A word about Honduras
July 6, 2009What you DON’T hear…
My brother was in Honduras when the coup happened. The media is an interesting thing. You almost have to leave the country and listen to the international media to get a sense of balance. From my understanding here’s what happened and what most US Americans are NOT hearing.
1. The old President was aligned with Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez. In following his mentor, Zelaya went to his congress and asked them to abolish term limits for the presidency (his office). BTW – a very convenient way to abolish democracy and keep a dictator in power. The congress refused to listen to him. Telling him it was unconstitutional to get rid of presidential term limits. So…
2. Zelaya tells the Congress that he will put it up for a popular vote and let the people decide. The Congress again denies him telling him he does not have the constitutional right even to ask the people to vote to get rid of presidential term limits. This time the Supreme Court buts in and tells Zelaya that he is out of bounds. So…
3. He goes to his military generals and commands them to pass out the ballot boxes to vote on a referendum to get rid of term limits. The military generals refuse to comply saying that he is breaking the law and that it is against the Honduran Constitution to abolish term limits. So…
4. He fires his generals. To which they respond, we don’t acknowledge you firing us. We are still in control of the army. Get back jack. So…
5. He tells the army to pass out the ballots to the people to vote to get rid of presidential term limits. They respond by arresting him and kicking him out of the country. (Which they thought was a nice thing to do.) This is where I think they went wrong. They should have just arrested him right there. So…
What would we do if our President began acting in this way?
What if the acting President treated his congress and generals in like manner?
What do you think of term limits for the president?
I think term limits are:
great for the minority.
great for slowing change to the status quo.
a weird way to ensure long-term quality leadership.
I understand the framers are all smarter than me in their reasons for term limits… but it sounds kind of like laying off the experienced managers and replacing them with young employees, fresh out of school.
What if we actually DID get a quality leader that all people could learn to compromise with?.. We simply don’t possess the freedom to keep him.
We’re talking about doing away with term limits, right?… not doing away with elections.
The founding fathers took the idea of a sinful nature seriously. If people with power can be corrupted by power then it is good to change it out a few people. Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?
Can we trust people enough?
Another thought is that the Founding Fathers maybe didn’t want the country won by professional politicians. What if we had regular people who could relate to regular people to rule regular people?
Can a good leader become bad?
The term limit amendment wasn’t passed until 1947. The founding fathers may have willingly passed on a potential 3rd term for all the right reasons, but the presidency was ultimately left for the people to decide.
The only thing the law has done is lump the voting majority in the same “power corrupts” statement. Now, “We the People” can’t be trusted to elect our officials? Sure… most voters are idiots, easily influenced… but it’s their nation too, right?
I believe a good leader CAN become bad… so we elect another. However, I can’t help but think that if a good leader wanted to remain a leader, he would continue to do the wishes of the people. Take W.Bush for example… What was his motivation to NOT push his agenda as radically as possible? His legacy? Meh…