Mixed Signals
By Christopher Lingle
GUATEMALA CITY ― Much notice has been given to the Obama-Clinton positions relating to events in Honduras and Iran.
To summarize, their behavior has been ``diplomatic" in both instances. Yet, it appears their aim in diplomacy involves compromising U.S. ideals while gaining nothing for doing so.
Despite media gushing about the resumes of President Barack Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton, their actions on the world stage suggest serious limitations.
As it is, they waived democratic credentials in supporting reinstatement of the ex-president of Honduras after he was removed from office using constitutional means.
Yet, more than a week passed before offering solace to demonstrators in Iran that wished to let the world know that the regime had trampled on their democratic right to vote.
In this first instance, the response to events in Honduras was ``racial profiling" in assuming that removal of officeholders in Latin America is always an act of right-wing militarists.
The reality was that all organs of the civilian government concurred that the president overstepped his constitutional authority. But it was ex-President Manuel Zelaya that attempted to engage in a coup d'etat by defying orders from the Supreme Court to respect the Constitution.
And so, the Supreme Court instructed the military to arrest him and remove Zelaya from office under the terms of the constitution.
In the end, his own party that controlled the Congress moved to replace him. All aspects of the civilian government remained unperturbed except for the removal of the chief executive, something that happens often in parliamentary democracies.
Of course, members of the Organization of American States (OAS) as well as those in the United Nations also objected to the use of force to remove Zeleya from office. But many of these countries view democracy as a means to validate or justify consolidations of political power in the hands of a single party or single person.
Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter swans around the world and gives cover to the puerile pretenses of going through the motions of having an election and casting a vote. There needs to be a bit more grownup discussion of these matters.
As it is, the essence of democracy is nothing more than an imperfect means toward specific goals that include freedom and secure rights. As is the case in North Korea, citizens may be allowed to vote, but have few fundamental freedoms.
Surely, government selected by majority rule must face limits from the higher law of constitutions so groups and individuals disliked by the majority cannot be abused. History shows that an unrestrained majority is a grave threat to liberty.
Absolutism imposed by a majority as a ``tyranny of the many over the few" is no better than a monarch or autocrat with a ``tyranny of one" or aristocrats or oligarchs operating as a ``tyranny of the few over the many."
The threat of tyranny of the majority can be addressed with constitutional limits on majority rule to protect minority rights. And constitutional democracy in Honduras and the United States involves popular consent and majority rule with the power of the majority limited by a supreme law.
Perhaps the Obama-Clinton response to the events in Honduras reflects the administration's constitutional temperaments.
Insisting that Honduras adhere unconditionally to democratic outcomes elevates voting over intentional constitutional restraints on majority rule and the executive branch.
Along these lines, it is instructive to consider President Obama's ideas about attributes of Supreme Court nominees that might influence their constitutional interpretations. It is well known that his preference is that ultimate protectors of the Constitution apply empathetic judgments to a ``living constitution."
Alas, these ideas undermine the purposeful and intentional fetters that a stable constitution imposes on the expansion of government powers.
Although President Obama taught constitutional law, students remarked that he was less interested in the complexities of legal theory. Instead, he asked them to look at how theories were applied and at what worked.
It seems his stint as community organizer influenced him more about ``what America should be" than studying the history of the intents of the framers of the Constitution.
While seeking the moral high ground in the case of Honduras, the Obama-Clinton position in Iran was tone deaf to protestors wishing to have their democratic voices heard. The collective yawn from the White House and Foggy Bottom to Iranian demands for accountability after a sham exercise of democracy is a very odd contradiction.
Perhaps understandably, there is a reflexive tendency for the Obama administration to renounce anything with fingerprints of the Bushes. But President Bush's cheerleading for democracy and freedom should not induce an instinctive repudiation of fundamental institutions underpinning the United States.
Let's face it, whatever the abilities of State Department careerists, the experiences of their leaders do not reach far beyond Illinois, Arkansas and New York states.
It is widely believed that Clinton was shunted into foreign affairs to limit her engaging in rear guard actions that might have strengthened her hand in the 2012 elections. This reduces U.S. diplomacy-making to a mix of political intrigue, a heaping cup of ignorance and a big dollop of ideological contempt for restraints on political action.
It turns out that the world is made more dangerous with an ingenue, selected as a matter of political convenience, running U.S. foreign policy and sending mixed signals to friends and foes.
Christopher Lingle is a research scholar at the Centre for Civil Society in New Delhi and visiting professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala. He can be reached at CLingle@ufm.edu.