Porfirio Lobo, pictured below, has won the support of Hondurans. Now he must convince the outside world of his legitimacy

Why do people insist on calling this a military coup? Is Roberto Micheletti a general? Are the judges in Honduras's Supreme Court military? Is the legislature made up of army brass? Those were the people who ousted Zelaya. The military took its orders from the judges and the legislature, and was obedient to civilian leadership.

It's telling that a majority of Zelaya's own party voted against reinstating him. If his own party doesn't want him in charge, why does the rest of the world think they have any business influencing events?

It's called a military coup because it's a coup that involved using the military to throw the president out of the country and help suppress opposing media and protesters. That the military doesn't install a military government doesn't change that. (The military did not take orders from the legislature, instead the legislature decided to retroactively approve of it --after first falsely claiming he resigned)

<>

..and indeed, it is telling that there is no oppositional voice among the political elite --but that doesn't mean it reflects the population's attitudes. (As the article indicated)

The lack of differences between the corrupt pro-business brokerage parties was precisely what gave Chavez an opening in Venezuala. Irrespective of this incident; getting back to the same old, same old in Honduras may just set the stage for a real lower class autocrat in the future.

Sadly, reality dictates otherwise. There are arguments about what was done (apart Zelaya from government for different reasons and perspectives...) what should have been done for the good of democracy (allow Zelaya to return finish his term) and and what can be done realistically speaking (accept the results of the election (clean) and move forward conditioning guarantees and reforms in the Honduras). Pragmatically, Zelayas return to power would be symbolic for democracy but without any governing powers (really). There is no way his return to power would have turned back time to before the interruption of democracy. This was important even if one thought Zelaya had autocratic leaning plan for reform. If anything, one can only hope this election will provoke the changes in setting need to find a consensus for the benefit of Honduras people. One has to be flexible and reflect the reality on the ground. Negotiation must accomplish a win -win for the good and bad guys.....whoever they are.

It is sad to see all the misunderstanding there is in the international comunity about what happened in Honduras, first of all, in any case it was Mr. Zelaya who intended to perpetrate an institutional coup by not obeying the orders of the court which clearly stated that, according to Hondurean constitution, the president does not has the power to call on any "poll" or election on the subject of changing the constitution, any regular citizen can but a government official is forbiden to do so. Only to mention it, according to the article 286 of the Hondurean constitution the responsible of such action will automatically be separated of his charge, in this case the former president Mr. Zelaya, who did not only disobeyed but also kidnaped the ballots (which where made in Venezuela)from the electoral court, and this is another fellony by Mr. Zelaya.

For many countries this is bizarre, but in Honduras there is no such thing as the Impeachment. So the courts ordered to detain Mr. Zelaya on the dawn of june 28th, and in central american countries there is no such thing as a reliable police, so the courts ordered the military to detain Mr. Zelaya and for his own safety and also following thre own constitution due to a state of necesity Mr. Zelaya was taken from the country to Costa Rica. So one of the three powers went rogue (Mr. Zelaya) and the rest of the government answered accordingly, Congress, which lets not forget is elected as is the president and is as important as the executive branch of the state, high courts and the military with the support all the hondurean society.

A system of checks and balances working perfectly, the new government not only should be recognised but the Hondurean people should be praised for there courage since the stood alone against the world and acted really like a sovereign country witholding there own legal system over the international pressures and economic sanctions. Needs to be mentioned as well the double standard of AEO and that of it`s secretary general, Mr. Insulza, weeks before june this year this gentleman was praising Cuba and saying that it was a great achievement of the organization to recognize Cuba and that democracy was not ment for every country and just a day after the events of june 28th, he was "outraged" by the Hondureans and the "terrible sin" that they had commited atempting to the godess democracy and fighting for the exclusion of Honduras from the organization. ¿Is not this only a sign of a leftist organization that will support all the interests of leftist regimes no mater what they do like the one of Chavez or Mr. Ortega in Nicaragua where an election has just been stolen by the president?

There was not a meeting of "Latin-Americans" and "Iberians" in Portugal, as said The Economist.

There was a summit between Lusophone countries (Brazil and Portugal) and Hispanics ones (or the Latinos ones).

This blablabla which involves Brazil and Latin America is a reductionism, as false as a 3 dollar bill.

It is absurd as they separate Hispanic countries of the Caribbean (such as Puerto Rico, Haiti, Cuba and Dominican Republic), in the expression "Latin America and the Caribbean," as if they were not Latinos as Mexico and Honduras.

The term "Latin America" is totally misleading and inaccurate.

