Senators debate the Magistrates’ Council bill. (Photo: Argentine Congress)

The hotly disputed changes to the Magistrates’ Council were signed into law today by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and the opposition reacted by presenting several appeals for legal protection on the grounds of its alleged unconstitutionality.

Law 26,855, passed on 8th May, established that members of the Magistrates’ Council will be elected by popular vote. The council itself is made up of lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and academics whose job it is, amongst other things: to nominate judges, monitor their activity, and carry out any necessary sanctions.

The reforms have attracted much criticism, including from within the judiciary itself. Today marked the first opposition offence against the reforms. Initially, Jorge Rizzo, head of the Buenos Aires Bar Association, presented an individual appeal for protection against the new law, seeking to halt it in its tracks.

By midday, the Magistrates’ Association had presented its own appeal on behalf of the entire organisation that landed in the office of judge María Alejandra Biotti, only hours after the law was officially promulgated.

This was followed by another, separate, appeal filed by Mario Barletta, head of the Unión Cívica Radical (UCR) before María Servini de Cubría, the judge responsible for the electoral affairs of the City of Buenos Aires.

According to the news site infobae, which had access to the written appeal, part of it read as follows: “The law curtails the balance and integration of the CNM (Magistrates Council) which is set out in the CN (National Constitution)… which threatens the council’s very survival, altering irremediably its nature, autonomy and independence, which his why we ask you to protect the rights which are under threat by declaring it unconstitutional”.

The General Secretary of the association that represents judges said in an interview with La Red radio, “We are asking for an injunction. If we are not granted one, we will appeal to other bodies”.

The opposition is taking no chances. If they fail to secure an injunction against the reforms that would halt the upcoming elections, they have already put together a single, comprehensive list of candidates.

Ricardo Gil Lavedra, head of the UCR, revealed that an agreement had been reached between almost “all the national parties” although he did not go into specifics. He described the new system as “totally arbitrary” and the “defects” of the law as “painfully obvious”.

The norm specifies that any alliance of political parties that wishes to be part of the list of possible candidates for election to the Magistrates Council must be registered in at least 18 districts. Elections for the Council are set to take place alongside the mid-term legislative elections on 27th October.

Last Thursday night, the fervour of a section of Argentine society could be felt and heard in every corner of the country. Thousands of light blue and white flags fluttered in the skies of the main cities, creating the impression of a civic holiday, though it was the claim of more than a million indignant citizens.

Buenos Aires Thursday 18 April, thousands of peaceful demonstrators
(Photo: Julie Catarinella)

The streets, crowded with people chanting against ten years of rule by president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her late husband and former president Néstor Kirchner, were swamped with demands and allegations that resonated in the handmade banners and loud sounds of pot banging.

“I’m tired of corruption. I’m tired of not being able to to go outside without being afraid. I’m tired of public officials getting richer at the expense of our people. I’m here to defend democracy”, said a 65-year-old housewife.

Their grievances included alleged corruption, violent crime, inflation, and poverty -concerns which have seen the president’s approval rating plummet almost two years after she easily won her bid for re-election (according to several consulting agencies, in the last half of 2012 her positive image had already fallen by 45%). After all, it was Argentina’s largest anti-government demonstration in years and the third mass protest against the president in seven months.

Buenos Aires Thursday 18 April, peaceful demonstrators
(Photos: Julie Catarinella)

One of the demonstrators’ main concerns was about a new judicial reform which, among other things, states that all members of the Magistrates’ Council, a body that oversees the selection and running of the judiciary, ought to be elected by the citizens. While supporters say the law will lead to a democratisation of the justice system, critics say it will dangerously politicise the judiciary ensuring impunity to members of the ruling party.

It is hard for a group of people to come together behind a single banner. The claims were numerous and diverse, and some of them resonate with the government’s electoral base. Most of the participants of this protest were not voters of Kirchnerism, however some of their grievances, such as inflation and insecurity, are also claims made by voters of the current government.

Scenes like these are bound to raise concerns for the president and her supporters, and the reason is the transversal nature of the complaints.

