Most likely, no.

Actually, there's another layer of innocuousness -- this is a referendum that asks whether people would like to have a vote that would ask whether to call an Assembly that ...

I'm puzzled, too.

I have no light to shed. I too am ignorant of Honduran politics.

However, in the absence of any other, this: "an entrenched oligarchy's unwillingness to contemplate anything that might reduce their power"

Seems a reasonable answer to this: "If the people would, in fact, like to have such an Assembly, why not have one?"

And, Yes would seem to be the answer to this: "is this (seemingly) mild, non-binding referendum anywhere near threatening enough to hold a coup over?"

After following this for several days, and hearing from a Honduran demonstrator on my blog (an anti-Zelaya demonstrator that is), I'm baffled, too.

If the referendum is illegal on technical grounds, the Congress and the Supreme Court need not have accepted it even if people voted yes.

But the gist of your post is that surely there is a legal means to amend their Constitution, and I would have to agree. It sounds like Zelaya went about it in a bold way, and maybe needed to be checked by the Supreme Court -- but to be arrested and sent to Costa Rica? What are they thinking?

I think the argument is that it was illegal to fire the General that wouldn't help him and that is why he was removed from power.

My best guess is that the entrenched powers are too afraid of even this most modest of votes, because they know that in an open and fair system they would lose at every turn. So they decided to cut the tree at the root.

(It certainly seems indicative when I hear reports that they declared essentially martial law with curfew imposed and many channels of communication cut.)

From what all could learn about this, it does seem like the leftist president was a tad out of control in hopes of running for a second term and more. It is also hilarious how our wingnuts latched on to the Honduras SC issuing a warrant of sorts for the referendum and the illegality of Zelaya firing the top military guy for not handing out ballots. Of course, it is likely just as illegal to arrest the president, exile him, and swear in a new presnit, all within 24 hours.

Sounds to me like a whole lot of Banana Republic going on with both sides. Old ways don't die easy, and a few elections doesn't change instincts learned from decades of military juntas and nervous oligarchs overreacting. At least they didn't give him the Mussilini treatment, which is some improvement, I suppose.

I understand why electing representatives to re-write the entire constitution would be threatening; what I don't understand is why you don't. Think of all the frightening referendums that are offered up in California, now imagine that instead of those specific referendums, you were electing people to write any constitution they wanted without bringing it before you for a final vote; and imagine you were doing so in a system where everyone is already assumed to be corrupt.

Also, I will never understand this, why do countries as small as Honduras have jets?

no hilzoy!

I am Honduran-American, let me tell you what's going on.

Because of its history of dictatorship, Honduran presidents are limited to 1 term. Mel wants to get rid of this requirement. Although the vote is supposedly non-binding, Chavez (his buddy) has used non-binding resolutions in the past to expand his power. Everyone in Honduras understands that the question is really about whether Mel can be president for life. If he wanted to push this issue, he should wait till he's out of office and pledge never to run again.

The Supreme Court said no, so he led a mob to a military base to take the ballots this last week. The army did not fire on him. Under Honduran law, they are supposed to supervise elections, but they said they wouldn't do this because the Supreme Court said what Mel was doing was unconstitutional.

Everyone, the Congress (controlled by his own political party), the army, the Supreme Court is against him. So what you have here is a system of checks and balances, where 2 branches of government, the legislature and the judicial, have said that what Mel is doing violates the constitution.

So the military, with the blessing of the other 2 branches, takes him out. its true that they should have voted him out first, but this is like Lincoln getting Congressional approval for the suspension of habeas corpus after the fact.

Since Congress voted to remove him from office, he is done for. The new president is the person who is supposed to take over according to the Constitution. Mel's Vice President resigned because he was disgusted with him and is a candidate for the Liberal Party in the November election.

Mel is a Caesar, the courts, Congress and the army are Brutus.

This is a good blog to learn more about the situation. This lady is apparently a an american expatriate living on the North Coast:

http://lagringasblogicito.blogspot.com/

I have more:

Mel had already violated the constitution when he decided to hold the election on his own. This is like when President Andrew told the Supreme Court that "Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it." Mel had already said he wouldn't leave even if the Congress voted to remove him because, in his words, "the people elected me and only the people can remove me."

Check out this article from Miami to see how Honduran-Americans feel:

http://www.miamiherald.com/579/story/1118718.html

The WSJ is also accurate:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html#mod=article-outset-box

Last post, this is from a commenter at DailyKos but it summarizes how these things go in Central America. I understand it's hard to get a sense of how things actually work from the outside. The news stories give the impression that this was just "a straw poll" but this is pretty accurate:

"But, here's a guess:

Wannabe "presidente por vida" calls for a glorified opinion poll, has his cronies adminster the vote and 'count' the results, and lo and behold, a crushing popular majority--70%!--DEMAND that he be put on the ballot again.

Humbly obeying the will of the people, he has himself put on the ballot, despite the bourgeouis cowards who happen to comparise the elected legislature and the judiciary and their 'constitution' which is really a tool to oppress the masses.

Wannabe "presidente por vida" then has the military--now run by his own cronies--administer the actual election in November and he is ELECTED BY A CRUSHING MARGIN SHOWING THAT HIS ADVANCING OF THE SOCIALIST AGENDA IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

In other words, he was on his way to pulling an Ahmadinejad."

The Honduran constitution prohibits reelection and contains a provision that says the prohibition on reelection may not be changed.

