IN LATE 1993, HONDURAS was again in the midst of an electoral
campaign to elect a president, deputies to the National Congress, and
municipal officials nationwide. The November 1993 elections were the
third since the military turned the nation over to a democratically
elected president in January 1982. Regular national elections, which
have come to be celebrated in an almost holidaylike atmosphere, appear
to be institutionalized. For most of this century, the Honduran
political system has had two dominant traditional parties, the Liberal
Party of Honduras (Partido Liberal de Honduras--PLH) and the National
Party of Honduras (Partido Nacional de Honduras--PNH). In the 1980s, the
PLH captured the presidency in the 1981 and 1985 elections, choosing
Roberto Suazo Córdova and José Azcona Hoyo, respectively; in 1989, the
PNH was victorious, with Rafael Leonardo Callejas Romero assuming the
presidency.
The Honduran military has been a powerful force in domestic politics
since the 1950s. From 1963 until 1971, and again from 1972 until 1982,
the military essentially controlled the national government, often with
support from the PNH. In the 1980s, after the country had returned to
civilian rule, the military continued to be a potent political force,
particularly during the Suazo Córdova government (1981-85). During that
administration, the military allowed a United States military presence
and hosted members of the Nicaraguan Resistance (more commonly known as
the Contras,
short for contrarevolucionarios--Spanish for
counterrevolutionaries; see Glossary), a group attempting to overthrow
the Nicaraguan government. In the early 1990s, the Honduran military
continued to operate as an autonomous institution with increasing
involvement in economic activities.
Within the civilian government, the executive branch of government
has traditionally dominated the legislative and judicial branches. The
Honduran judiciary has been widely criticized for politicization and for
having unqualified judges among the lower court officials. The justice
system for the most part has not held military or civilian elites
accountable for their actions. A significant departure from this record
was the July 1993 conviction of two military officers for the 1991
murder of an eighteen-year- old high school student, Riccy Mabel Martínez.
The case galvanized Honduran public opinion against the military's
immunity from prosecution. The political system also suffers from the
endemic corruption found within its ranks; bribery is an almost
institutionalized practice.
In the early 1990s, a myriad of interest groups influenced the
Honduran political process. Despite the nation's political tradition of
a strong executive branch, an elaborate network of interest groups and
political organizations has thrived and at times has helped settle
conflicts. The Honduran labor movement has traditionally been one of the
strongest in Central America. The nation's organized peasant movement
helped bring about limited agrarian reform in the early 1960s and 1970s.
Nevertheless, some critics maintain that in the early 1990s the
government increasingly intervened in the affairs of labor unions and
peasant organizations, including through the introduction of
"parallel unions," government sponsored unions that had little
worker support. In the 1980s and 1990s, a variety of special interest
organizations and associations were active in Honduras, including
student and women's groups, human rights organizations, and
environmental groups.
In the foreign policy arena, Honduras in the early 1990s was just
emerging from a decade of regional turbulence marked by civil conflicts
in neighboring El Salvador and Nicaragua. Honduras had become a linchpin
for United States policy toward Central America in the 1980s. It hosted
the United States-supported anti-Sandinista Contra force as well as a
1,100-troop United States military force at Palmerola Air Base (renamed
the Enrique Cano Soto Air Base in 1988). Military exercises involving
thousands of United States troops and National Guardsmen were conducted
in the country, many involving roadbuilding projects; and Honduras
received almost US$1.6 billion in United States assistance during the
decade. In the early 1990s, however, with the end to the Contra conflict
in Nicaragua and a peace accord in El Salvador, Honduras's relations
with the United States changed considerably. Aid levels fell
dramatically, and military assistance slowed to a trickle. The United
States became more willing to criticize Honduras for its human rights
record and urged Honduras to cut back its military spending. As in the
past, however, the United States remained Honduras's most important
trading partner and its most important source of foreign investment.
Amidst the waning of civil conflict in the region in the early 1990s,
Honduras and the other Central American states turned their efforts to
regional integration, particularly economic integration. In 1990 the
Central American presidents signed a Central American Economic Action
Plan (Plan de Acción Económica de Centroamérica-- Paeca), which
included economic integration commitments and guidelines. In 1993 they
established a regional integration governing body, the Central American
Integration System (Sistema de Integración Centroamericana--Sica). As a
first step toward political integration, the Central American Parliament
(Parlamento Centroamericano--Parlacen) was inaugurated in 1991; however,
as of 1993 only Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--the so-called
northern triangle states--had elected representatives to that body. In
September 1992, Honduras's long-time border conflict with El Salvador
was resolved when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded
Honduras approximately two-thirds of the disputed territory. Both
nations agreed to accept the ruling, which was viewed by many as a
victory for Honduras.
<>THE CONSTITUTION
The Honduran constitution, the sixteenth since independence from
Spain, entered into force on January 20, 1982. Just a week before,
Honduras had ended ten years of military rule with the inauguration of
civilian president Roberto Suazo Córdova. The constitution was
completed on January 11, 1982, by a seventy-one-seat Constituent
Assembly that had been elected on April 20, 1980, under the military
junta of Policarpo Paz García. The Constituent Assembly was dominated
by Honduras's two major political parties, the PLH, which held
thirty-five seats, and the PNH, which held thirty-three seats. The small
Innovation and Unity Party (Partido de Inovación y Unidad--Pinu) held
the remaining three seats.
Honduran constitutions are generally held to have little bearing on
Honduran political reality because they are considered aspirations or
ideals rather than legal instruments of a working government. The
constitution essentially provides for the separation of powers among the
three branches of government, but in practice the executive branch
generally dominates both the legislative and judicial branches of
government. Moreover, according to the United States Department of
State's human rights report for 1992, although basic human rights are
protected in the constitution, in practice the government has been
unable to assure that many violations are fully investigated, or that
most of the perpetrators, either military or civilian, are brought to
justice.
Of the nation's fifteen previous constitutions, several have marked
significant milestones in the nation's political development. The first
constitution, in 1825, which reflected strong Spanish influence,
established three branches of government. The 1839 constitution, which
emphasized the protection of individual rights, was the nation's first
outside the framework of the United Provinces of Central America;
Honduras had just declared independence from the federation in October
1838. In the 1865 constitution, the right of habeas corpus was
constitutionally guaranteed for the first time. The 1880 constitution
introduced many new features to the Honduran political system, including
the principle of municipal autonomy and the state's role in promoting
economic development. Separation of church and state was also an
important feature, as previous constitutions had proclaimed Roman
Catholicism as the state's official religion.
Promulgated under the presidency of Policarpo Bonilla Vásquez
(1894-99), the 1894 constitution--the nation's ninth--was considered the
most progressive in its time. It abolished the death penalty and
elevated the status of laws covering the press, elections, and amparo, laws that granted protection to claims in litigation.
Although many provisions of the 1894 constitution were ignored, the
document served as a model for future constitutions. The 1924
constitution introduced new social and labor provisions and attempted to
make the legislature a stronger institution vis-à-vis the executive
branch. With the 1936 constitution, which was promulgated under the
dictatorship of Tiburcio Carías Andino (1933-49), the powers of the
executive were again reinforced, and the presidential and legislative
terms of office were extended from four to six years. Some observers
maintain that the 1936 constitution was amended on numerous occasions to
serve the needs of the Cariato, as the dictatorship came to be known.
The 1957 constitution, promulgated under the presidency of Ramón
Villeda Morales (1958-63), introduced a number of new features,
including labor provisions (influenced by the growth of trade unionism
after the banana strike of 1954) and the establishment of a body to
regulate the electoral process. The 1965 constitution, the nation's
fifteenth, was promulgated under the military rule of Colonel Osvaldo López
Arellano (1963-71, 1972-73) and remained in force until 1982, through
the brief civilian presidency of Ramón Ernesto Cruz (1971-72) and
through ten more years of military rule.
The 1982 constitution provides for many of the governmental
institutions and processes inherited from previous decades. Throughout
the constitution, however, new or changed provisions help distinguish it
from previous constitutions, and some analysts consider it the most
advanced constitution in Honduran history. The preamble expresses faith
in the restoration of the Central American union and emphasizes the rule
of law as a means of achieving a just society.
The 1982 constitution consists of a preamble and 379 articles divided
into eight titles that are further divided into forty-three chapters.
The first seven titles cover substantive provisions delineating the
rights of individuals and the organization and responsibilities of the
Honduran state. The last title provides for the constitution's
implementation and amendment. As of mid-1993, the National Congress had
amended the 1982 constitution on seven occasions and interpreted
specific provisions of the constitution on four occasions.
The organization of the Honduran state, national territory, and
international treaties are covered in Title I of the constitution. As
stated in Article 4, "The government is republican, democratic and
representative" and "composed of three branches: legislative,
executive and judicial, which are complementary, independent, and not
subordinate to each other." In practice, however, the executive
branch has dominated the other two branches of government. Article 2,
which states that sovereignty originates in the people, also includes a
provision new to the 1982 constitution that labels the supplanting of
popular sovereignty and the usurping of power as "crimes of treason
against the fatherland." This provision can be considered an added
constitutional protection of representative democracy in a country in
which the military has a history of usurping power from elected civilian
governments.
Title II addresses nationality and citizenship, suffrage and
political parties, and provides for an independent and autonomous
National Elections Tribunal (Tribunal Nacional de Elecciones--TNE) to
handle all matters relating to electoral acts and procedures. Provisions
regarding nationality and citizenship are essentially the same as in the
1965 constitution, with one significant exception. In the 1965 document,
Central Americans by birth were considered "native-born
Hondurans" after one year of residence in Honduras and after
completing certain legal procedures, but in the 1982 constitution
(Article 24), Central Americans by birth who have resided in the country
for one year are Hondurans by naturalization. With regard to the
electoral system, Article 46 provides for election through proportional
or majority representation.