Last Thursday there were neighbours from affluent suburbs, rural workers from the countryside, leaders and members of the Independent Movement of Pensioners and Unemployed (MIJD), the Socialist Workers’ Movement (MST), young people in school uniforms, retirees in wheelchairs and walking sticks, and diverse groups of people from all around the country, united by their rejection of the government. These were the indignant social players of the so-called ’18A’, strongly proud of not being part of the 54% who voted for president Fernández in 2011, demanding to be heard.

No one can fail to admit the impact of the ‘cacerolazo‘, especially in districts historically controlled by president Fernández’s party, such as the Greater Buenos Aires, Mendoza, Salta, Tucuman, and Neuquén. In previous demonstrations, on 13th September and 8th November 2012, government supporters had dismissed the protest by pointing out that protesters belonged to the middle-upper classes and that the demonstrations were orchestrated by wealthy elites. There was also speculation that some media groups were responsible for stoking fears and encouraging the protest. As the judicial reform has been a hot topic in the news agenda, some media groups aligned with the opposition directly linked this issue with the 18A protest, which gave the event massive coverage and placed it on the spotlight.

This time, the main government officials refrained from comment. They feel this message is not addressed to them.

Buenos Aires Thursday 18 April,peaceful demonstrator
(Photo: Julie Catarinella)

The feature that differentiated the third cacerolazo against the government from the previous ones was the visible presence of opposition political leaders. On 13th September, when the pots were heard against the government for the first time, opposition politicians were conspicuous by their absence. Two months later, on 8th November, only some were audacious enough to attend. Last Thursday, however, the key figures of the opposition took to the streets and heard the people’s demands. After all, many of them admitted to having articulated the protests.

“The right of the majorities is not absolute nor can it be fulfilled at any cost. The president must govern for all citizens. We also want justice, we also want security, we also want a better quality of life,” explained Mauro, a 33-year-old engineer.

A crucial test of the government’s popularity will come later this year in the mid-term legislative elections, in which the government will try to keep its majority in both chambers. For the time being, the government pushes ahead with major bills.

The Responsibility of the Opposition

In the two previous cacerolazos, it came to light that certain opposition groups had provided support to the organisation of the protests, though with a low profile and no party identification.

Marked by the predominant influx of people not aligned with any political party, the novelty of ’18A’ was the strong and explicit role of political leaders of most of the opposition parties.

The demands of unity between the opposition candidates for an alternative option ahead of the elections were also part of the people’s claims at the demonstration. One of the organisers argued that the opposition parties should unite to form at least two electoral fronts, a right-leaning and a left-leaning one, to avoid fragmentation and confront the ruling party in the legislative elections next 27th October.

Some opposition sectors are beginning to come together to replicate the model of the opposition in Venezuela, based on an alliance of all left and right-wing parties to confront the ruling party in the polls. The aim of this alliance, the Mesa de Unidad Democrática (MUD), is to carry out primary elections, run together, and support the candidate who obtains the highest number of votes. But here in Argentina, not all believe in unity. Some socialist groups differ with right-wing parties in the way they analyse a possible new victory of Kirchnerism -they just do no think the risk is that high.

The wide gap between the various opposition forces has been very difficult to bridge so far and it might take too long before an alliance like the MUD in Venezuela can arise and develop a cohesive discourse.

It becomes evident that from now on the calls to these anti-government manifestations will be more orchestrated by these groups, and less ‘non-partisan’. This may affect future gatherings, given the explicitly ‘non-partisan’ stance of the protesters.

“No political party represents me so far, I don’t identify with any of the existing political platforms. I hope the opposition can come up with something new for the next elections. I still wanted to come and express my disappointment with this government,” said Susana, a 37-year-old shop-keeper.

On the ruins of the bipartisan system that ruled Argentina between 1983 and 2001, the government developed a hegemony that is based more on the lack of an alternative than on the trust of the popular vote. In recent years we have seen how opposition parties have been weakening because of their inaction against the power of Kirchnerism. The street protest reflects the other side of their supremacy in the arena of partisan politics. It expresses an ongoing discomfort at an opposition without organisation or discourse, and a ruling party that does not recognise the needs and predicaments of great part of society.

