Knowing next to nothing about Honduras I am forced to rely on perusing the world’s media.

Ousted President Zelaya is cranking up a lot of international pressure in his favour:

The Organization of American States has suspended Honduras in protest at the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya.

The rare decision was made at an emergency meeting of the 35-member group in Washington…

The OAS approved suspending Honduras by 33 votes to zero, with Honduras itself not voting.

It was the first time the organisation had taken such a measure since Cuba was suspended in 1962, when it allied itself with the USSR.

Interesting, given the mayhem which has taken place in many Latin American countries since 1962.

On a previous posting I made on the subject, one Ivor sent in this charming comment:

Indeed, how better to defend democracy than having the army depose an elected president before the end of his mandate. This isn’t even a convincing take on neo-conservative foreign policy, it’s just moronic. 

The reason Obama opposes the coup is because it’s legally and morally wrong – do try to keep up.

Legally and morally wrong?

Well, Ivor, what are we all to make of this? A careful explanation by a former Honduran Minister based on things which look rather like actual facts about the Honduras constitution.

The writer explains that to avoid any one politician trying to stay in power for far too long, the Hondurans decided years ago to put in their law a strict set of norms intended not only to prevent Continuismo but also to stop any one even proposing it:

When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents.

In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo…

Noteworthy that the BBC website Q and A on the crisis does not mention these key constitutional provisions explicitly, presenting the issue instead as mainly a political row (which of course it also will be).

If the legal case as summarised above is correct, the vast noise being drummed up in favour of Zelaya is a dishonest disgrace, . And risks plunging Honduras into ruin.

My original question:

So, what if you are a country who sees its President scheming to extend his power and using illegal or at least legally dubious tricks to achieve that, such as trying to run an illicit referendum and shipping in ballot papers from another country known for playing fast and loose with democracy?

When do you stop him? And how?

What if he ignores court rulings and presses on anyway, hoping to use the power of the state machinery improperly to get his way?

I await good answers.

And please don’t use the fact that the UN General Assembly voted to support Zelaya as a moral fact in his favour.

We are moving in to a post-democratic age, where what counts is not what is right or what the rules say but rather what you can get away with.

Most UN Ambassadors will be close associates of the rulers of the countries they represent. Many make no pretense to be democratic, and are not dismayed if democratic standards are breached. In fact they are rather pleased.

Even heads of democratic states and governments these days will not to be too impressed with one of their own being bundled unceremoniously from office apparently for deliberately breaking the rules under which he was elected. Good grief, what sort of precedent does that set?

So it suits too many people for all sorts of reasons to beat up on little Honduras.

And if Honduras goes up in smoke as a result, hey, that’s politics.