It was a coup because military force was used to interrupt democracy. Zelaya was ACCUSED of crimes, but he remains innocent until proper due process or a fair trial takes place. Notice that the crime was not so much against Zelaya the citizen, but rather against the office of the Presidency. It appears that Zelaya's enemies are completely unable to understand the difference.

By accepting a forged resignation letter and not rectifying when they had a chance, Congress became complicit in the coup. Later, the Supreme Court under immense mediatic pressure (that would be unthinkable of in a non banana republic) validated the whole charade, becoming complicit as well. Then the army leaders played eagerly along.

In short, it was a coup that was made possible by the media, Congress, the Supreme Court and of course, the army.

@Kevin Sutton

"..and indeed, it is telling that there is no oppositional voice among the political elite --but that doesn't mean it reflects the population's attitudes."

Hm... then where should we look to find out what the population's attitudes were? Maybe at the way they voted - would that make any sense?

The Hondurans have spoken: they want Pepe Lobo as their president. Turnout was at least as high as in Zelaya's election. The boycott he called for did not happen. Case closed.

@suma sin laude

"Notice that the crime was not so much against Zelaya the citizen, but rather against the office of the Presidency."

As of late June 27th, the Presidency of Honduras was vacant. Its former holder, Mr. Manuel Zelaya, had ceased to be President when he ordered an illegal vote - as previously ruled by both the Electoral and the Supreme Courts - to be carried out anyway. That was *not* a crime, in the strict sense. It was just an action whose automatic consequence was for anyone to lose political office. Holding office is not a person's right - not when they breach the Constitution they'd sworn to serve.

What I told you is what the Constitution says. (Honduras's; surprisingly, that's the one in force there.)

What do you mean by "Micheletti rejected the proposal." It was Zelaya's representative, Rixi Moncada, who stated that the San Jose Accord had failed.
You should read comments to previous articles, before repeating the same false information.
The transition government worked on complying with the San Jose accord until it was replaced by the Guaymuras accord, which Zelaya declared "dead." Our constitutional government is still in the process of fulfilling it.

My opinion stands for Mrs. Aristeia (i think this is ancient greek) and Bruno Parga. Zelaya did try to stage a coup of his own by trying to change the constitution when he was no able to.

I believed that only latin american coutries were failling to sustain a constitucional spirit that strengthens their own constitucions. Now i must assume that the european countries lack that sense to, as they indicate they are not recognizing Honduras election.

What matters is that the legislative did only what the law prescribed. To ilegally change the constitucion is something very grave, that cannot be taken lightly.

So my sincere believe is that Honduras must be praised among south american countries for its obstinacy in supporting the law, against so many - and powerful - voices against it.

65%+ of the Honduran voter turn up for the General Elections. What else do you need to recognize our democracy? Not even in the EU you have such an accomplishment. Now, due respect to the right of our country to defend our way of life is due here. Call it a Coup or whatever have you, the facts are that we had a corrupted and Constituction violator that wanted to illegaly perpetuate himself in power. he was ousted. Naturally. What is the big deal? That Chavez is pissed? come on! give us a break!

He does not have to win the world's approval. He is, according to the Law in his nation, legal and supported by the courts and legislature. If Chavez and other dictators are in control I would like to know when they earned the world's approval. Did Stalin ever win the Nobel Prize, did any of the dictators in Africa win, or care, about the world's approval? Be consistent. You can approve or not and state your reason, but do not make this a "wold" issue. It is not.

Hmm, it seems that it is mostly the Honduran commentators in this forum the ones who are not talking about a coup and are asking the foreigners to butt out and let them run their government, thank you very much. Haven't we learned something since the colonial era?

Why are US citizens suggesting here that they know more about Honduras' law than Hondurans do? I've been to Honduras and will confirm that Honduras' soldiers also have law enforcement duties. I admit that as a US citizen it seems a little weird to walk the streets and see soldiers with M-16s standing on city street corners, but it's their law.

The fact that the army arrested Zelaya is absolutely no proof of a coup. They were acting on the authority of both the supreme court and the legislature. Power was transferred to Mr. Micheletti according to their succession laws. The military was NEVER in power. The only law that the military broke was flying Zelaya out of the country so that he didn't have to face the court who ordered his arrest.

The author also failed to note that San Pedro Sula is close to the border with Guatemala. It is highly likely that the demonstrators in SPS were not even native Hondurans. They were socialist agitators who came across the border from Guatemala. Free-minded individuals in the Americas do not like their socialist despots as much as the OAS would have us believe.

It is insulting and fallacious to presume a military coup where none exists. The fact that the opposition party just won the Presidency in an election that no one seems ready to challenge should be proof enough that this long-time ally and friend of democracy has courageously stood for freedom against "social democracy" which is really no democracy at all.