Individual rights and guarantees for Honduras citizens are addressed
in Title III. This section covers such matters as social, child, and
labor rights; social security; and health, education, culture, and
housing issues. Different from the 1965 constitution is the chapter
devoted entirely to "rights of the child."
The rights of habeas corpus and amparo are provided for in
Title IV, which also addresses the constitutional review of laws by the
Supreme Court of Justice and cases when constitutional guarantees may be
restricted or suspended.
Title V outlines the branches and offices of the government and their
responsibilities, and spells out the procedure for the enactment,
sanction, and promulgation of laws. It covers the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches of government; the Office of the
Comptroller General and the Directorate of Administrative Probity, both
of which are auxiliary but independent agencies of the legislative
branch; the Office of the Attorney General, the legal representative of
the Honduran state; the offices of the ministers of the cabinet, with no
fewer than twelve ministries; the civil service; the departmental and
municipal system of local government; and guidelines for the
establishment of decentralized institutions of the Honduran state.
Different from the 1965 constitution, the terms of legislators and the
president are four years, instead of six years. Another new feature
focuses on the development of local government throughout the country.
Article 299 states that "economic and social development of the
municipalities must form part of the national development program,"
whereas Article 302, in order to ensure the improvement and development
of the municipalities, encourages citizens to form civic associations,
federations, or confederations.
The chapter on the judiciary also contains several changes from the
1965 constitution. The changes, according to one analysis, appear to
bring the administration of justice closer to the people. Article 303
declares that "the power to dispense justice emanates from the
people and is administered free of charge on behalf of the state by
independent justices and judges." The Supreme Court of Justice has
nine principal justices and seven alternates, increased from the seven
principals and five alternates provided in the 1965 document.
Title V also includes a chapter covering the armed forces, which
consists of the "high command, army, air force, navy, public
security force, and the agencies and units determined by the laws
establishing them." Most provisions of this chapter are largely the
same as in the 1965 and 1957 constitutions. As set forth in Article 272,
the armed forces are to be an "essentially professional,
apolitical, obedient, and nondeliberative national institution"; in
practice, however, the Honduran military essentially has enjoyed
autonomy vis-à-vis civilian authority since 1957. The president retains
the title of general commander over the armed forces, as provided in
Article 245 (16). Orders given by the president to the armed forces,
through its commander in chief, must be obeyed and executed, as provided
in Article 278. The armed forces, however, is under the direct command
of the commander in chief of the armed forces (Article 277); and it is
through him that the president performs his constitutional duty relating
to the armed forces. According to Article 285, the Supreme Council of
the Armed Forces (Consejo Superior de las Fuerzas Armadas--Consuffaa) is
the armed forces consultative organ. The Supreme Council is chaired by
the commander in chief of the armed forces, who is elected by the
National Congress for a term of three years. He is chosen from a list of
three officers proposed by Consuffaa. In practice, the National Congress
always approves (some observers would say rubberstamps) Consuffaa's
first choice.
The nation's economic regime, covered in Title VI, "is based on
the principles of efficiency in production and social justice in the
distribution of wealth and national income, as well as on the harmonious
coexistence of the factors of production." As provided in Article
329, the Honduran state is involved in the promotion of economic and
social development, subject to appropriate planning. The title also
includes provisions on currency and banking, agrarian reform (which is
declared to be of public need and interest), the tax system, public
wealth, and the national budget.
Title VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the
constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional
inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress
after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular
annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be
amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as
provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and
several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and
prohibition from reelection.
Honduras - GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESS
Executive
The executive branch in Honduras, headed by a president who is
elected by a simple majority, has traditionally dominated the
legislative and judicial branches of government. According to political scientist Mark B. Rosenberg, the entire
Honduran government apparatus is dependent on the president, who defines
or structures policy (with the exception of security policy, which
remains in the military's realm) through legislation or policy decrees.
However, Rosenberg also notes that in an environment of intense rivalry
and animosity between the two major parties, in which the president is
under pressure to reward his party's supporters, public policy
initiatives often do not fare well, as the executive becomes bogged down
with satisfying more pressing parochial needs. Political scientist James
Morris points out that the executive-centered nature of the Honduran
political system has endured whether the head of state has been an
elected civilian politician or a general, and that the Honduran state's
formal and informal center of authority is the executive.
According to the constitution, the president has responsibility for
drawing up a national development plan, discussing it in the cabinet,
submitting it to the National Congress for approval, directing it, and
executing it. He or she directs the economic and financial policy of the
state, including the supervision and control of banking institutions,
insurance companies, and investment houses through the National Banking
and Insurance Commission. The president has responsibility for
prescribing feasible measures to promote the rapid execution of agrarian
reform and the development of production and productivity in rural
areas. With regard to education policy, the president is responsible for
organizing, directing, and promoting education as well as for
eradicating illiteracy and improving technical education. With regard to
health policy, the president is charged with adopting measures for the
promotion, recovery, and rehabilitation of the population's health, as
well as for disease prevention. The president also has responsibility
for directing and supporting economic and social integration, both
national and international, aimed at improving living conditions for
Hondurans. In addition, the president directs foreign policy and
relations, and may conclude treaties and agreements with foreign
nations. He or she appoints the heads of diplomatic and consular
missions.
With regard to the legislative branch, the president participates in
the enactment of laws by introducing bills in the National Congress
through the cabinet ministers. The president has the power to sanction,
veto, or promulgate and publish any laws approved by the National
Congress. The president may convene the National Congress into special
session, through a Permanent Committee of the National Congress, or may
propose the continuation of the regular annual session. The president
may send messages to the National Congress at any time and must deliver
an annual message to the National Congress in person at the beginning of
each regular legislative session. In addition, although the constitution
gives the National Congress the power to elect numerous government
officials (such as Supreme Court justices, the comptroller general, the
attorney general, and the director of administrative probity), these
selections are essentially made by the president and rubberstamped by
the National Congress.
The constitution sets forth forty-five powers of the National
Congress, the most important being the power to make, enact, interpret,
and repeal laws. Legislative bills may be introduced in the National
Congress by any deputy or the president (through the cabinet ministers).
The Supreme Court of Justice and the TNE may also introduce bills within
their jurisdiction. In practice, most legislation and policy initiatives
are introduced by the executive branch, although there are some
instances where legislation and initiatives emanate from the National
Congress. A bill must be debated on three different days before being
voted upon, with the exception of urgent cases as determined by a simple
majority of the deputies present. If approved, the measure is sent to
the executive branch for sanction and promulgation. In general, a law is
considered compulsory after promulgation and after twenty days from
being published in the official journal, Gaceta Judicial. If
the president does not veto the bill within ten days, it is considered
sanctioned and is to be promulgated by the president.
If the president vetoes a measure, he must return it to the National
Congress within ten days explaining the grounds for disapproval. To
approve the bill again, the National Congress must again debate it and
then ratify it by a two-thirds majority vote, whereupon it is sent to
the executive branch for immediate publication. However, if the
president originally vetoed the bill on the grounds that it was
unconstitutional, the bill cannot be debated in the National Congress
until the Supreme Court renders its opinion on the measure within a
timeframe specified by the National Congress. If an executive veto is
not overridden by the National Congress, the bill may not be debated
again in the same session of the National Congress.
If the National Congress approves a bill at the end of its session,
and the president intends to veto it, the president must immediately
notify the National Congress so that it can extend the session for ten
days beyond when it receives the disapproved bill. If the president does
not comply with this procedure, he must return the bill within the first
eight days of the next session of the National Congress.
Certain acts and resolutions of the National Congress may not be
vetoed by the president. Most significantly these include the budget
law, amendments to the constitution, declarations regarding grounds for
impeachment for high-ranking government officials, and decrees relating
to the conduct of the executive branch.
With regard to security, the president is charged with maintaining
peace and internal security of the nation and with repelling every
attack or external aggressor. During a recess of the National Congress,
the president may declare war and make peace, although the National
Congress must be convened immediately. The president may restrict or
suspend certain individual rights and guarantees with the concurrence of
the cabinet for a period of forty-five days, a period that may be
renewed. (Article 187 of the constitution spells out the procedure to be
followed for the suspension of rights.) The president may deny or
permit, after congressional authorization, the transit of foreign troops
through Honduran territory. The president is also charged with
monitoring the official behavior of public officials for the security
and prestige of the Honduran government and state.
In theory, the president exercises command over the armed forces as
the general commander and adopts necessary measures for the defense of
the nation. The president confers military ranks for second lieutenant
through captain based on the proposal of the commander in chief of the
armed forces. Most importantly, the president is charged with ensuring
that the army is apolitical, essentially professional, and obedient. In
practice, however, the military operates autonomously. According to the
view of Honduran political scientist Ernesto Paz Aguilar, the armed
forces is the country's principal political force, exercising a tutelary
role over the other institutions of government and constituting a de
facto power that is not subordinate to civilian political power. Other
observers, although acknowledging the military is a politically powerful
institution, maintain that the military essentially confines its spheres
of influence to national security and internal stability, although in
recent years, they concede that the military has had an increasing role
in economic activities.
Serving under the president are the ministers of the cabinet, who
cooperate with the president in coordinating, directing, and supervising
the organs and agencies of the executive branch under their
jurisdiction. As required by Article 246 of the constitution, there are
to be at least twelve departments of the cabinet covering the following
portfolios: government and justice; the Office of the President; foreign
affairs; economy and commerce; finance and public credit; national
defense and public security; labor and social welfare; public health and
social aid; public education; communications, public works, and
transport; culture and <>tourism
; and natural resources. In addition to
these ministries, in the early 1990s, there was also another
cabinet-level department, the Ministry of Planning, Coordination, and
Budget. The National Congress may summon the cabinet ministers to answer
questions relating to their portfolios. Within the first days of the
installation of the National Congress, ministers must submit annually a
report on the work done in their respective ministries. The president
convokes and presides over the cabinet ministers in a body known as the
Council of Ministers, which, according to the constitution, meets at the
president's initiative to make decisions on any matters he or she
considers of national importance and to consider such cases specified by
law.