The political dispersion of the minority was evidenced in the 2011 election and resonates today in the form of a widespread dissatisfaction with the current political actors. Responsibility for this dissatisfaction falls on the intellectuals and politicians who are not articulating people’s demands into concrete, democratic, and autonomous actions.

Buenos Aires Thursday 18 April,peaceful demonstrators
(Photo: Julie Catarinella)

The open cacerolazos are an enigma in terms of their ultimate implications in the polls. The challenge for the opposition is to be able to translate the slogans seen in these protests into a parliamentary victory and later on, an electoral victory. Whether they achieve this will depend on the strength of their unity and their ability to evolve into a new political project able to represent this part of Argentine society.

A lot has been said about democracy over the past few days. The protesters denounce president Fernández for exceeding the limits of democracy towards a greater accumulation of power, while her allies state that the ’18A’ is the glaring realisation that there is full democracy in Argentina.

It is important to bear in mind that democracy in Argentina, as well as in most Latin American countries, is often expressed through strong personal leaderships. The strong presidential system in Argentina does nothing to alleviate the problem of a lack of representation in Congress. Without a strong opposition to ensure a fair political game, the government’s concentration of power will continue growing, to the point of jeopardising democratic consolidation.

Yesterday, the Labour Ministry notified the leader of the CGT umbrella union, Hugo Moyano, that the congress held on 12th July in which he was elected secretary general has been declared invalid and the election null and void. The Ministry also recognised the rival faction of the CGT, led by Antonio Caló, as the official workers’ representative.

After months of mounting tension between truck driver Moyano and the government, the former allies finally broke up their partnership and Moyano called for a general strike on 27th June. This caused a split within the CGT, with a faction remaining loyal to the government and another one, led by Moyano, moving to the opposition.

The CGT Azopardo, as Moyano’s faction came to be known (the union building is on Azopardo street in Buenos Aires) held a congress on 12th July in which Moyano was re-elected as secretary general. The date for the election had been set in April, however in July labour minister Carlos Tomada declared the congress invalid, as the minimum required number of CGT congress members were not present at the April meeting in which the date was decided. Moyano appealed the decision, but the appeal was rejected by the Ministry yesterday.

The pro-government faction held its own elections on 3rd October, when Metal Workers’ Union (UOM) leader Antonio Caló was elected secretary general.

The decision by the Labour Ministry to ratify the annulment of the July elections and officially recognise Caló’s CGT was rejected by Moyano and his allies, who promised to take the matter to court.

Gerónimo ‘Momo’ Venegas, leader of rural workers’ union UATRE and ally of Moyano, compared the situation of the CGT to that of rival umbrella union CTA, which is also split into two rival factions, with only one of them officially recognised by the government.

In the last few months, Moyano has been getting closer to CTA leader Pablo Micheli, secretary general of the opposition faction which is not recognised by the government. Both leaders have decided to organise a general strike and protest on 20th November. It is expected that rural associations, social movements, and other unions will take part.

Given the weak state of the political opposition in Argentina today, it has become evident that the biggest threat to the government is not coming from the outside, but from within the Kirchnerist ranks.

Kirchnerism, like Peronism, is an ideologically broad movement held together by pragmatic interests and strong leadership. Progressive and conservative forces coexist in a delicate balance that anything, like the upcoming elections or personal interests, can upset.

Hugo Moyano talk with the press. (Photo: Santiago Trusso)

After two years of mounting tension, the leader of the CGT umbrella union, Hugo Moyano, finally broke ranks and made his move to the opposition explicit. There has been much speculation as to the reasons why Moyano and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner grew apart. From pseudo-psychological explanations about her blaming him for her husband’s death (apparently, Kirchner and Moyano had a heated argument the night before he died) to more politically significant ones about Moyano’s own aspirations.

Moyano’s CGT was an important ally of both Kirchnerist governments, even at their most difficult times during the campo crisis. In true Peronist fashion, unionism became one of the ‘legs’ the Kirchnerist project stood on. However, history shows that the relationship between unions and politics has never been as smooth as politicians would like.