According to the article,

a) most Hondurans consider Zelaya the legitimate president
b) many Hondurans that support Zelaya and/or reject the coup still voted because they see it as a way out of the crisis.

If we consider that the initial projection of 60+ of participation is PATENTLY FALSE (actual participation has been reported at less than 50% by the very pollsters hired by the Honduran TSE), that the unusual amount of blank and void votes amount to more than 6% and that Lobo's win was really a vote against Micheletti (his candidate lost after being 20 points ahead in the polls), the only conclusion that can be reached is that most Hondurans reject the coup (and that what El Heraldo et al say is not very reliable).

For those supporters of the coup that still have some modicum of objectivity left, the video below speaks for itself. And no, it was not staged by Michael Moore.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

Truth is told, the Honduran congress was responsible for Zelaya's ousting by an overwhelming majority of 90%. This does not represent a coup. Sorry to disappoint those fierce defenders of Democracy. Fast forward, the populace/electorate via a democratic election elected a new president. The international community has accepted the electorates’ voice, except of course the Chavez clan. Mr. Zelaya once booted out of the “Brazilian Survivor”-embassy, will be arrested and tried for his crimes-perpetuating his mandate reneging the Honduran constitution for instance. Democracy prevailed and the Honduran peoples voices heard!

I'm not sure what The Economist means by Lobo convincing it and others of his legitimacy. He won. Hondurans have spoken. Listen.
I think, rather, the Economist and whomsoever it presumes to speak for, need to work on acceptance.
I'd hate to think The Economist doesn't respect the voice of Honduras as the country's sole legitimizing authority.

@ "Leftist human-rights groups—sadly, such organisations are politicised in Honduras"

LOL!!

How many rightist human rights groups do you know of in the world?

It's so beautifully precious that you're so sad over this state of affairs, but I'm surprised to see it in someone considered competent to write about politics for grown-ups.

The election seems to have been clean [admittecly not as clean as a European or North American election], and conducted according to the Honduran constitution. The new government should be recognized because not to do so would be a violation of the sovereignty of Honduras even if the results do not appeal. How many countries refused to recognize either of George Bush's elections?

It is apparent that the Leftist regimes, lead by El Maximo Lider de la Revolucion Hugo Chavez, do not believe that any election NOT returning a Left-wing is acceptable. The wanted the US to intervene militarily to restore Zelaya to power [despite having castigated the US repeatedly for interference in other countries' internal affairs].

How does one say hypocrite in Spanish and Portuguese?

sums sin laude:
The focus should be on the more than 2.5 million Hondurans that voted, not on the 100 protesters portrayed on that video. BTW that video has participation at 56% (that's closer to 60 than to 50). Considering that the video is against elections THAT'S NOT "PATENTLY FALSE." There were 4.6 million Honduras eligible to vote (that's every person who has a Honduran ID card). Over 1 million Honduras reside outside the country an except for a few hundreds that vote in main U.S. cities, they did not vote. That makes about 21% of those wo did not vote.
The video is obviously biased. When interviewing the protesters, the reporter takes their word. When interviewing people who were voting, he questions their answers. Would anyone being repressed talk as freely as those protesters?
Are those the "real news". Only those of us living in Honduras know the "real truth."

McJakome
what do you men for: "[admittecly not as clean as a European or North American election]"? Were George Bush's elections cleaner than ours.

Catracha,

You are right, the focus should be on the people that voted. However, there are two questions that nobody in the mainstream media is asking:

1) Why is it taking so long to deliver the final tally after all the boasting of results within 24h?
2) What interest did an allegedly neutral entity like the TSE have in saying that participation exceeded 60% when their own consultants presented contradicting results using exactly the same data?

When the above is added to the position adopted before, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the TSE openly supported the coup before, during and after the election.

With regards to the video, it takes a lot of cynicism or a profound state of denial to argue with such eloquent images. Just saying that it is "obviously biased" is not enough. TRN covered that event because NOBODY ELSE DID. Is covering news the mainstream media doesn't cover being biased in your mind? Wouldn't be even MORE biased NOT covering it? Can you find the same news in El Heraldo?

The journalist questioned the claims of the person that supported the coup simply because what he said did not match the video, for example the "broken glass" accusation. Did you miss the part showing the police breaking the pickup's windshield?

By the way, saying that TRN is biased is a cheap shot with no basis in reality. You obviously are not familiar with it. TRN does not take money from governments or commercial advertising. Can you say the same about your news sources?

And yes, the US does not have the moral authority to pass judgment on anyone, especially when it comes to elections...