In addition to the various ministries, the president may create
commissions, either permanent or temporary, made up of public officials
or other representatives of Honduran sectors to undertake certain
projects or programs mandated by the executive. The president may also
name commissioners to coordinate the action of public entities and
agencies of the state or to develop programs.
The Callejas (1990- ) government created several presidential
commissions for certain projects or programs. In 1990 Callejas
established and headed the Modernization of the State Commission, which
included thirty representatives of governmental institutions, the four
legally recognized political parties, business, and labor. The objective
of the commission was to study and design national policies for
reforming the functioning of the Honduran state, including reform of the
legislature and judiciary, decentralization of the power of the
executive branch in favor of the municipalities, and modernizing public
administration.
In December 1992, the Callejas government appointed a head to the
National Commission for the Protection of Human Rights (Comisión
Nacional para la Protección de Derechos Humanos-- Conaprodeh), a new
position established to protect the rights of persons who consider
themselves victims of abuse or an unjust act by judicial or public
administration.
In 1993 the Callejas government established two additional
commissions, a Fiscal Intervention Commission to investigate
governmental corruption that began with an inquiry into corruption at
the Customs Directorate, and a high-level ad hoc Commission for
Institutional Reform, headed by Roman Catholic Archbishop Oscar Andrés
Rodríguez. The ad hoc commission, created in early March 1993, was
established to formulate recommendations within thirty days for specific
measures to improve the security forces, especially the National
Directorate of Investigations (Directorio de Investigación
Nacional--DIN), and to strengthen the judiciary and public prosecutor's
office. The DNI was created because of growing public criticism of the
DNI and military impunity. It had representatives from each branch of
government, from the military, from each of the four 1993 presidential
candidates, and from the mass media.
The Honduran civil service system regulates employment in the public
sector, theoretically based on the principles of competence, efficiency,
and honesty, according to the constitution. In practice, however, the
system has been a source of political patronage, which some observers
claim has led to a bloated bureaucracy. In 1990 there were an estimated
70,000 government employees, including employees of the decentralized
institutions. Economic austerity measures introduced by the Callejas
government reportedly led to the dismissal of thousands of employees,
although some claim that thousands of other employees were hired because
of political patronage. According to some observers, a fundamental
problem of the Honduran civil service is its politicization, whereby
much of the bureaucracy is replaced when the ruling party changes.
Traditionally, in Honduras, political patronage has been a key
characteristic of the two dominant political parties. According to
political scientist Mark B. Rosenberg, a president once in office is
under tremendous pressure to provide jobs, recommendations, and other
rewards to his followers in exchange for their continued loyalty and
support.
In addition to the various ministries, there are also numerous
autonomous and semiautonomous state entities within the executive
branch, which have increased in number over the years as the government
has become more involved in the economic development process and the
provision of basic services. These decentralized institutions vary in
their composition, structure, and function, but include three basic
types: public institutes, which are largely government-funded and
perform social or collective services that are not usually provided by
the private sector; public enterprises, which often have their own
resource bases and are autonomous organs of the state; and mixed
enterprises, which bring together the government and private sector,
with the state retaining at least a 51 percent share of the enterprise.
Among the best known decentralized agencies in Honduras are the National
Autonomous University of Honduras (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
Honduras-- UNAH); the Central Bank of Honduras (Banco Central de
Honduras); the National Agrarian Institute (Instituto Nacional
Agrario--INA); the Honduran Banana Corporation (Corporación Hondureña
de Bananas); the Honduran Forestry Development Corporation (Corporación
Hondureña de Desarrollo Forestal--Cohdefor); the Honduran Coffee
Institute (Corporación Hondureña deCafe); the Honduran Social Security
Institute (Instituto Hondureño de Seguro Social--IHSS); the National
Council of Social Welfare (Consejo Nacional de Bienestar Social); and
the National Electric Energy Enterprise (Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica).
In addition to its legislative activities, the National Congress also
has other extensive powers, particularly regarding other branches of the
government and other institutions of the Honduran state. The National
Congress is charged with electing numerous government officials: the
nine principal justices and seven alternates of the Supreme Court of
Justice, including its president; the commander in chief of the armed
forces; the comptroller general; the attorney general; and the director
of administrative probity. In practice, however, the National Congress
generally rubberstamps the choices of the president, or, in the case of
the commander in chief of the armed forces, of the military. The
National Congress may declare that there are grounds for impeachment of
certain high-ranking government officials, including the president and
presidential designates, Supreme Court justices, cabinet ministers and
deputy secretaries, and the commander in chief of the armed forces.
In its oversight role, the National Congress may approve or
disapprove the administrative conduct of the other two branches of
government, the TNE, the comptroller general, the attorney general, and
the decentralized institutions. The National Congress may also question
the cabinet secretaries and other officials of the government,
decentralized institutions, and other entities concerning matters
related to public administration.
With regard to the military and national security, as noted above,
the National Congress elects the commander in chief of the armed forces
from a list of three proposed by the Consuffaa. The National Congress
may fix the permanent number of members of the armed forces and confer
all ranks from major to major general, at the joint proposal of the
commander in chief of the armed forces and the president. It may
authorize or refuse the president's request for the crossing of foreign
troops through national territory. It may also authorize the entrance of
foreign military missions of technical assistance or cooperation in the
country. The National Congress may declare an executive-branch
restriction or suspension of individual rights or guarantees in
accordance with constitutional provisions, or it may modify or
disapprove of the restriction or suspension enacted by the president.
With regard to foreign policy, the National Congress has the power to
declare war or make peace at the request of the president. The National
Congress also may approve or disapprove international treaties signed by
the executive branch.
Regarding government finances, the National Congress is charged with
adopting annually (and modifying if desired) the general budget of
revenue and expenditures based on the executive branch's proposal. The
National Congress has control over public revenues and has power to levy
taxes, assessments, and other public charges. It approves or disapproves
the formal accounts of public expenditures based on reports submitted by
the comptroller general and loans and similar agreements related to
public credit entered into by the executive branch.
The legislative branch has two auxiliary agencies, the Office of the
Comptroller General and the Directorate of Administrative Probity, both
of which are functionally and administratively independent. The Office
of the Comptroller General is exclusively responsible for the
post-auditing of the public treasury. It maintains the administration of
public funds and properties and audits the accounts of officials and
employees who handle these funds and properties. It audits the financial
operations of agencies, entities, and institutions of the government,
including decentralized institutions. It examines the books kept by the
state and accounts rendered by the executive branch to the National
Congress on the operations of the public treasury and reports to the
National Congress on its findings. The Directorate of Administrative
Probity audits the accounts of public officials or employees to prevent
their unlawful enrichment.
Some observers maintain that the National Congress gradually became a
more effective and independent institution in the decade after the
country returned to civilian rule in 1982. According to political
scientist Mark Rosenberg, under the presidency of Suazo Córdova the
institution appeared only to function as a rubber stamp for the
executive branch, with little interest in promoting or creating policy
initiatives. Under the Azcona government (1986-90), however, the
National Congress became more assertive in its relations with the
executive branch--with a more vigorous use of its oversight powers and
more active interest in developing legislation. This trend continued
under the Callejas presidency. In 1993 a new legislative support body,
the Data Processing and Legislative Studies Center (Centro de Informática
y Estudios Legislativas--CIEL), was created with the assistance of the
United States Agency for International Development (AID) to help provide
computer and analytical support to the committees and deputies of the
National Congress.
Other observers stress the executive dominance over the legislative
branch in almost all areas of public policy. They point out that the
tradition of a strong executive is deeply embedded in the national
psyche, with the National Congress itself not willing or able to take
responsibility for its congressional obligations. The general public
view of the National Congress is that deputies use their offices for
personal and political gain. As a result, most people contact executive
branch officials to promote causes, a practice that reinforces executive
dominance and makes it difficult for the congressional leadership to
transform the National Congress into an equal partner in government.
The nation's electoral law also limits the independence and
ultimately the effectiveness of the National Congress. Elections for the
National Congress are held at the same time as presidential elections,
and voters must use a unitary ballot that contains a party's
presidential candidate, as well as its list of congressional candidates
for each department. Voters are not allowed to split their tickets for
national offices; however, in November 1993, voters for the first time
could spilt their ticket for president and mayor. The percentage of
votes that a presidential candidate receives in each department
determines the number of deputies from each party selected to represent
that department. In effect, voters are not sure whom they are electing
to the National Congress. There is no direct accountability to the
electorate. Instead, deputies respond to party leadership, and party
loyalty and bloc voting are the norm. The two major parties dominate the
National Congress, with smaller parties finding it difficult to gain
representation. In the 1989 national elections, the PNH won seventy-one
seats in the National Congress, and the PLH captured fifty-five seats.
The small Pinu won just two seats, and the Honduran Christian Democratic
Party (Partido Demócrata Cristiano de Honduras--PDCH) gained no seats.
Efforts to change the unitary ballot for the presidential and
legislative candidates for the November 1993 elections were
unsuccessful, largely because the two dominant parties overcame pressure
by the two smaller parties for separate ballots.
The judicial branch of government consists of a Supreme Court of
Justice, courts of appeal, courts of first instance (Juzgados de
Letras), and justices of the peace. The Supreme Court, which is the
court of last resort, has nine principal justices and seven alternates.
The Supreme Court has fourteen constitutional powers and duties. These
include the appointment of judges and justices of the lower courts and
public prosecutors; the power to declare laws to be unconstitutional;
the power to try high-ranking government officials when the National
Congress has declared that there are grounds for impeachment; and
publication of the court's official record, the Gaceta Judicial.
The court has three chambers-- civil, criminal, and labor--with three
justices assigned to each chamber.
Organizationally below the Supreme Court are the courts of appeal.