From the frustrated attempts in the 1960s by CGT leader Augusto Vandor to create an ‘autonomous Peronism’ during Perón’s exile, to the deadly wounds inflicted on unionism by former president Carlos Menem in the 1990s, many examples illustrate what historian Ezequiel Meler calls an “historical tension”.

Encouraged by the strategic alliance between the first Kirchnerist government and the unions, and by the leading role the latter gained after a decade of decline, Moyano decided it was time to raise the stakes. Increasingly, he moved from making strictly union-related demands, to a more political discourse. He suggested that it would be good to have “a worker as a vice-president”, and pushed to have unionists included in the ballots for deputies in last year’s election.

The president’s refusal to open up the game to unionists before the election led to an escalation of this “historical tension”, which culminated with Moyano’s break-up with the official CGT and his defiant call for a general strike and manifestation at Plaza de Mayo on 27th June.

The long-awaited break-up, however, has not proven favourable for Moyano so far. His display of strength on the 27th June rally backfired, as he did not receive the support he was expecting from other unions. His ideological limits and bad public image have, so far, rendered him unable to become a unifying figure for the opposition and make the jump from unionism to party politics.

With Moyano’s political threat seemingly neutralised, loyal Kirchnerists have focused their attention on another, much bigger internal menace: Buenos Aires province governor Daniel Scioli. When on 12th May he mentioned his intentions to run for president in 2015, alarm bells started ringing within Kircherism. The recent spat between the national government and Scioli’s administration over the economic crisis in Buenos Aires province was the preview of a war that has, for the time being, remained cold.

Daniel Scioli talks with the Press (Photo: Tecnópolis Argentina)

A product of the 90s, Scioli started his political career with Carlos Menem, and became Néstor Kirchner’s vice-president in 2003 thanks to Eduardo Duhalde’s support. For many progressive Kirchnerists, he does not belong to “the project”. He is seen as a Trojan horse for the neo-liberal right, who cannot be trusted. More worryingly, he has very high approval ratings and would today beat anyone in an election, except for Cristina.

The lack of an “ideologically suitable” successor for the current president is the main issue Kirchnerism is facing at the moment. Cristina cannot run for another term without a constitutional reform, for which the vote of two thirds of congress is needed. Many government supporters hope those two thirds can be obtained next year with a good result in the legislative elections. However, Cristina herself has not made any mention about reforming the constitution and running for a third term. She has, in fact, made remarks that suggest the opposite.

It is likely that the idea of constitutional reform will not be denied or confirmed until the last minute though, as doing so earlier (especially ruling it out) could result in an accelerated loss of power for Cristina. In the meantime, Kirchnerists speculate over the possible options for 2015, which at the moment are mainly three: a re-election; the emergence of a new leader that can be anointed as Cristina’s successor (following the example of Dilma and Lula in Brazil); or a pact with Scioli by which he would be allowed to run for president, but remaining heavily conditioned by “true” Kirchnerists.

They fear that a failure to reach one of these solutions and win the 2015 election could mean the end of the “Kirchnerist model”, not at the hands of the opposition, but of one of their own.

Two opposition members were killed yesterday in the Venezuelan state of Barinas during a campaign rally in support of presidential candidate Henrique Capriles. The incident comes a little over a week before the country’s 7th October elections.

Antonio Valero, aged 32, of the Primero Justicia party and Omar Fernandez, aged 63, an Independent, were members of the Mesa de Unidad Democratica, the coalition of more than 30 political parties backing Capriles.

The two were campaigning in Hugo Chavez’s home state of Barinas, in the west of the country. Their caravan was blocked from proceeding by pro-Chavez supporters, and when they attempted to negotiate a way past they were fired upon by gunmen.

Witnesses say the shots came from a van belonging to the state oil company PDVSA, though this is yet to be confirmed.

In an official statement, the Primero Justicia party said “we denounce all types of violence and express our solidarity with the families of the victims… [T]his tragedy gives us more strength and faith to fight for a Venezuela where justice, not violence, reigns.”

Chavez, who was speaking in Guarenas at the time, did not mention the incident.

Violence has erupted around the campaign before, but this incident marks the first deaths. Stones were thrown by supporters of both candidates earlier this month in the city of Puerto Cabello, and four people were injured in a shooting at an electoral rehearsal in the beginning of September.

