Behind the Paraguayan coup
Following a skewed vote in the opposition-controlled Congress, Lugo was
removed from office for allegedly encouraging land seizures. In an
upset, Vice-President Federico Franco of the Liberal Party assumed the
presidency... There's no evidence that the US played a role in the impeachment, though
to be sure the US defence establishment had plenty of reason to be
unhappy with Paraguay's left-leaning president.
What is it mean for a
coup d'etat to be "legal?" Can you think of similar historical examples? What might this mean for democracy in Latin America?
In any modern society, democracy should be hailed to be the highest form of soverignty in any nation. Parliamentary soverignty should never be undermined and so, one would say that no coup that undermines any democratically elected official can be "legal". However, we must consider more than just straight idealism. There are many cases where the presence of a democratically elected figure in a position of power, be it the executive of the legislature can be dangerous. Namely if it endangers democracy for future generations, will result in the violation of the laws of the land or its constitution, and if it undermines the stability of a nation. Regrettably, these are difficult lines to draw and they are to some extent quite subjective, meaning it is hard to decide definitely. The removal of elected officials in this context however, can only be considered officially legal if the removal is in line with the state's constitution. Whether it is morally justifiable is another matter. For instance, the Marxist government that arose in Grenada in the 1980s held large scale popular backing. But the American government deemed it against American interests and so removed the government in operation Urgent Fury 1983. This was a highly contentious action, and the idea of self determination was violated. This can not be justified arguably as a result. However, the deposing of the Panamanian dictator Noriega in 1989, who had declared democratic elections held in the same year to be null. This was most certainly a justifiable action (as the name would suggest) by the USA in Operation Just Cause.
ReplyDeleteGood historical analogs. Thanks.
DeleteCoup D'etats can never truly be considered "legal," for, they illegally placed themselves in power. Yet, these coups make the laws and determines what is "legal" and what is not. Though it is extremely rare, it is not impossible for governments to turn on their leaders. A famous, historical, example is the assassination of Julius Caesar. Caesar's government was a coup d'etat. Yet, in the end, the Roman Republic came out on top. It has been shown throughout history, that violent takeovers and oppression does not end well for the both, the oppressed and the oppressor.
ReplyDeleteWhile I also agree that coup d'etats are essentially illegal, they are not always for the worse. The Constitution that has abided over America for over 200 years now was in fact illegal under the Articles of Confederation. Historically, tyranny has led to the overthrow of those in power. Nicolae Ceausescu was a ruthless leader of Rumania. He was overthrown and executed after national uprising in 1989. It may appear that Latin America might not be ready for democracy. An uneducated people cannot select a poor candidate and place all of the blame on him. In order to move towards more stability, an assembly of qualified persons may have to rule strictly. However, democracy is not a bad thing, nut the people have to realize what they choose and take responsibility for their choices. - Jeremy McMillan
ReplyDeleteI also agree that coup d’états are for the most part illegal, however in this case the ousting of the president came about with a vote in the congress, which is a law-making body, so technically it might have been made legal. Another similar coup in the history of Paraguay, though not within the government, was that of General Rodriguez turned president who improved the rights of his people and established a democracy. That coup was beneficial just as we can assume this coup will be if the US disliked the old president. I believe that there will not be much of a difference for democracy in Latin America because the coup was within the government so there should not be much change except for the government to be more centered instead of left wing.
ReplyDeleteGood point about the fact that this "coup" was via a vote. It's not all that different than the impeachment/conviction system we have in the US--this was just a lot faster and left the president of Paraguay no time to raise a defense.
DeleteI think you could say that a legal coup d'etat is any that the population favors. Like Simon said, when a leader does something illegal or highly unsavory that severely hurts the populous (like suspending the results of a democratic election), even a military intervention could be considered "legal".
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the effect that a coup d' états, falls into probabilities, and that even though they are not legal, they are not always for the worst of a state. A believe that a coup d'états can never really be legal, because that would go against its definition by nature. It might sound weird, but through history, there have been a lot of successful coup d'états in around 101 countries from all over the world (an example of a successful coup d' états can be how the mexican politician Francisco I. Madero overthrew President Porfirio Díaz in 1911, and Mexico saw a lot of benefits from it). So, coup d' états are not necessarily always going to reflect negative things on the state. I do believe that politics in Paraguay will change for good, but that as Jeremy said, people need to realize who they choose to be their President. Personally, I do believe that Latin America is ready for democracy, though it has not developed to its' fullest. -Ces Escobedo
ReplyDeleteAs there are no rules that I know of about coups d'etat, a way an overthrow of a body could be legal is through justification - if there is enough evidence to support any type of oppression of the people, a coup could be considered "legal." Thus, this entire situation can be seen through a Lockesian perspective. Locke posited that each man had three main rights (which eventually influenced the framing of the Declaration of Independence): Life, Liberty and Property, as opposed to the "pursuit of happiness." In addition, he wrote that the people of a governmental body oppressing their three natural rights have the obligation to overthrow the ruling body, whatever the method. If there were allegations that Lugo was stealing property, a fundamental right according to Locke, the coup d'etat was justified and, therefore, legal. Even the Glorious Revolution, the revolution through which Locke lived himself, could be an example of this - King James II was overthrown because he imposed strict regulations on the people against Protestantism, which is a direct violation of the natural right of liberty. The people, or Parliament, at least, had a right to stage a coup d'etat.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy might not change in Latin America, as it has always been this way. The majority of the countries are still economically developing, leaving plenty of room for corruption, as Ces testified in class. Democracy, then, will not be completely fair until the region is completely developed, which may not happen for a while. Democracy works better in countries like Chile, however, because of its better economic stability.
-Vishal Ravi
Good comparison, Vishal.
DeletePoint of language: the plural of coup d'etat is coups d'etat, not coup d'etats. The more you know!
ReplyDeleteGovernments, especially corrupted ones, go through many channels to change legislature in order for their coups d'etat to be technically "legal". However, though these coups d'etat are now technically legal, I am in disbelief that the legislature is legal. In other words, the action of coup d'etat is legal, but how they got it to be legal is not. Because of this, the entirety of the coup d'etat is illegal, and the legislature is void.
ReplyDeleteThis, to me, seems like a flashback to Guatlemala in the 1950's and their ordeal with the United Fruit Company. In that instance, the CIA did partake in the overthrow of the leader. I would not be surprised if the CIA had a part in this ousting either, especially because Lugo sought to severe ties with U.S. military, and, like President Arbenz in 1954, restore land back to the peasants. The U.S. likes democracy in Latin America as long as it's beneficial to us.
As for democracy in Latin America, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile are becoming solid democracies which will form an anchor of democracy in South America.
-Sasha Galbreath
Since, in a perfect world, legality would go hand-in-hand with morality, I think a "legal" coup would be one that benefitted the people and changed the government for the better. If Lugo was aligning with far-left dictators such as Chavez, this governmental change may be for the better. However, since overthrows such as this one occur for different reasons each time, it is hard to determine a precedent for when one is "legal" or "illegal." If one looks at democratization of South America as the US looked at communization during the twentieth century, a democracy in Paraguay could trigger a "domino effect" of sorts in the rest of the South American states. From a liberal point of view, this would be extremely positive.
ReplyDelete