These courts are three-judge panels that hear all appeals from the lower
courts, including civil, commercial, criminal and habeas corpus cases.
To be eligible to sit on these courts, the judges must be attorneys and
at least twenty-five years old. In the early 1990s, there were nine
courts of appeal, four in Tegucigalpa, two in San Pedro Sula, and one
each in La Ceiba, Comayagua, and Santa Bárbara. Two of these courts of
appeal, one in the capital and one in San Pedro Sula, specialized in
labor cases. In addition, a contentious-administrative court, which
dealt with public administration, was located in Tegucigalpa, but had
jurisdiction throughout the country.
The next level of courts are first instance courts, which serve as
trial courts in serious civil and criminal cases. In the early 1990s,
there were sixty-four such courts. Although half of the first instance
courts were in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, each departmental capital
had at least one. Half of the sixty-four courts covered both civil and
criminal cases, eight just covered criminal cases, and seven covered
civil cases. There were also six labor courts, six family courts, two
juvenile courts, two tenant courts, and one contentious-administrative
court. Most of the judges, who must be at least twenty-one years old,
held degrees in juridical science. Although judges are required to be
licensed attorneys, many in fact are not.
The lowest level of the court system consists of justices of the
peace distributed throughout the country. Each department capital and
municipalities with populations of more than 4,000 are supposed to have
two justices, and municipalities with populations less than 4,000 are
supposed to have one justice of the peace. Justices of the peace
handling criminal cases act as investigating magistrates and are
involved only in minor cases. More serious criminal cases are handled by
the first instance courts. Justices of the peace must be more than
twenty-one years of age, live in the municipality where they have
jurisdiction, and have the ability to read and write. In 1990 there were
an estimated 320 justices of the peace, with thirty responsible for
civil cases, thirty for criminal cases, and the remaining 260 justices
covering both civil and criminal cases. Political patronage has
traditionally been the most important factor in appointing justices of
the peace, and this practice has often led to less than qualified
judicial personnel, some of whom have not completed primary education.
The constitution requires that the judicial branch of government is
to receive not less than 3 percent of the annual national budget, but in
practice this requirement has never been met. For example, in 1989 the
judiciary received 1.63 percent of the national budget, just slightly
more than one-half of the amount constitutionally required.
As in previous years, in the early 1990s the Honduran judicial system
has been the subject of numerous criticisms, including widespread
corruption and continuing ineffectiveness with regard to holding
military members or civilian elites accountable for their crimes.
According to the United States Department of State's human rights report
for 1992, the civilian judiciary in Honduras "is weak, underfunded,
politicized, inefficient, and corrupt." The report further charged
that the judiciary remains vulnerable to outside influence and suffers
from woefully inadequate funding, and that the Callejas government is
unable to ensure that many human rights violations are fully
investigated, or that most of the perpetrators, either military or
civilian, are brought to justice. Justice is reported to be applied
inequitably, with the poor punished according to the law, but the rich
or politically influential almost never brought to trial, much less
convicted or jailed.
One frequent criticism has focused on the executive branch's
dominance over the judiciary. Because a new Supreme Court is appointed
every four years with the change in the presidency and because the
executive essentially controls the selection of the justices, the
judiciary is largely beholden to the president. This loyalty to the
executive permeates the judicial branch because the Supreme Court
appoints all lower court justices. To eliminate this partisanship in the
courts, the Modernization of the State Commission, established by
President Callejas, proposed that the constitution be amended to change
the way Supreme Court justices are appointed. According to the proposal,
justices would hold seven-year appointments and would be selected from a
list of candidates developed by a special committee composed of those
who work in the justice sector.
Another criticism notes that judicial personnel are often unqualified
for their positions. Although a Judicial Career Law (which requires that
all hiring and promotions be based on merit and that all firings based
on cause) was approved in 1980, the government did not begin
implementing the law until 1991 because of the overall lack of political
will. The United States Department of State's human rights report for
1992 maintained that results have been few, but AID states that the law
could be fully implemented by 1995. AID has lent support to the Honduran
court since 1985 and in 1989 began an experimental program designed to
improve the selection process for justices of the peace so that the
appointed justices would hold law degrees. By 1991 the AID program
accounted for the qualifications of eighty-one justices of the peace,
and AID estimated that by 1995 about half of all justices of the peace
would have law degrees.
Closely associated with the judicial system and the administration of
justice in Honduras is the Office of the Attorney General, which, as
provided in the constitution, is the legal representative of the state,
representing the state's interests. Both the attorney general and the
deputy attorney general are elected by the National Congress for a
period of four years, coinciding with the presidential and legislative
terms of office. The attorney general is expected to initiate civil and
criminal actions based on the results of the audits of the Office of the
Comptroller General. The law creating the Office of the Attorney General
was first enacted in 1961.
Although some public prosecutors operate out of the Office of the
Attorney General, most operate out of the Office of the Public
Prosecutor of the Supreme Court. The public prosecutor of the Supreme
Court also serves as chief of the Prosecutor General's Office
(Ministerio Público) as provided under the 1906 Law of the Organization
and Attributions of the Courts. In April 1993, the Ad Hoc Commission for
Institutional Reform created by President Callejas recommended the
creation of a Prosecutor General's Office as an independent, autonomous,
and apolitical organization, not under either the Supreme Court or the
Office of the Attorney General. The prosecutor general would be
appointed by the National Congress by a two-thirds vote for a seven-year
appointment. The ad hoc commission also recommended that this new
Prosecutor General's Office have under it a newly created Department of
Criminal Investigation (Departamento de Investigación Criminal--DIC), a
police and investigatory corps that would replace the current DIN, a
department of the Public Security Force (Fuerza de Seguridad Pública--Fusep)
that has often been associated with human rights abuses.
Honduras - Local Government
Honduras is administratively divided into eighteen departments (Atlántida,
Choluteca, Colón, Comayagua, Copán, Cortés, El Paraíso, Francisco
Morazán, Gracias a Dios, Intibucá, Islas de la Bahía (Bay Islands),
La Paz, Lempira, Ocotepeque, Olancho, Santa Bárbara, Valle, and Yoro),
each with a designated department capital (cabecera). The
president of the republic freely appoints, and may freely remove,
governors for each department. Departmental governors represent the
executive branch in official acts in their department and serve as the
tie between the executive branch and other national agencies and
institutions that might have delegations working in the department. Each
governor may freely appoint and remove a secretary to assist him or her.
If a governor is absent more than five days, the mayor of the
departmental capital substitutes for the governor. The costs of running
the departmental governments fall under the budget of the Ministry of
Government and Justice.
The departments are further divided into 291 municipalities (municipios)
nationwide, including a Central District consisting of the cities of
Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela. A municipality in Honduras may include
more than one city within its boundaries, and is therefore similar to
the jurisdiction of county in the United States. In addition to cities,
municipalities may also include aldeas (villages) and caseríos
(hamlets), which are scattered concentrations of populations outside
urban areas. The urbanized cities may be divided into smaller divisions
known as colonias (colonies) and barrios (neighborhoods).
The municipalities are administered by elected corporations,
deliberative organs that are accountable to the courts of justice for
abuses, and are supposed to be autonomous or independent of the central
government's powers. The municipal corporations consist of a mayor (alcalde),
who is the paramount executive authority in a municipality, and a
municipal council that varies in size depending on the population of the
municipality. Those municipalities with a population of less than 5,000
have four council members, those with a population of between 5,000 and
10,000 have six, and those with a population between 10,000 and 80,000
have eight. All the department capitals, regardless of their population,
and municipalities with a population of more than 80,000 have ten
council members.
The municipal corporations meet at least two times per month in
ordinary sessions, but special sessions may be called by the mayor or by
at least two council members. Each municipal corporation has a
secretary, freely appointed and removed by a majority of the members of
the corporation, and a treasurer, named by the corporation at the
request of the mayor. Municipalities with annual revenue of more than
one million lempiras are to have an auditor named by the municipal corporation;
however, in the early 1990s, the majority of Honduran municipalities had
an annual revenue of less than one million lempiras.
The constitution sets forth several provisions regarding the
municipalities. According to Article 299, the economic and social
development of the municipalities must form part of the nation's
development plans. Each municipality is also to have sufficient communal
land in order to ensure its existence and development. Citizens of
municipalities are entitled to form civic associations, federations, or
confederations in order to ensure the improvement and development of the
municipalities. In general, income and investment taxes in a
municipality are paid into the municipal treasury.
In 1990 a new Law of Municipalities covering both departmental and
municipal administration superseded the previous municipal law issued in
1927. The new law set forth the numerous rights and responsibilities of
the municipalities and public administration at the municipal level. It
also outlined the concept of municipal autonomy, characterized by free
elections; free public administration and decisions; the collection and
investment of resources with special attention on the preservation of
the environment; the development, approval, and administration of a
municipal budget; the organization and management of public services;
the right of the municipality to create its own administrative
structure; and municipal control over natural resources. The law also
outlines twenty-one functions of the municipal corporations, which
include the following responsibilities: organizing public administration
and services, developing and implementing a municipal budget, appointing
public employees and naming needed public commissions, planning urban
development, and consulting the public through plebiscites on important
municipal issues and through open public meetings with representatives
of the various social sectors of the municipality.
Under the law, each municipality has a Municipal Development Council
named by the corporation and consisting of representatives of the
various economic and social sectors of the municipality. The Municipal
Development Council functions in an advisory capacity by providing the
corporations with information and input for making decisions. The law
also calls for a special law to be enacted to regulate the organization
and functioning of a national Institute of Municipal Development to
promote the integrated development of municipalities in Honduras.
Traditionally, the central government in Honduras, whether civilian
or military, has dominated local government, and some observers maintain
that local mayors and municipal corporations have served largely as
administrative arms of the central government. With the return to
democratic rule in 1982, however, there has been a shift, at least in
theory, to promote the economic development and political independence
of the municipalities. New provisions in the 1982 constitution call for
economic and social development in the municipalities to form parts of
national development programs and outline the right of citizens to form
organizations to ensure the improvement and development of the
municipalities.