President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (courtesy of Wikipedia)

When Cristina Fernández de Kirchner won last year’s presidential election with a landslide 54% of the votes, it was not only the amount of support but how far she was ahead of her competitors that made the victory so impressive.

The 46% of the votes she did not win were split between six opposition parties, with second-placed Frente Amplio Progresista (FAP) obtaining a meagre 17%. It was a pretty good reflection of the situation of government and opposition at the time.

After the government lost its parliamentary majority due to a disastrous result in the 2009 election, the opposition did not manage to live up to the expectations placed upon it. Renamed “Group A”, the illusion of a strong, coordinated opposition capable of snatching the political initiative from a weak government quickly faded away. It soon became evident that, unable to set a common agenda, the only thing holding “Group A” together was its animosity towards the government. To paraphrase Borges, they were not united by love, but by horror.

The lack of initiative and fragmentation of the opposition were apparent in the poor performance of an almost paralysed Congress throughout 2010 and 2011, when only 70 and 65 bills were passed respectively, well below the ten-year average of 116.

And so we arrived at October 2011. In the two years since the fateful 2009 election, the government managed to regain control of the agenda, aided by its own initiative, the shock caused by the death of former president Néstor Kirchner, and the lack of a serious and organised political opposition.

It only takes a quick look around, however, to realise that there is an important, and very vocal, sector of society that does not feel represented by the government. As opposition is an integral part of democracy, the question of who represents those people is one that must be asked.

It has become quite evident for many in the past few years, specifically since the campo crisis of 2008, that the weakness of opposition parties has resulted in certain economic groups affected by governmental policies taking political matters into their own hands. At the forefront of this new opposition are those with the most influence on public opinion: the media corporations.

The 'cacerolazos' in Plaza de Mayo (Photo: Luciano Signorelli)

In Argentina, politics has become to a large extent a war between pro and anti-government media groups unabashedly campaigning for their own interests, without much regard for the traditional laws of journalistic ethics.

An interesting debate about the role of the media has since ensued, not only in Argentina, but also in Latin America and other parts of the world. The sanctity of journalism and its classic role as the “fourth estate” have been brought into question as big media groups are, analytically speaking, stripped bare and shown for what they mostly are: businesses. Powerful businesses, with political interests and a massive influence over public opinion and politicians alike.

There is a positive side to this situation, as nothing in a democracy should be immune to analysis, discussion, and criticism. Media groups have always had political and economic interests, and it is a positive thing that people have become more aware of this and can see through their supposed neutrality.

The obvious negative side is that businesses are not elected and are not accountable to society as politicians, government officials, union delegates, and other political institutions are. This is not exclusive to media businesses, as it is becoming clear all over the world that uncontrolled corporations are openly displacing elected politicians from their decision-making roles.

In Argentina, this situation has evolved from a more-or-less open support of certain media groups to specific political parties and candidates, to the current situation where they seem to have mostly given up on politicians altogether. Nowadays, it is journalists like Jorge Lanata with his Sunday TV show that seem to set the opposition’s agenda for the rest of the week.

The debilitating effect of such political weakness was demonstrated by the recent cacerolazos in Buenos Aires. They were small, unorganised gatherings of individuals without any clear direction or common ideas, other than a visceral rejection of the government. It is worrying that for many, being unorganised was seen as a virtue rather than a weakness.

A political movement without solid ideas and organisation is doomed to fail. And politics, like nature in Aristotelian physics, abhors a vacuum. If the vacuum left by a weak opposition is not filled by legitimate and solid political institutions, it is going to be filled by whoever has the power to impose their point of view.

As election season begins to take shape in Venezuela, a challenger has arisen following Sunday’s primary opposition debates.

Henrique Capriles Rodonski, the 39 year-old governor of Miranda state, expressed his intention to run against President Hugo Chávez on 7th October.

Capriles, leader of the Justice First party, is also a former mayor and vice president of Congress. Describing himself as “centre-left”, Capriles says that the policies of his presidency would mirror those of former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, encouraging new development while maintaining popular social programs.

