Show Hide image

My father has been punished for helping Honduras

After the removal of my father by a military coup sanctions against the regime are vital

Following the removal by a military coup of José Manuel Zelaya on 28 June, the people of Honduras have been engaging in a peaceful struggle for his restoration as president, for their rights, and for the convening of a constituent national assembly. Much is said about a possible military intervention by the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez; of a supposed wish by President Zelaya to perpetuate himself in power; and of Zelaya's alleged crimes, but these are all being used simply to mask the real reasons for the coup.

Since his election, my father has promoted the idea of "citizen power": the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process. He promoted the Citizen Participation Law, giving the people the right to use surveys, plebiscites and referendums to participate in decision-making. From the beginning, the media criticised his ideas, proposals and actions. Sometimes they called him mad. They accused him of ignorance. They branded his government ineffective. Later they called him populist, and now they say he is a communist and fugitive from justice.

In government, my father fulfilled his campaign promises, starting with cuts in fuel prices. This caused direct confrontations with the major oil multinationals. He denounced the plundering of the state electricity and telecommunications enterprises, which had been forced into bankruptcy. He worked for their recovery and to avoid privatising the few remaining state firms in a country where some 80 per cent of our resources have been privatised.

My father confronted the media. He condemned the media owners' contracts, exemptions from taxes, concessions worth millions, and illegal businesses such as firearms supply firms. He also achieved free education for all children, guaranteed school meals for more than 1.6 million children from poor families, reduced poverty by almost 10 per cent during two years of government, and provided direct state help for 200,000 families in extreme poverty, supplying free electricity to those members of society most in need.

His government raised the minimum wage by 80 per cent and, after 16 years of economic stagnation, achieved historically outstanding growth levels. Agriculture - in a country dependent on imports for 70 per cent of its grain - has been strengthened. The production of a wide range of grains has been developed. With ALBA (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a regional trade group led by Venezuela), the state bank has been capitalised. Domestic employees have been integrated into the social security system, a co-operation agreement has been signed with Petrocaribe (a regional energy trading organisation), and the social conscience of the country's citizens has been boosted.

In a country where ten families control 90 per cent of the wealth, the Supreme Court of Justice and the national congress had easily manipulated our constitution to put it at the service of the dominant families.

In response, the president proposed a referendum, to be conducted in the November general elections, to determine whether a review of the constitution was required. This provoked an immediate reaction.

Manuel Zelaya wanted to hold an opinion poll to gauge public opinion on his proposal. Groups in power felt threatened by this and used their resources to try to prevent the initiative. The Supreme Court declared the poll illegal - a move which was itself illegal. The media tried to instil fear into the people, saying that the president's intention was to remain in power, and they began to use the image of President Chávez to try to link my father's opinion poll with socialism and communism.

Those in power thought it would be easy to silence the people after the coup. But 78 days later, resistance continues on a large scale. Even in the face of military and political repression, including assassinations by the coup regime, peaceful resistance continues every day in villages and neighbourhoods across the country. The leaders are persecuted, but they do not stop fighting.

Representatives of the de facto regime, its consultants and its media have shown the world their clumsiness and lack of principles every day. The coup has been rejected by the entire world and the regime is isolated by the international community.

Sanctions against the coup regime are vital. In addition, its planned "elections" this November must not be recognised. The voice of the people of Honduras must be heard. The country is being exploited by a group of people who benefit only themselves by dominating state institutions, and use force to ignore the wishes of the great majority of Hondurans.
The struggle of Honduras is a struggle for all nations.

Xiomara Zelaya is the daughter of Manuel Zelaya, the ousted president of Honduras

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2009 issue of the New Statesman, Citizen Ken

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times