The Callejas government emphasized support for political and
administrative decentralization from the executive branch to the
municipalities. In fact, one of the objectives in establishing the
Modernization of the State Commission in 1990 was to reduce the
centralism of the executive branch through the effective and orderly
transfer of functions and resources to the municipalities in order to
fortify their autonomy. The promulgation of the new Law of
Municipalities in 1990 was further evidence of the Callejas government's
emphasis on municipal development. Observers noted, however, that the
executive branch, particularly through the decentralized agencies and
institutions, still wielded significant power at the local level in the
early 1990s.
One significant measure approved in 1992 was reform of the nation's
electoral law for the 1993 national elections. For the first time, the
law would allow voters to cast their ballots separately for mayoral
candidates. In previous elections, the practice of split-party voting
was not allowed, and the mayors were elected based on the percentage of
the vote received by the presidential candidates. The reform of the
electoral law is significant in that it makes elected mayors directly
accountable to the electorate and strengthens the democratic process at
the local level. The reform could also strengthen the chances for the
nation's two smaller parties to gain representation in the
municipalities.
Honduras - The Electoral Process
The president is elected along with three presidential designates
(who essentially function as vice presidents) for fouryear terms of
office beginning on January 27. The president and the presidential
designates must be Honduran by birth, more than thirty years old, and
enjoy the rights of Honduran citizenship. Additional restrictions
prohibit public servants and members of the military from serving as
president. Commanders and general officers of the armed forces and
senior officers of the police or state security forces are ineligible.
Active-duty members of any armed body are not eligible if they have
performed their functions during the previous twelve months before the
election. The relatives (fourth degree by blood and second degree by
marriage) and spouse of each military officer serving on Consuffaa are
also ineligible, as are the relatives of the president and the
presidential delegates. Numerous high-level public servants, including
the presidential designates, cabinet secretaries and deputy secretaries,
members of the TNE, and justices and judges of the judicial branch, are
prohibited from serving as president if they have held their positions
six months prior to the election.
If the president dies or vacates office, the order of succession is
spelled out in Article 242 of the 1982 constitution. The presidential
designates are the first three potential successors; the National
Congress elects one to exercise executive power for the remainder of the
presidential term. The president of the National Congress and the
president of the Supreme Court of Justice are the fourth and fifth
successors, respectively. During a temporary absence, the president may
call upon one of the presidential designates to replace him.
The president, who is the representative of the Honduran state, has a
vast array of powers as head of the executive branch. The constitution
delineates forty-five presidential powers and responsibilities. The
president has the responsibility to comply with and enforce the
constitution, treaties and conventions, laws, and other provisions of
Honduran law. He or she directs the polices of the state and fully
appoints and dismisses secretaries and deputy secretaries of the cabinet
and other high-ranking officials and employees (including governors of
the eighteen departments) whose appointment is not assigned to other
authorities.
To be elected to the National Congress, one must be a Honduran by
birth who enjoys the rights of citizenship and is at least twenty-one
years old. There are a number of restrictions regarding eligibility for
election to the National Congress. Certain government officials and
relatives of officials are not eligible if the position was held six
months prior to the election. All officials or employees of the
executive and judicial branches, except teachers and health-care
workers, are prohibited from being elected, as are active duty members
of any armed force, highranking officials of the decentralized
institutions, members of the TNE, the attorney general and deputy
attorney general, the comptroller general, and the director and deputy
director of administrative probity. Spouses and relatives (fourth degree
by blood and second degree by marriage) of certain high ranking civilian
officials and certain military officials are also prohibited from
serving in the National Congress, as are delinquent debtors of the
National Treasury.
The nine principal justices and seven alternates on the Supreme Court
of Justice are elected by the National Congress for a term of four years
concomitant with the presidential and legislative terms of office. The
National Congress also selects a president for the Supreme Court, and
justices may be reelected. To be eligible, a justice must be Honduran by
birth, a lawyer, a member of the bar association, more than thirty-five
years of age, enjoy the rights of citizenship, and have held the post of
trial judge or a judge on a court of appeals for at least five years.
Since the country returned to civilian democratic rule in 1982,
national elections in Honduras have been held every four years for the
presidency, the National Congress, and municipal officials. As provided
for in the constitution and in the country's Electoral and Political
Organizations Law, the National Elections Tribunal (Tribunal Nacional de
Elecciones--TNE) is an autonomous and independent body, with
jurisdiction throughout the country and with responsibility for the
organization and conduct of elections. The composition of the TNE
consists of one principal member and an alternate proposed by the
Supreme Court, and one principal member and an alternate proposed by
each of the four registered political parties, the PLH, the PNH, the
Pinu, and the PDCH. The presidency of the tribunal rotates among the
members, with a term lasting one year. The TNE also names members of
Departmental Elections Tribunals and Local Elections Tribunals, each
with representatives from the four legally inscribed parties. The TNE
has numerous rights and responsibilities, including inscribing political
parties and candidates, registering voters, resolving electoral
complaints, establishing the time and places for voting, training poll
workers, and counting and reporting votes.
The National Registry of Persons, a dependency of the TNE, is
responsible for issuing to all Hondurans exclusive identity cards, which
also serve as voter registration cards, and for preparing the National
Electoral Census at least five months before an election. All Hondurans
are required by law to register with the National Registry of Persons.
According to some observers, a fundamental problem with the TNE is
its politicization. Observers charge that the staffs of both the TNE and
the National Registry of Persons are predominantly composed of political
appointees with little competence or commitment. Representation is
skewed toward the party in power because of the representative proposed
by the Supreme Court, which essentially is a representative of the
government in power. In 1985 President Suazo Córdova brazenly used the
TNE to attempt to support unrepresentative factions of the two major
parties. Military leader General Walter López Reyes impeded Suazo Córdova's
attempt by modifying the electoral system so that party primaries and
the general elections were held at the same time. The winner would be
the leading candidate of the party receiving the most votes. As a
result, PLH candidate José Azcona Hoyo was elected president by
receiving just 25 percent of the vote, compared with the PNH candidate,
Rafael Leonardo Callejas Romero, who received 45 percent. Subsequently,
however, for the 1989 elections, separate party primaries were required
to elect the candidates, resulting in just one candidate from each
party.
As the 1993 electoral campaign got underway, the PLH made numerous
charges that the National Electoral Census did not include the names of
many of its party members. Despite the charges, observers maintained
that the elections would probably be as legitimate as the past four
elections (Constituent Assembly elections in 1980 and national elections
in 1981, 1985, and 1989), which were conducted without serious
irregularities.
Honduras - Political Parties
Two Traditionally Dominant Parties
Honduras essentially has had two dominant political parties, the PNH
and the PLH, for most of this century, with the military allying itself
with the PNH for an extended period beginning in 1963. The PLH was
established in 1891 under the leadership of Policarpo Bonilla Vásquez
and had origins in the liberal reform efforts of the late nineteenth
century. The PNH was formed in 1902 by Manuel Bonilla as a splinter
group of the PLH. Between 1902 and 1948, these two parties were the only
officially recognized parties, a factor that laid the foundation for the
currently entrenched PNH (red) and PLH (blue) two-party system. In the
early 1990s, the internal workings of the two traditional political
parties appeared to be largely free of military influence. Since the
country returned to civilian rule in 1982, the military has not
disrupted the constitutional order by usurping power as it did in 1956,
1963, and 1972, and it no longer appears to favor one party over the
other as it did with the PNH for many years.
There appear to be few ideological differences between the two
traditional parties. The PLH, or at least factions of the PLH, formerly
espoused an antimilitarist stance, particularly because of the PNH's
extended alliance with the military. The two PLH presidencies of the
1980s, however, appeared to end the PLH's antipathy toward the military.
According to political scientists Ronald H. McDonald and J. Mark Ruhl,
both parties are patron-client networks more interested in amassing
political patronage than in offering effective programs. As observed by
political scientist Mark Rosenberg, Honduran politicians emphasize
competition and power, not national problem-solving, and governing in
Honduras is determined by personal authority and power instead of
institutions. The objective of political competition between the two
parties has not been a competition for policies or programs, but rather
a competition for personal gain in which the public sector is turned
into private benefit. Nepotism is widespread and is an almost
institutionalized characteristic of the political system, whereby public
jobs are considered rewards for party and personal loyalty rather than
having anything to do with the public trust. The practice of using
political power for personal gain also helps explain how corruption
appears to have become a permanent characteristic not only of the
political system, but also of private enterprise.
Despite these characteristics, the two traditional parties have
retained the support of the majority of the population. Popular support
for the two traditional parties has been largely based on family
identification, with, according to political scientist Donald Schulz,
voting patterns passed on from generation to generation. According to
McDonald and Ruhl, about 60 percent of voters are identified with the
traditional parties, with the PLH having a 5 percent advantage over the
PNH.
Traditionally, the PNH has had a stronger constituency in rural areas
and in the less developed and southern agricultural departments, whereas
the PLH has been traditionally stronger in the urban areas and in the
more developed northern departments, although the party has had some
rural strongholds. In a study of five Honduran elections from 1957 to
1981, James Morris observes that the PLH had a strong base of support in
the five departments that made up the so-called central zone of the
country--Atlántida, Cortés, Francisco Morazán, El Paraíso, and Yoro.
The PNH had strong support in the more rural and isolated departments of
Copán, Lempira, Intibucá, and Gracias a Dios, and the southern
agricultural departments of Valle and Choluteca.