Already, Capriles has been dismissed by Chávez as a “candidate of the Yankees” who will implement policies dictated from Washington. Capriles, however, vows to change the tone of Venezuelan politics.

“I intend be a president who speaks much less and does not invade the lives of Venezuelans every day,” Capriles said.

Chávez and Capriles have a previous link in the attempted coup of 2002, which sought to overthrow Chávez.  At the time, Capriles, then mayor Barutas in Caracas, attempted to mediate riots at the Cuban embassy, but was met there by former vice president Diosdado Cabello. He was charged with violating international principles and spent four months in jail before his acquittal.

It is thought that Capriles’ chances have improved after an alliance was formed last week with Leopoldo Lopez of the Popular Will party, boosting his approval rating to 56%.

Campaigning on the slogan “There is a way”, Capriles will have to overcome his upper class background to reach all levels of Venezuelan society.

“This is not the hour of the left or the right,” Capriles recently said at a political rally. “This is Venezuela’s hour.”

Opposition candidate Fabio Gadea has rejected the presidential election results, arguing that “they did not reflect people’s wishes.” The elections were held this Sunday and, according to electoral authority CSE, Daniel Ortega has won with 62.65% of the votes after 85.8% of the votes have been counted.

The leader of the Liberal Independent Party (PLI), who got 30.96% of the votes, argued that he had ”well-founded suspicions that a fraud of an unprecedented nature and proportion” had taken place. “At this moment we cannot accept the results presented by CSE, since they do not represent people’s wishes, but that of CSE itself.”

Representatives of PLI have stated that their parallel counting showed signs of an even race, whilst unaccredited independent electoral observers pointed to reports of fraud. Gadea called on his supporters to wait for “instructions which [they] will receive from the political council of PLI alliance.”

Meanwhile, both the Organisation of American States and European Union representatives in the country reported that the elections seem to have been held under normal conditions.

The president of CSE and the secretary general of the Centro-American Integration System (SICA) congratulated Ortega for the results.

The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, called on the opposition political sectors to not obstruct the poular referendum.

He responded to the views of the opposition who have implied that the government wants to take over the judicial system.

The opponents argue that the government wants to handle the justices through constitutional amendments raised in the draft referendum submitted to the constitutional court.

On his part, Correa said that the regime does not seek to put judges in the courts but instead calls for the establishment of an oversight committee to continue the process of appointing judges.

He said that the government was seeking a a restructing of the justice system.

In addition, the president said the topics included in the proposed referendum were denied before the national assembly.

Correa said that “a more direct democracy is to ask the people.”

And he said that after two years the people can judge whether the reformatory objectives are met or not, including judicial reform.

The president said that to solve the issue of insecurity, it is vital to reform the courts

Finally, he explained that the autonomy of the justice system will not be impacted or pressured as a result of judicial reform.

Story courtesy of Agencia Pulsar, a news agency run by AMARC-ALC network of community radios.

Photo by Foto Presidencia/Luis Echeverría

Porfirio Lobo greets officials in the Presidential Palace in Tegucigalpa, Honduras

A year after the coup d’état that removed Honduran president Manuel Zelaya from office, there are two forceful and opposing currents pulsing through Honduran society. The first is uplifting and promising: long-underrepresented groups who influenced Zelaya to begin a process towards constitutional reform, the most immediate cause of the coup, have consolidated and invigorated their demand for change. The second current conjures frightening images of a not-so-distant past in Latin America: the new government has responded with violent repression of opposition voices and has boldly carried on its mission to return Honduras, quite literally, to business as usual.

So far, the government has arrogantly dismissed the opposition, but the shouts of disapproval are growing ever louder. After months of political deadlock, during which Zelaya sneaked back into the country but remained under constant siege in the Brazilian embassy, the de facto government proceeded with the scheduled presidential elections in November. A wealthy rancher, Porfirio Lobo, won an election that was banned by virtually every major international observing body, and which the most popular opposition candidates boycotted.

On 26th January, the day before Lobo was inaugurated, the Supreme Court cleared six military commanders, including two graduates of the infamous School of the Americas, of charges related to their forceful removal of Zelaya. The Congress handed out amnesty to both those involved in the coup and Zelaya, who had previously been charged with treason. Dispute ended, problems solved—not quite.

