Tegucigalpa, March 18 (teleSUR-RHC) The Honduran Supreme Court Tuesday accepted former President Rafael Callejas’ proposal to allow presidential re-election, something which is currently prohibited.
Callejas’ proposal comes hot on the heels of a similar one by his party, the ruling National Party, in January. This, despite the fact the party called this constitutional change treasonous five years ago, when the same thing was proposed by former President Manuel Zelaya in 2009.
Shortly after Zelaya proposed the changes, he was removed by a coup, with many claiming he was attempting to hold on to power. Although some believe Callejas submitted his proposal so he himself can run again, others say that he wants current president Juan Orlando Hernandez to continue as president.
The current Honduran constitution, which was written in 1981 says that anyone who attempts to be re-elected will be charged with treason. The Nationalist party controls the Supreme Court, and their push for constitutional reform could significantly change Honduran democracy.
"There is a political difference between continuity and re-election, and this difference is that re-election is when there is a real popular intention and will to reelect, as we have seen in many countries in Latin America. But it is another thing to rule through the judiciary and other political mechanisms to seek to stay in power," political analyst Rodil Rivera commented.
In Callejas’ petition - which is very similar to the one presented by the National Party earlier this year - he added that it was his human right to be re-elected. For the political opposition this is just a political maneuver.
Beatriz Valle of the Libre Party told teleSUR English that, "Re-election is not a human right, it is a right of the people, if they want to vote or not vote for someone, but don’t try to fool the people. The possibility of re-election is not something we see as a problem, or something bad, the countries that are developing in Latin America have it, but this is not a decision for us to take, or the Supreme Court or the Presidency, this is a decision for the people.”