Looking more closely at the four national elections since 1980, one
notices two facts: the PLH dominated the elections of 1980, 1981 and
1985, at times capturing departments considered PNH bulwarks (Choluteca
and Valle), whereas the PNH crushed the PLH in the 1989 elections,
winning all but two departments, one the traditional PLH stronghold of
El Paraíso. Honduran scholar Julio Navarro has examined electoral
results since 1980 and observes that in the 1989 elections the PNH won
significantly not only at the department level but also at the municipal
level. Of the 289 municipalities in 1989, the PNH captured 217, or about
75 percent of the country's municipalities.
According to political analysts, two significant factors helped bring
about the success of the PNH in the 1989 elections: the cohesiveness and
unity of the PNH and the disorder and internal factionalism of the PLH.
The PLH has had a tradition of factionalism and internal party disputes.
In the early 1980s, there were two formal factions: the conservative
Rodista Liberal Movement (Movimiento Liberal Rodista--MLR), named for
deceased party leader Modesto Rodas Alvarado and controlled by Roberto
Suazo Córdova; and the center-left Popular Liberal Alliance (Alianza
Liberal del Pueblo--Alipo), founded by brothers Carlos Roberto Reina and
Jorge Arturo Reina. By 1985, however, there were five different factions
of the PLH. Alipo had split with the Reina brothers to form the
Revolutionary Liberal Democratic Movement (Movimiento Liberal Democrático
Revolucionario--M-Lider), which represented a more strongly antimilitary
platform, and another faction led by newspaper publisher Jaime Rosenthal
retained the Alipo banner. The MLR split into three factions: one led by
President Suazo Córdova, which supported Oscar Mejía Arellano as a
1985 presidential candidate; a second faction headed by Efraín Bu Girón,
who also became a presidential candidate; and a third faction led by José
Azcona Hoyo, who ultimately was elected president with the support of
Alipo, which did not run a candidate. Only the complicated electoral
process utilized in the 1985 elections, which combined party primaries
and the general election, allowed the PLH to maintain control of the
government.
Three PNH factions also vied for the presidency in the 1985
elections, but the National Movement of Rafael Callejas (Movimiento
Nacionalista Rafael Callejas--Monarca) easily triumphed over factions
led by Juan Pablo Urrutia and Fernando Lardizabel, with Callejas winning
45 percent of the total national vote and almost 94 percent of the PNH
vote. PNH unity around the leadership of Callejas endured through the
1989 elections. Callejas was responsible for modernizing the
organization of the PNH and incorporating diverse social and economic
sectors into the party. As a result, in the 1989 elections he was able
to break the myth of PLH inviolability that had been established in the
three previous elections of the 1980s. In the 1989 contest, the PNH
broke PLH strongholds throughout the country.
The PLH was not as successful as the PNH in achieving party unity for
the 1989 elections. The PLH candidate, Carlos Flores Facusse, had
survived a bruising four-candidate party primary in December 1988 in
which he received 35.5 percent of the total vote. As noted by Julio
Navarro, Flores was an extremely vulnerable candidate because in the
primary he did not win major urban areas or departments considered PLH
strongholds.
The electoral campaign for the November 1993 national elections was
well underway by mid-1993. The PLH nominated Carlos Roberto Reina Idiáquez,
a founder of M-Lider and former president of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights (IACHR), the leftist PLH faction. The PNH nominated
conservative and controversial Osvaldo Ramos Soto, former Supreme Court
president and former rector of the UNAH in the 1980s. As of mid-1993,
public opinion polls showed the two candidates about even.
Reina won his party's nomination in elections on December 6, 1992, by
capturing 47.5 percent of the vote in a six-candidate primary; second
place was taken by newspaper publisher Rosenthal, who received 26.1
percent of the vote. Unlike the PLH primary of December 1988, the 1992
PLH nomination process demonstrated the party's strong support for
Reina, who won in fourteen out of eighteen departments. Reina, who
represented Honduras before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in
the border conflict with El Salvador, advocated a "moral
revolution" in the country and vowed to punish those who enriched
themselves through corruption.
The nomination process for the PNH was not an open process like that
of the PLH, and a vote scheduled for November 29, 1993, served only to
legalize the candidacy of Ramos Soto. The actual process of choosing the
PNH candidate had occurred several months earlier, in July 1992, when
the Monarca faction and the Ramos Soto faction struck a deal in which
Ramos Soto was to be the candidate. The Monarca's presidential
precandidate, Nora Gunera de Melgar (the widow of General Juan Alberto
Melgar Castro, former head of state), was eliminated from consideration
despite her objections. Other minor factions were not allowed to present
their candidates.
In his campaign, Ramos Soto described himself as a "successful
peasant" ("campesino superado"), alluding to his
humble origins in order to gain popular support. Despite capturing the
nomination, Ramos Soto encountered some resistance to his PNH candidacy,
with some party members believing that his election would be a setback
for the modernization program begun by President Callejas. Other
Honduran sectors remembered Ramos Soto's reign as UNAH rector when he
led a campaign to oust leftist student groups. Some human rights
activists even claimed that Ramos Soto had collaborated with the
military to assassinate leftists at the university.
Honduras - Smaller Political Parties and Movements
Since Honduras's return to civilian democratic rule in the 1980s, two
small centrist political parties, the Pinu and the PDCH, have
participated in regular national presidential and legislative elections.
Neither party, however, has challenged the political domination of the
two traditional parties. Both parties have received most of their
support from urban centers of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, Choluteca,
and La Ceiba. In the presidential elections of 1981, 1985, and 1989,
Pinu received 2.5 percent, 1.4 percent, and 1.8 percent, respectively,
and the PDCH received 1.6 percent, 1.9 percent, and 1.4 percent. Both
parties have presented presidential candidates for the 1993 national
elections.
Pinu was first organized in 1970 by businessman Miguel Andonie Fernández
as an effort to reform and reinvigorate the nation's political life.
This urban-based group, which draws support from middle-class
professionals, first attempted to gain legal recognition (personería
jurídica) in 1970, but the PNH blocked Pinu's attempts until the
1980 Constituent Assembly elections. Pinu won three seats in those
elections, important because only two votes separated the two
traditional parties in the National Congress. Pinu also held a cabinet
position in the provisional government headed by General Policarpo Paz
García (1980-82) in 1980. In the 1981 elections, Pinu acquired three
legislative seats, whereas in the 1985 and 1989 elections it won only
two seats. Pinu became affiliated with the Social Democratic
International in 1988. In 1985 and 1989, Enrique Aguilar Cerrato was the
Pinu presidential candidate, and in 1993 businessperson Olban Valladares
was the party's candidate.
The origins of the Honduras Christian Democratic Party (Partido Demócrata
de Honduras--PDCH) date back to the 1960s, when, in the wake of Vatican
Council II, the Roman Catholic Church became involved in the development
of community organizations, including unions, and student and peasant
groups. In 1968 lay persons associated with the Roman Catholic Church
founded the Christian Democratic Movement of Honduras (Movimiento Demócrata
Cristiano de Honduras--MDCH), which in 1975 became the PDCH. According
to Mark Rosenberg, the party became more progressive than the Roman
Catholic Church and maintained solid ties with peasant organizations.
Although the party applied for legal recognition, the PNH blocked the
process, and the party did not receive recognition until late 1980, too
late to be part of the Constituent Assembly drafting a new constitution,
but just in time to compete in the 1981 national elections. In those
elections, the PDCH earned just one seat in the National Congress. In
the 1985 elections, the party won two seats in the National Congress,
but in 1989 it did not win any representation. Efraín Díaz
Arrivillaga, who reportedly gave the party the reputation for being the
"conscience" of the Honduran National Congress in the 1980s,
was the PDCH's 1989 presidential candidate; the 1993 candidate was
businessperson Marcos Orlando Iriarte Arita.
In the early 1980s, amidst the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and the civil conflict in El
Salvador, several radical leftist guerrilla groups that advocated some
type of armed action against the Honduran government were formed in
Honduras. The Honduran Revolutionary Party of Central American Workers
(Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores Centroaméricanos de
Honduras--PRTCH) was formed in 1976 as part of a regional party. The
Morazanist Front for the Liberation of Honduras (Frente Morazanista para
la Liberación de Honduras--FMLH), first active in 1980, was named for
Honduran national hero Francisco Morazán, who had tried to keep the
Central American states unified in the early nineteenth century. The
Lorenzo Zelaya Popular Revolutionary Forces (Fuerzas Populares
Revolucionarias Lorenzo Zelaya--FPR-LZ), founded in 1980 and named for a
communist peasant leader who was murdered in 1965, traced its roots to a
pro- Chinese faction of the PCH. The Cinchoneros Popular Liberation
Movement (Movimiento Popular de Liberación Cinchoneros--MPLC), founded
in 1981, was named for a nineteenth century peasant leader. With the
exception of the MPLC which had about 300 members, the groups had
memberships of fewer than 100 participants each.
In 1982 these new radical groups joined the Communist Party of
Honduras (Partido Comunista de Honduras--PCH), under the loose umbrella
of the National Unified Directorate-Movement of Revolutionary Unity
(Directorio Nacional Unificado-Movimiento de Unidad
Revolucionario--DNU-MUR). The PCH, which was formed in 1927, had been
the country's major leftist opposition group through the 1970s, but had
rarely resorted to violence before its affiliation with the DNU-MUR. An
offshoot of the PCH that was not part of the DNU-MUR was the
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Honduras (Partido Comunista
Marxista-Leninista de Honduras--PCMLH), formed in 1967 by PCH
dissidents.
Guerrilla groups in Honduras were responsible for numerous terrorist
incidents throughout the 1980s. These included a successful plane
hijacking in exchange for the freeing of political prisoners, the
holding of hostages, bombings, and attacks against United States
military personnel and advisers. Political assassinations included the
January 1989 murder of General Gustavo lvarez Martinez by the members of
the MPLC. Nevertheless, compared with neighboring El Salvador and
Nicaragua, these groups were small and did not attract much popular
support. According to analysts, one fundamental reason is the
conservative nature of Honduran society, which is not conducive to a
revolutionary uprising. Moreover, according to political scientist
Donald Schulz, Honduran society is characterized by a network of
interlocking interest groups and political organizations that have
reconciled conflicts that could have turned violent. Schulz also
observes that important escape valves like agrarian reform, a strong
union movement, an entrenched two-party system, and the restoration of
elected democracy in the 1980s also enabled Honduras to escape the
revolution of its neighbors.