Last post, this is from a commenter at DailyKos but it summarizes how these things go in Central America. I understand it's hard to get a sense of how things actually work from the outside. The news stories give the impression that this was just "a straw poll" but this is pretty accurate:

"But, here's a guess:

Wannabe "presidente por vida" calls for a glorified opinion poll, has his cronies adminster the vote and 'count' the results, and lo and behold, a crushing popular majority--70%!--DEMAND that he be put on the ballot again.

Humbly obeying the will of the people, he has himself put on the ballot, despite the bourgeouis cowards who happen to comparise the elected legislature and the judiciary and their 'constitution' which is really a tool to oppress the masses.

Wannabe "presidente por vida" then has the military--now run by his own cronies--administer the actual election in November and he is ELECTED BY A CRUSHING MARGIN SHOWING THAT HIS ADVANCING OF THE SOCIALIST AGENDA IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

In other words, he was on his way to pulling an Ahmadinejad."

The Honduran constitution prohibits reelection and contains a provision that says the prohibition on reelection may not be changed.

Thank you, Honduran, for your posts. I've been trying to make sense of what I've been reading in the papers and on the web news sites, and not making much headway. You helped bring it into a clearer perspective.

One more, this is from the BBC. They spoke to many people within the country and got their reaction:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/8123529.stm

The answer to Hounduras' history of military dictatorships is not term limits as for most of its recent history of military rule, a general would run the place for three or four years to be replaced by another, but always backed by the same U.S.-linked military and the same oligarchy. Term limits in fact is a continuity with military dictatorship as it provides another set of interchangeable leaders from the same institutions, only that this includes the establishment political parties. Term limits favour the heavily-institutionalised... it's like the PRI-run Mexico during before the party split during the De La Madrid time, one-term limits and interchangeable presidents... Real change carried out by new social movements are helped by charismatic leaders who need multiple terms to carry out their programmes as these movements are insufficiently institutionalised to reliably find someone to reliably replace the charismatic leader. The case of Preval in Haiti is a good example of this - Preval was easily made to bend to the will of those who opposed Aristide...

What I don't get here is this claim that Zelaya is so unpopular, or that he would rig the vote to become president for life. If he was unpopular, then the oligarchy has nothing to fear from him in a referendum or election. And as for rigging the vote, with the major parties against him, with the military against him, with the court against him, who would be able to rig this vote? They could simply have outlasted him out of office whilst pushing through another banana republic seat-warmer for president. As it is, they are being very stupid.

It goes without saying that Honduran hits the nail on the head. The process worked, albeit with a bit of tweaking, to prevent the emergence of a dictator. I don't understand why that is so difficult to fathom.

I just want to underscore his/her Andrew Jackson analogy. It's a damn shame that the US military didn't have the courage to refuse to follow the illegal orders of Jackson. If so, there would be one less bloody tragedy for USAmericans to pretend never happened.

So in other words, the guy was removed from office according to the rules of the system and forcibly ejected?

It's never that easy without knowing the constitution of Ecuador, but it does seem plausible. The retroactive impeachment does cast doubt, but this could be a case of both sides playing fast and loose with the rules, and as long as the situation remains peaceful it looks as if the courts are the ones to watch.

"Honduran" hit the nail on the head. I hope that Obama, Clinton, and their advisors on the situation in Honduras will take the time to read the comments coming from Hondurans and will learn more about the background of the situation in order to really understand what's been happening.

I understand that US presidents have bungled international relations issues with prior "coups" (this situation in Honduras was NOT a coup) and dealings with the likes of Chavez and Castro. However, that should not mean that they take a different, supposedly more pro-democratic stance now that will purposefully harm democracy in Honduras and create yet another long-standing Latin American dictator.

The international community needs to allow the Honduran government and new president to follow the laws laid out by the Honduran constitution. Zelaya should be punished in Honduran courts for his illegal actions, which could even be considered treason.

There are a lot of crises going on around the world right now. Michael Jackson's death seemed to suck the US attention away... I found a great site with Hunduran news in Spanish and English:

" (this situation in Honduras was NOT a coup)

Coup's are generally defined as changes in regimes by extra legal means. So where in Honduran law does it call for a president to be arrested, exiled to another country, and replaced in a matter of a day.

Zelaya may well be guilty of serious crimes, but the way it was handled sounds a lot like a coup of sorts to me.

All right, let's look at some of these most recent military dictatorships with their so-long terms...

Policarpo Paz García, aka Incapaz, 7 August 1978 27 January 1982

Juan Alberto Melgar Castro, 22 April 1975 7 August 1978

Oswaldo López Arellano, 4 December 1972 22 April 1975 ...

Anyone see a pattern here? Under the one-term limit scheme, they almost all would qualify as complying with that, yet these were military dictators under military dictatorships.

Panama is still angry with the U.S. removal of Manuel Noriega - to this day, Panama does not have a military!!!

This is the best analysis of the situation in Honduras I have read to date. Really, it boils down to left/right politics. The new tide in Latin America is to change or re-write constitutions to make them more equitable for everyone. Of course, this conflicts with the mantra of the oligarchs, which is to rule and control for life. That is why the Congress was so scared of the referendum being held. They are members of the Oligarchy, and to vote for it would mean marginalizing their own self-interests.

Honduras has had 15 different constitutions since the 1800's. It's not something that is new to Hondurans, except that this time the changes are intended to benefit the poor, not the oligarchs. And THAT is the real problem.

Los pobres somos mas. All power to the people.