These are strange days we live in. Peaceful, democratic societies get their institutions and devotees supplanted by the piercing sound of fertilizer bombs and the blinding sting of smoke. If we once spoke about our problems at the dinner table, then someone must have either taken that table away from us, or simply taken away our interest to share our thoughts. What can we do as nations to mend the differences that divide us ? If there is no space for dialogue and exchange of thoughts, then how can we possibly know what our families, friends, peers and those who oppose our ideological leanings are thinking ? I would like to draw on the example of Quebec during the 1980s and 1990s, a period when “La Belle Province” was asked a question by its Provincial Government not once but twice : Do you want to sever ties with the rest of Canada ? By drawing on the Quebec case, I hope to find a solution to Honduras’ insecurity over the final stages of its peace process.
The question of Quebec sovereignty was never something that could be taken lightly in Canada, and the Liberal governments of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien were wise to leave this question for Quebecois citizens to answer directly at the ballot box. There was no doubt cast upon the importance of asking the question, but there was much concern with the logistics and mechanisms through which the question would be asked. In Honduras, the case of a potential popular consultation supporting (or not) the installation of a Constitutional Assembly has received much attention by the different sectors of Honduran society. There is nonetheless a strong fear that a popular consultation would be rigged by corruption or by the manoeuvrings of specific interest groups, which would increase the chances of the consultation being undemocratic.
With this scenario in mind, there has been a polarization of stances pertaining to whether or not it would be wise to call this consultation. However, this debate does not purport to improve the nature of the consultation. Rather, it assumes a predetermined outcome based on similar political fates in the region and, based on these assumptions, it fully supports or disregards its whole conception. This debate needs to be re-examined under a different light and there should be a stronger focus on the formal mechanisms that would ensure a transparent and fair consultation.
By insisting that there should be a stronger focus on the procedural steps of the consultation, the intention is not to ignore Honduras’ painful political past and its corrupt institutions. There is indeed a high probability that based on this dark past, Honduras’ interest groups might try to influence in some way the outcome of the consultation. While this possibility is perceivable, it is not strong enough an argument to cancel out the entire project, for there are several measures that can be put in place in order to ensure the process’ transparency, and which have not yet been taken into account by the Honduran government. In this respect, the Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 are good examples on how to use the democratic route effectively in a highly contentious issue.
Based on the Quebec model, there are three components that need to be present in a consultation process. First, the population needs to know exactly what it is asked by the government. Thus, the Honduran government must come up with a clear question to ask Hondurans. Additionally, this question needs to be revised and approved by all sides involved in the process. A clear consultation question will avoid any misinterpretation on the mandate sought for by the government, and consensus over its clarity will help avoid any side from reneging to the result of the vote.
Second, once the question has been crafted in a clear way, the sides supporting or opposing a Constitutional Assembly must review the benefits of either outcome and present these ideas publicly, as they would during an electoral campaign. Defining a clear question is only part of the solution ; the population needs to be very well informed about all the aspects of a constitutional assembly, which will in turn prepare them better to cast a fact-driven vote.
There is a third component that needs to be dealt with separately, and that is the issue of transparency. As mentioned above, there is a strong belief in Honduras that the final result of the vote could be somehow manipulated by the authorities. In order to disprove these allegations, the government must treat this popular consultation as if it were an election. Given that Hondurans are called to vote each four years, the authorities are much more familiar with the quality standards involved with an electoral campaign than they are with calling a referendum. Additionally, treating a popular consultation as an election bears the innate benefit of giving interest groups a fair amount of time to campaign and garner support for their cause. Moreover, giving parties a specific amount of time to exhibit their ideas publicly will lead to an electorate that is better informed about the issues at stake and the repercussions of any given outcome.
Honduras, like most other Latin American countries, has undergone fair elections under the observation of international organizations, foreign government envoys and other fforms of scrutiny. This observation process has ensured transparent and fair elections in Honduras since its move to democracy in 1982, and this powerful, legitimizing tool is one of several measures the Honduran government should consider to discard any corruption allegations against it. Allowing international observation during the consultation process provides a two-fold benefit. First, it allows the consultation process to move forward in a democratic and clear way, decreasing the probability of discordance in the final results. Second, it confers upon the entire process a high degree of legitimacy both domestically and internationally. Under such an international scrutiny, it would be highly unlikely that any interest group find the final consultation results illegitimate or somehow tampered with.
The political actors in the 1980 and 1995 referendums in Quebec knew the importance of a direct-democracy mechanism, and used it intelligently to cement the idea that Quebec should remain an integral part of Canada.While the importance of this question was never called into question, the logistical aspects of the consultation were key to ensure a legitimate and representative result. In the final stages of the Honduran peace process, the government needs to focus more closely on ensuring that all sectors of the country will accept the result of the consultation, and the only way of doing it is by ensuring the process’ clarity, building consensus over what is being asked and ensuring transparency via international observation.
RSS 2.0