Some analysts maintain that another important factor explaining why
revolutionary groups did not gain much ground in Honduras was the
government's swift use of repression. In the early 1980s, when General
was military chief, the military waged a campaign against leftist groups
that included political assassinations, disappearances, and illegal
detentions. Those leftist political leaders who escaped the military's
campaign did so by going into exile. In the summer of 1983, the military
struck against the PRTCH, which reportedly was moving a contingent of
almost 100 guerrillas into the Honduran province of Olancho from
Nicaragua. The Honduran military claimed that most of the rebels were
killed in combat or died from exhaustion while hiding out from the
military, but human rights organizations maintain that most of the
rebels, including a United States-born Jesuit priest, James Carney, were
detained and executed.
With the end of the Contra war in Nicaragua in 1990 and a peace
accord in El Salvador in 1991, Honduran guerrilla groups lost important
sources of support. By 1992 most guerrilla groups, including the six
groups of the DNU-MUR, had largely ceased operating, and many political
exiles had returned to the country in order to take advantage of an
amnesty offered by the Callejas government. Some former exiles worked to
establish new political parties. For example, the PCMLH formed the Party
for the Transformation of Honduras (Partido para la Transformación de
Honduras--PTH), and the FMLH established the Morazanist Liberation Party
(Partido Morazanista de Liberación--PML). Other leftist groups
operating openly in the early 1990s included the Honduran Revolutionary
Party (Partido Revolucionario Hondureño--PRH), the Workers' Party
(Partido de los Trabajadores--PT), the Patriotic Renovation Party
(Partido de Renovación Patriótica--PRP), and the People's Democratic
Movement (Movimiento Democrático del Pueblo-- MDP).
These six parties, which reportedly planned to run under a united
front in 1998 elections, presented a plan to President Callejas in 1992
to reform the country's electoral law in order to facilitate the
participation of smaller parties in national elections; the plan
included a reduction of signatures required for a party to be legally
registered. In order to be legally registered, a political party must
complete a complex process that can be made even more complex by the
politicization of the electoral tribunal. A party seeking legal
recognition, according to the nation's Electoral and Political
Organizations Law, must have local organizations in at least half of the
nation's departments and municipalities, and must present valid
nominations of at least 20,000 registered voters affiliated with the
party asking to be registered.
Despite the incorporation of most leftist leaders and groups into the
political system, there were still sporadic terrorist actions in
Honduras in the early 1990s instigated by remnants or factions of the
armed guerrilla groups of the 1980s. For example, although four top
leaders of the Cinchoneros renounced armed struggle in May 1991, a
faction of the group still wanted to fight and was responsible for the
burning of an electric company building in 1992. Moreover, a small
fringe group known as the Morazanist Patriotic Front, which appeared to
be unrelated to the FMLH, vowed to continue armed struggle and claimed
responsibility for terrorist attacks and several political killings in
the early 1990s.
At various times during the 1980s, there were also reports of the
presence of right-wing extremist groups, which were associated with the
Honduran military. Most observers judged that the military and police
were largely responsible for right-wing extremism throughout the 1980s.
In the early 1980s, when the military was under the command of General
Álvarez, reportedly more than 140 disappearances of government
opponents were carried out, largely by a secret army unit, or death
squad apparatus, known as Battalion 3- 16. For the balance of the 1980s,
the military and police were reportedly involved in extrajudicial
killings of opponents and torture, but not at the high level of the
first part of the decade. In 1988 and 1989, a paramilitary group known
as the Alliance for Anticommunist Action (Alianza de Acción
Anticomunista--AAA), which human rights organizations contend was tied
to the military, was involved in a campaign to intimidate leftist
leaders and human rights activists. The AAA took credit for several
activities aimed at intimidating the left and human rights groups,
including making death threats, circulating threatening posters with the
AAA logo, and defacing property.
Honduras - Interest Groups
According to Mark Rosenberg, the private sector in Honduras has
historically been one of the weakest in Central America because of the
economy's domination by foreign-owned banana companies. The private
sector, however, got a boost in the 1960s with the creation of the
Central American Common Market (CACM--see Appendix B). In 1967 the
Honduran Private Enterprise Council (Consejo Hondureño de la Empresa
Privada--Cohep) was established to serve as an umbrella organization for
most private-sector business organizations.
In the early 1980s, a short-lived business organization, the
Association for the Progress of Honduras (Asociación para el Progreso
de Honduras--Aproh), was formed during the presidency of Suazo Córdova;
it was headed by armed forces commander General lvarez. Aproh, which was
made up of conservative business leaders, had an anticommunist bent, and
appeared to be a means for General lvarez to establish a power base
outside the military. It received a US$50,000 contribution from a front
group for the Unification Church, led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon,
which had begun to proselytize in Honduras. The existence of Aproh
appeared to be directly tied to the fate of General Álvarez, and as a
result, when he was ousted in 1984, Aproh lost its source of support and
fell into disarray. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church in Honduras
denounced the dangers posed by the Unification Church (whose members
were referred to as Moonies), a measure that was a further setback to
the fate of Aproh. In the 1993 presidential elections, Aproh received
media attention because PNH presidential candidate Osvaldo Ramos Soto
had been a prominent member of Aproh, coordinating its Committee for the
Defense and Support of Democratic Institutions. Human rights groups in
Honduras claimed that Aproh was associated with the political killings
and disappearances of leftist activists during the early 1980s.
In the early 1990s, Cohep was the most important businesssector
interest group, representing about thirty private-sector organizations.
Essentially an organization of the business elite that tries to
influence government policy, the group has often been used as a business
sounding board when the government is considering new policy
initiatives. Within Cohep, several organizations stand out as the most
powerful; they often issue their own statements or positions on the
government's economic policy. Among these, the Cortés Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (Cámara de Comercio e Industrias de Cortés--CCIC),
which represents the private sector of San Pedro Sula, was originally
formed in 1931, but was restructured in 1951 and since then has served
as a strong development proponent and vocal advocate for the northern
coastal region of the country. Another body, the National Association of
Industrialists (Asociación Nacional de Industriales- -ANDI), was a
vocal critic of the Callejas administration's liberalization program
designed to open the Honduran market to outside competition. Another
group, the Tegucigalpa Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Cámara de
Comercio de Industrias de Tegucigalpa--CCIT), supported the government's
trade liberalization efforts.
Overlapping with Cohep membership is the National Federation of
Agriculturists and Stockraisers of Honduras (Federación Nacional de
Agricultores y Ganaderos de Honduras--Fenagh). Founded in the 1960s, it
has been an active opponent of land reform, and in 1975 was responsible
for the killing of several people, including two priests, in a peasant
training center in Olancho department. Fenagh strongly supported a new
agricultural modernization law approved by the Honduran National
Congress in 1992 that was opposed by most peasant organizations. Another
organization that overlaps with Cohep's membership is the Honduran
Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Federación de Cámaras
de Comercio e Industrias de Honduras), founded in 1988, which functions
largely as a service organization for its members throughout the
country.
The private sector in Honduras is divided by a variety of rivalries.
These rivalries include the traditional competition between Tegucigalpa
and San Pedro Sula and the animosity between turco (Arab
immigrants who arrived early in this century carrying Ottoman
Empire--Turkish--travel documents) entrepreneurs and native-born
Honduran entrepreneurs. Divisions were also apparent in the early 1990s,
in conjunction with the trade liberalization efforts initiated by the
Callejas government. Those business sectors able to compete with
imported goods and services supported liberalization measures, whereas
those producers more dependent on government protection or subsidies
opposed the trade liberalization program.
Honduras - Labor and Peasant Organizations
The organized labor movement of Honduras, traditionally the strongest
in Central America, first began organizing in the early years of the
twentieth century. The movement, however, gained momentum only with the
great banana strike of 1954, at which point organized labor unions
became a political force in the country, at times having an important
impact on government policy. In that year, labor won the right to form
unions legally and to engage in collective bargaining. In addition, the
country's first national peasant organizations were formed in the
mid-1950s, and later picked up momentum when an Agrarian Reform Law was
enacted in 1962.
In the early 1990s, trade unions represented about 20 percent of the
Honduran labor force and exerted considerable economic and political
influence. According to the United States Department of State's 1992
human rights report, unions frequently participated in public rallies
against government policies and made use of the media. Unions also
gained wage and other concessions from employers through collective
bargaining and the use of the right to strike. For example, in May 1992,
direct negotiations between organized labor and the private sector led
to a 13.7 percent increase in the minimum wage, the third consecutive
annual increase.
Nevertheless, organized unions and peasant organizations still
experienced significant difficulties in the early 1990s. Retribution
against workers for trade union activity was not uncommon and the right
to bargain collectively was not always guaranteed. Union activists at
times were the target of political violence, including assassination,
and workers were at times harassed or fired for their trade union
activities. Several peasant leaders were killed for political reasons;
and in a highly publicized May 1991 massacre, five members of a peasant
organization were killed, reportedly by military members, because of a
land dispute. The government also at times supported pro- government
parallel unions over elected unions in an attempt to quiet labor unrest.
In 1993 Honduras had three major labor confederations: the
Confederation of Honduran Workers (Confederación de Trabajadores de
Honduras--CTH), claiming a membership of about 160,000 workers; the
General Workers' Central (Central General de Trabajadores--CGT),
claiming to represent 120,000 members; and the Unitary Confederation of
Honduran Workers (Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores de
Honduras--CUTH), a new confederation formed in May 1992, with an
estimated membership of about 30,000. The three confederations included
numerous trade union federations, individual unions, and peasant
organizations.