The coup was carried out on 28th June, the day that Zelaya had planned to administer a non-binding referendum, or “public consultation”, on whether to have a vote on electing an assembly to rewrite the constitution—which would have then also been subject to a vote by the entire electorate. The current constitution, of which many liberties were suspended by the de facto government, was created under a previous military government in 1982.

Photo by Yamil Gonzales

On June 29, 2009, people took to the streets of Tegucigalpa to protest the prior day’s coup.

The day following the coup, 29th June, a diverse collection of organizations integrated to form the National Front of Popular Resistance (FNRP). Not only were they united in opposing the de facto government, but even more so by their resilience to continue the momentum towards recasting the constitution. The FNRP is composed of labour unions, students, teachers, campesion organizations, LGBT groups, women’s rights groups, intellectuals, indigenous groups and afro-Hondurans. Some of these groups had been influential in pushing Zelaya to call for the vote on the constituent assembly, but others were finding their political voices for the first time.

Berta Oliva, the head of one of the oldest and most respected human rights groups in Honduras, the Committee for the Families of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH), is enthusiastic about the political awakening: “This was a phenomenon never before seen in Honduras, the people took on an impressive awareness, they became passionate about their right to participate, their right to decide.”

The FNRP has been organizing regular non-violent protests and numerous marches of over 500,000 people. While the political drama surrounding Zelaya’s return and reinstatement unfolded they remained focused on the goal of convoking a national constitutional assembly. In pursuing this aim, they have put together a petition and started a massive signature gathering campaign. They are expecting to collect at least 2 million signatures, more than half of the adult population of the country, and twice as many votes for Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo received in the questionable November presidential vote.

Photo by Matthew Hogg

A typical house from a village, Juticalpa, Honduras, showing simple construction.

Above all else, the members of the FNRP are demanding a more representative and just constitution. The country is one of the poorest in Latin America. The World Bank’s 2004 Development Indicators Report lists 50.7% of the population as living under the poverty line. The estimates are said to be even higher today, especially for those living in extreme poverty. As in many countries with such rampant poverty, power in Honduras is incredibly centralized. The same World Bank report states that 59.4% of the country’s total income is earned by the richest 20% of the population. The poorest 20% earn just 2.2%.

Zelaya, from the elite ruling-class himself, had taken an unexpected turn towards ameliorating this inequality. In January of 2009, in a move that infuriated powerful business interests, he raised the minimum wage 60%. The wage had not been adjusted to current costs of living in years, and though the increase was dramatic—his aids warned him that it would likely cost him his job—according to the government’s calculations, the increased wage still barely covered 90% of basic food needs and only a third of living expenses such as rent, transportation and medical care.

The change was too much for the Honduran elites to stomach. Armando Licona, a representative of the university student chapter of the FNRP, explains, “unfortunately, our country is controlled by the private business interests of the dominant groups in power who do not want changes that benefit the Honduran people.”

These private business interests, as Licona pointed out, enjoy an excessive amount of influence over the governmental institutions of Honduras: the congress, the courts and the military. In describing the courts, who authorized the congress’s order for Zelaya’s removal, the 2008 US State Department’s Human Rights Report on Honduras said: “Although the constitution and the law provide for an independent judiciary, the judicial system was poorly funded and staffed, inadequately equipped, often ineffective, and subject to patronage, corruption, and political influence.”

Photo by Sandra Cuffe

Honduras riot police with gas masks and tear gas guns at the ready for crowd control.

Over the last year, these powerful forces have demonstrated their willingness to employ state terror in order to secure their grip on power in Honduras. The FNRP’s astute decision to adopt a non-violent opposition has highlighted the new government’s retrograde use of violent suppression. Honduran human rights groups have been vigilantly documenting the abuses carried out by authorities, including the military, police and newly formed paramilitary groups.

Peaceful demonstrations are bombarded with suffocating volumes of tear gas. Authorities regularly enter crowds of demonstrators and beat them with batons. COFADEH reports that more than 3,000 people have been illegally detained since the coup—most have been beaten, tortured and scores of women have been raped. The group reports that at least forty-one Hondurans associated with the resistance have been killed.

