen so as to create fracture, not consensus and progress.

The “Popular Resistance Front” in Honduras represents some groups that have legitimate grievances, but several of the policies and methods they have chosen benefit nobody except the drug cartels.

It is a challenge for politicians in Honduras to explain to the electorate that the country is under mortal attack; that enemies of the state are pushing agendas such as militant fight and the goal of a Constituting Assembly (which is clearly a treasonous objective); and that what all Hondurans need to do is to engage each other in a serious and well-intended debate with the objective of improving the country in a peaceful way.

They have to explain clearly to people that the murders are carried out by the drug cartels, precisely in order to undermine people’s confidence in the government. They must engage people in a joint fight and a united front against the drug smugglers. They must make people realize that any entanglement with illegal drugs, no matter how small, is like selling ones soul to the devil. Every person must have a zero tolerance to drugs and drug smugglers.

It also goes for Americans and all others who use drugs: They are the ones who drive the process that ultimately leads to these murders.

Politicians must speak clearly about this. It is a war. The future of the nation of Honduras is at stake. The country must unite against the foreign enemy, and help countrymen in need. Pepe Lobo is trying to do this, I’m sure, although it is a difficult balancing act with an international community that does not understand the nature of the problem. He is also facing a strong propaganda machine that is trying to undermine people’s faith in his presidency. While Micheletti had a war room like in a presidential campaign, Lobo chose not to keep it, which I personally think was a mistake from his side. I fear he may have seriously underestimated the enemy, and the nature of the threat to the country. Or rather, I hope he did, so it wasn’t intentional…

Honduras is just the tip of the iceberg. The drug trafficking is influencing politics in all of Latin America, and the entire leftist wave that has been sweeping over the continent for a decade is allied with the drug lords. The old armed rebels in Colombia, the FARC, have gone from a communist guerilla to a narco-guerilla with only minimal political justification. All the way up to the US of A we see that the far left is pro-drugs (unlike the far left in e.g. Sweden, who is as anti-drugs as any of the major parties). Any country that is caught in substance abuse cannot compete effectively, such as USA.

Also in Asia and Afghanistan we see the link between populist movements and drug smuggling. It appears that they can pull in suckers to work in the dirty trade using cheap political rhetoric. Especially when it comes to murders, it may be good rhetoric to call it “war” instead, since killing is accepted as an integral part of war. Thus the nexus between populism and narcotics, in my humble opinion.

When Porfirio Lobo Sosa is sworn in as president of Honduras right now, he is facing a huge challenge as regards the economy. On the flip side, he may have a more politically engaged populace than in a long time, and one that is prepared to rise to the challenge of transforming the nation into a modern welfare state of Western European style.

Let’s take a step back and look at the whole picture. The previously elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was elected on a platform that included the introduction of “institutions of direct democracy.” What did he mean with that term? If he really was thinking of an institution with a charter and elected officials, then it is an oxymoron to call it “direct democracy.” And he if was thinking of a self-selected group of people doing things together on the street level, he would be well advised to study up on history. It is getting uncomfortably close to the mob rule of the Nazi or Soviet systems, due to the lack of protection of the rule of law.

Nevertheless, Zelaya pushed ahead with this plan. He determined that in order for this to become reality a change to the constitution was required. According to him, the Congress could not pass that change, why a Constitutional Assembly had to be called. Unfortunately for Zelaya, the Supreme Court of Justice disagreed. They ruled that nobody else than Congress can change the constitution. Zelaya disobeyed the court, they issued an arrest order for him, and Congress replaced him. End of the procedural story.

Now that Honduras has a new president, let us look back again at Zelaya’s end game, and leave the procedural issue behind. This kind of direct democracy is what Hugo Chávez also promotes, calling it democratic socialism, but I still have not found any implementation of it. Until we see a bill, a text in a law, we can’t really know what the rhetoric means in practice. It seems increasingly probable that it is just a euphemisms for mob rule. The street-level support that tyrants need.

That is not what the Hondurans voted for, is it? Of course not.

There are real social issues to be solved in Honduras. It is now clear that Zelaya was a false prophet. His end game was not the right one, and his way of implementing it was unconstitutional. He probably meant well, so say even his detractors, but he lacked the capacity to select the right route and set the right course.

The good thing is that the events of the last half year when Micheletti took the helm, has proven to Hondurans that they can, that they have a choice, that it is not futile to strive for a better life in their republic. This profound change of attitude, of dignity, of determination, is the best resource that Honduras new president can get.

God bless.

Meida: A Honduran blogger.