The CTH, the nation's largest trade confederation, was formed in 1964
by the nation's largest peasant organization, the National Association
of Honduran Peasants (Asociación Nacional de Campesinos de
Honduras--Anach), and by Honduran unions affiliated with the
Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers (Organización Regional
Interamericana de Trabajadores--ORIT), a hemispheric labor organization
with close ties to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO). In the early 1990s, the confederation
had three major components, the 45,000- member Federation of Unions of
National Workers of Honduras (Federación Sindical de Trabajadores
Nacionales de Honduras-- Fesitranh), the 22,000-member Central
Federation of Honduran Free Trade Unions (Federación Central de
Sindicatos Libres de Honduras), and the 2,200-member Federation of
National Maritime Unions of Honduras (Federación de Sindicales Marítimas
Nacionales de Honduras). In addition, Anach, claiming to represent
between 60,000-80,000 members, was affiliated with Fesitranh. Fesitranh
was by far the country's most powerful labor federation, with most of
its unions located in San Pedro Sula and the Puerto Cortés Free Zone.
The unions of the United States-owned banana companies and the United
States-owned petroleum refinery also were affiliated with Fesitranh. The
CTH received support from foreign labor organizations, including ORIT;
the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD); and Germany's
Friedreich Ebert Foundation. The CTH was an affiliate of the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).
The CGT, first formed in 1970, but not legally recognized until 1982,
was originally formed by the Christian Democrats and received external
support from the World Confederation of Labor (WCL) and the Latin
American Workers Central (Central Latinoamericana de
Trabajadores--CLAT), a regional organization supported by Christian
Democratic parties. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, the CGT
leadership developed close ties to the PNH, and several leaders served
in the Callejas government. Another national peasant organization, the
National Union of Peasants (Unión Nacional de Campesinos--UNC),
claiming a membership of 40,000, has been affiliated with the CGT for
many years and is a principal force within the confederation.
The CUTH was formed in May 1992 by two principal labor federations,
the Unitary Federation of Honduran Workers (Federación Unitaria de
Trabajadores de Honduras--FUTH) and the Independent Federation of
Honduran Workers (Federación Independiente de Trabajadores de
Honduras--FITH), as well as several smaller labor groups, all critical
of the Callejas government's strong neoliberal economic reform program.
The Marxist FUTH, with an estimated 16,000 members in the early 1990s,
was first organized in 1980 by three communist-influenced unions, but
did not receive legal status until 1988. The federation had external
ties with the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the Permanent
Congress for Latin American Workers Trade Union Unity (Congreso
Permanente de Unidad Sindical de Trabajadores de América
Latina--CPUSTAL), and the Central American Committee of Trade Union
Unity (Comité de Unidad Sindical de Centroamérica--CUSCA). Its
affiliations included water utility, university, electricity company,
brewery, and teacher unions, as well as several peasant organizations,
including the National Central of Farm Workers (Central Nacional de
Trabajadores del Campo--CNTC), formed in 1985 and active in land
occupations in the early 1980s.
FUTH also became affiliated with a number of leftist popular
organizations in a group known as the Coordinating Committee of Popular
Organizations (Comité Coordinadora de las Organizaciones
Populares--CCOP) that was formed in 1984. The FITH, claiming about
13,000 members in the early 1990s, was granted legal status in 1988.
Originally formed by dissident FUTH members, the federation consisted of
fourteen unions.
Many Honduran peasant organizations were affiliated with the three
labor confederations in the early 1990s. Anach was created and received
legal recognition in 1962 in order to counter the communist-influenced
peasant movement of the National Federation of Honduran Peasants
(Federación Nacional de Campesinos de Honduras-- Fenach). In contrast,
Fenach never received legal recognition. Its offices were destroyed
following the 1963 military coup by Colonel Oswaldo López Arellano,
and, in 1965, seven of Fenach's leaders who had taken up armed struggle
against the government, including founder Lorenzo Zelaya, were killed by
the military. Anach became the primary peasant organization and in 1967
became affiliated with the CTH.
The UNC, traditionally a principal rival of Anach and traditionally
more radical than Anach, was established in 1970 but did not receive
legal recognition until 1984. The UNC traces its roots to the community
development organizations and peasant leagues established by the Roman
Catholic Church in the 1960s. The UNC was a founding member of the CGT
and had ideological ties to the MDCH.
In addition to Anach and the UNC, another large peasant organization
in the 1990s was the Honduran Federation of Agrarian Reform Cooperatives
(Federación de Cooperativas de la Reforma Agraria de
Honduras--Fecorah). The federation was formed in 1970 and received legal
recognition in 1974. In the early 1990s, Fecorah had about 22,000
members.
There were numerous attempts to unify the nation's peasant
organizations in the 1970s and 1980s, but the sector was characterized
by numerous divisions, including ideological divisions. For some peasant
organizations, political affiliation changed with changes in the
government. Disillusionment with the neglect of unions and peasant
organizations under the PLH administrations of the 1980s caused some
groups to move toward the PNH. In 1988 the three major peasant
organizations, Anach, the UNC, and Fecorah, along with smaller leftist
peasant groupings, united under the banner of the Coordinating Council
of Honduran Peasant Organizations (Consejo Coordinador de Organizaciones
Campesinas de Honduras--Cocoh) to lobby for agrarian reform. Just four
years later, however, in May 1992, the peasant movement was split by
disagreement over the Callejas government's proposed agricultural
modernization law. The three major peasant organizations all left Cocoh
to form the National Peasants Council (Consejo Nacional de
Campesinos--CNC), while leftist peasant organizations remained in Cocoh
and actively demonstrated against the proposed agricultural
modernization law.
From 1989 until 1992, the nation's major peasant organizations and
labor federations, a confederation of cooperatives, and several
professional organizations supported the "Platform of Struggle for
the Democratization of Honduras." The objective of the campaign was
to present far-reaching economic, social, and political reform proposals
to the national government, which included issuing several documents and
a manifesto. By 1993 however, this initiative had disappeared because of
divisions among the disparate groups and, according to some observers,
because of the Callejas government's success in coopting several
organizations.
The organized peasant movement in Honduras was an important, if not
determinant, factor in implementing an agrarian reform program. In the
early 1960s, because of increasing pressure on the government from
landless peasants and external pressure from the United States through
the Alliance for Progress, the PLH government of Ramón Villeda Morales
took significant steps toward implementing a land reform program. He
established the National Agrarian Institute (Instituto Nacional
Agrario--INA) in 1961 and the following year approved an agrarian reform
law that especially was aimed at the uncultivated lands of the United
States-owned fruit companies. The 1963 military coup and subsequent
repressive rule of General López Arellano brought an abrupt halt to
land redistribution. By the late 1960s, however, peasant organizations
were again increasing pressure on the government, and under a director
who was sympathetic to the peasant movement, the INA began to adjudicate
land claims in favor of peasants.
The election of conservative Ramón Ernesto Cruz as president in 1971
once again shifted the government's agrarian policy to one favoring the
large landholders, but with the 1972 coup, again led by General López
Arellano, the government instituted a far-reaching agrarian reform
program. The program was all the more significant because it was driven
by López Arellano, who had crushed land reform efforts in the 1960s.
This time around, however, the general allied himself with peasant
organizations. He issued an emergency land reform decree in 1972 and in
1975 issued another agrarian reform measure that promised to distribute
600,000 hectares to 120,000 families over a period of approximately five
years.
In 1975, however, a conservative countercoup by General Juan Melgar
Castro ended these high expectations for land redistribution. After 1977
land redistribution continued, but at lower levels. According to a study
by Charles Brockett, from 1962 through 1984, a little more than 293,000
hectares were distributed, benefiting about 52,000 families countrywide.
Brockett observed, however, that most of the land distributed was public
land rather than idle or underutilized private land. In the 1980s, land
redistribution slowed while peasant land takeovers of underused land
continued unabated. The government's reaction to the takeovers was
mixed. At times, the military reversed them by force, and, on other
occasions, the government did nothing to stop the occupations.
In 1992 the Callejas government enacted a new agricultural
modernization law that some observers claim essentially ended prospects
for additional land distribution. The law, approved by the National
Congress in March 1992, limited expropriations and augmented guarantees
for private ownership of land. The United States Department of State
observed that the law improved the environment for increases in
investment, production, and agricultural exports. The law was actively
opposed by some peasant organizations, who waged a campaign of land
occupations and claimed that those peasant organizations that supported
the law were linked to PNH or were bought by the government.
In the early 1990s, the government increasingly intervened in the
affairs of labor unions and peasant organizations through parallel
unions. For example, in July 1992, the Callejas government gave legal
recognition to two parallel unions in the telecommunications workers
union and to a second union representing road, airport, and terminal
maintenance employees. In October 1992, the government recognized a
faction of Anach that favored the Callejas government's proposed
agricultural modernization law even though another faction had won a
union election.
Unions in Honduras have strongly opposed the growth of solidarity (solidarismo)
associations, which emphasize labor-management harmony. These
associations, which consist of representatives of both labor and
management, provide a variety of services by utilizing a joint
worker/employer capital fund. Solidarity associations began in the late
1940s in Costa Rica and have thrived there, accounting for almost 16
percent of the work force. In Honduras solidarity associations first
appeared in 1985 and, although the government had not granted the
associations legal status, by the early 1990s they accounted for about
10,000 workers in a variety of companies. Organized labor, including
Honduran unions and international labor affiliations, strongly opposes
solidarity associations on the grounds that they do not permit the right
to strike and that they do not include appropriate grievance procedures.
Unions contend that the associations are management- controlled
mechanisms that undermine unionism. In 1991 a bitter strike at El
Mochito mine was reportedly begun by unions who opposed management's
attempt to impose a solidarity association there.
Honduras - Popular Organizations