Both Amnesty International and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), a division of the Organization of American States (OAS), have released strong condemnatory reports confirming the human rights violations under the de facto government. The IACHR lists a catalogue of offences, including “deaths, arbitrary declaration of states of emergency, suppression of public demonstrations through disproportionate use of force, criminalization of public protest, arbitrary detentions of thousands of persons, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and grossly inadequate conditions of detention, militarization of Honduran territory, a surge in the incidents of racial discrimination, violations of women’s rights, serious and arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, and grave violations of political rights.”

Journalists critical of the coup have been intensely targeted. During the first few days following the coup, almost all radio and tv transmissions were blocked, except for a small handful that played pro-coup propaganda around the clock. Of the dissenting voices, Radio Globo in the capital, Tegucigalpa, and Radio Progresso in the north have been particularly instrumental in reporting on abuses by the authorities and providing organizing platforms for the FNRP.

Photo by Todd

In September, Radio Globo was shut down by the de facto government, but it has carried on with it’s programming online, running out of a private residence. Radio Progresso director Padre Melo says that the station receives bomb threats almost everyday.

During March and April, a string of dissident journalists were murdered—seven in all. Most were killed in the same way: while driving, they were ambushed and sprayed with upwards of 30 bullets. Unsurprisingly, there have been no arrests in any of the murder investigations.

Other journalists have seen their family members killed or disappeared. The Lobo administration has tried to deflect attention from the violence against journalists, explaining it as part of the day-to-day crime of Honduras, which even before the coup had one of the hemisphere’s highest murder rates.

The government’s refusal to acknowledge the political nature of the violence against journalists is part of their weak, or unconcerned, effort to pull a mask of normalcy over the political upheaval in the country. To an extent, this has been a successful policy. After Lobo’s election the US, by far Honduras’s biggest trade partner, restored full military and humanitarian aid.

While a handful of governments followed the US lead, including some Central American neighbours and the EU, many have refused to restore relations with Honduras. The OAS has been particularly firm in it’s refusal to acknowledge the Lobo administration despite the US State Department’s wishes. In June, at the OAS General Assembly meeting, Hilary Clinton urged the organization to readmit Honduras, stating that the Lobo administration had, “shown a strong commitment to democracy and order.”

Part of the Lobo administration’s “strong commitment to democracy” has been the establishment of a Truth Commission, which was initially called for as part of the failed  reconciliation process between Zelaya and the de facto government. Truth commissions have been used to ease the transition following repressive regimes in such countries as El Salvador, Argentina and South Africa—but only after the regime had stepped down and the worst of the violence had ended.

“A truth commission can help to strengthen a transition to democracy if its mandate, operation and methodology respect the victims whose rights were violated,” said International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) president David Tolbert. “Unfortunately, in Honduras the decision to establish the commission seems to have more to do with a hasty desire to turn the page, rather than clarifying last year’s disruption of democracy and the serious crimes that took place.”

Berta Oliva said that neither COFADEH nor any of the other major human rights groups in Honduras had yet to be contacted regarding the Lobo administration’s truth commission.  But Instead of sitting around waiting for an invitation to participate in the government’s commission, COFADEH and five other leading human rights groups, who have joined forces as the Platform for Human Rights, have formed their own “True Truth Commission”. The commission, which will include two Nobel Peace Prize winners: Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina, and Rigoberta Menchú of Guatemala, is scheduled to begin work on 28th June, the year anniversary of the coup, and complete a report a year later.

The Platform’s “True Truth Commission” along with the FNRP’s continuing demonstrations will cause significant obstacles to the government’s efforts to neatly move on from the democratic breakdown of a year ago. Looking ahead, the oppositional movements are keeping the initial goal of constitutional reform constantly in sight. Berta Oliva said of the work still to be done: “I believe that when there has been such a break of constitutional order as there has been in Honduras, the next step is to have a new constitution for the republic–a new social contract. There must be a constituent assembly to fairly allow all sectors to converge: right, left and center.”