US Senators' Insolence

I had in mind to draw attention to how the Honduran media, especially the written press, handled by politically and economically powerful groups, have tried to minimize, if not ignore, the campaign of Liberty Party candidate Xiomara Castro, wife of former President Manuel Zalaya, who was ousted by a coup in May 2009. Why the attitude? It’s simple. Several surveys show that she is up in voter preferences, or at least maintains a tie with the ruling government’s candidate, a scant few days before the election.

However, a letter signed by a dozen U.S. senators demanding that “monitors must have unrestricted access to electoral facilities and officials” and which expresses their concern about the government’s ability to conduct free elections, also drew my attention.

The insolence of the letter — signed by, among others, Tim Kaine, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and directed to Secretary of State John Kerry, as if he were the great voter — also notes the legislators’ concern with the rates of violence in the Central American country, which they say has very fragile institutions and a besieged judiciary.

The Supreme Electoral Court, the highest electoral authority, doesn’t even mention, or at least the press has not indicated, an arrogant or contemptuous attitude toward the Honduran institutions, which paradoxically are stigmatized as being weak in the letter. Not that Honduras is a model of institutionalism, but that does not diminish the Hondurans’ efforts to bring forward elections that have been marked with violence.

The Honduran authorities, especially the Supreme Electoral Court magistrates, should not overlook the disrespect for the dignity and sovereignty of Hondurans in the senators’ letter. Demanding unrestricted access to voting facilities is an exclusive power of the Honduran Supreme Electoral Court, not of U.S. officials.

Thus, they performed in that way. They have done so in Nicaragua and in Latin America, not only with statements of senators and congressmen, but also with statements of the Department of State’s spokespersons and with other government requests, in an attempt to favor their candidates. Fortunately, our authorities, especially the Supreme Electoral Council, have rejected such interference, highlighting that in this country, the institutions are respected and it is the responsibility of the Nicaraguans to decide who will govern them.

I want to resume my idea from the beginning. Last October, CID-Gallup published the results of its latest survey in Honduras, emphasizing the tie between the Liberty Party candidate, Xiomara Castro, and the National Party candidate, Juan Orlando Hernández. Electoral preferences between 27 and 30 percent were granted to both candidates. A third candidate from the Liberal Party came in third place. The three, experts say, have the possibility of winning on Nov. 24.

Days ago, Adolfo Facussé, a recognized and powerful Honduran businessman who supported the coup against Zelaya, became one of Castro’s greatest allies, praising her proposals and ranting against the government of President Porfirio Lobo, saying that his administration is among the worst in the country’s history.

Five million three hundred thousand Hondurans are eligible to vote on Sunday, Nov. 24; the Supreme Electoral Court has guaranteed “total transparency.” Twelve thousand local and 700 international observers will follow the process.