Day 81, September 16 from Oscar, translation by Camille Collins Lovell

“Zapatero a tu zapato” [literally “shoemaker to your shoe,” meaning roughly mind your own business, and in this case playing on the name of the Prime Minister of Spain], said the sadly celebrated “chancellor” Enrique Ortéz Colindres more than 2 months ago when Spain condemned the Honduran coup. Today the Spanish papers announced that Zapatero had presented a list of characters from the Micheletti government who are banned from Spanish territory, and with this they are trying to force a firmer stance from the European Union. I would not be surprised if in the coming days similar resolutions are announced by the EU.

The list is composed mostly of people we all know and rather than talk about the ridiculous reaction of the de facto government, which with every passing day becomes more of a pathetic banana reflection of the dictatorship of Kim Jong Il, (Micheletti said to the press today, echoing the North Korean dictator, that the USA only respects those countries that treat it badly and punishes its traditional and unconditional allies), I want to talk about a person I had the opportunity to meet several years ago, and for whom I worked helping to design publicity for her campaign. I am speaking of Gabriela Nuñez, current Minister of Finances who now figures on the list of the inadmissible.

I met Gabriela Nuñez during the campaign for internal elections for the Liberal Party in 2005; she was a candidate competing for nomination of her party against, among others, Manuel Zelaya Rosales and Jaime Rossenthal Oliva. I had heard of her previously, but I had not identified her as distinct from the rest of the politicians that composed the government of Flores Facussé. That year I got to know her lovely family, I got to know her and some of her close friends, and I wanted to believe, and I should confess that I really did want to believe, that she could be a different sort of actor on the political scene that had been rotting for many years.

She is from a traditionally Liberal family. Her father’s signature appears on the presidential decree that gave rise to our labor laws. An exemplary student, she always had the necessary support to place herself early-on in the appropriate spaces in order to form part of the exclusive circle that controls this country.

In 1998 she was named Finance Secretary for the Carlos Flores presidency, previously she had been Vice Minister of Finance and it was under her tutelage that the neoliberal project was implemented following the tragedy of hurricane Mitch. Her finance work, according to some analysts at the time, turned her into a darling pet of the IMF.

The prestige acquired as Secretary put her in a position to launch her candidacy with the Liberal movement “New Majority”. She was a young woman, intelligent, with an image as yet untainted, without the big corruption scandals that plagued almost all the dinosaurs of national political fauna and although she lacked sufficiently profound proposals at the state level, at least she was a fresh face compared to those that had been appearing at the time.

Maybe that’s why (or was it simply my desire for professional experience?) I accepted work on the development of audiovisual campaign materials for Gabriela Nuñez. After all, I told myself, there’s no way she could win; we are a team of apprentices.

Those internal elections of 2005 were won by a wide margin by Manuel Zelaya, followed by Jaime Rossenthal who always controlled party structure on the North coast. In third place was Nuñez, who (following
Rossenthal’s retirement from politics after trying for a presidential nomination on 4 occasions and never getting beyond second place) remained a sure candidate for the 2009 elections and, according to the prevailing logic which indicated a corresponding distribution of two Liberal presidencies for every one Nationalist presidency, a certain president for 2010.

But Mel Zelaya’s electoral triumph occurred with very little popular support. Only a tiny portion of the Honduran population chose him as president and knowing that he opted to put together a sort of unity government within his own party. During the first 2 years of his administration his cabinet was composed of the principle heads –or their representatives- of the internal electoral movements. All the presidential pre-candidates of the Liberal Party had at some point an important post during the first years of the Zelaya administration, the same people who now have gone over to the faction led by Micheletti Bain.

Gabriela Nuñez took the Presidency of the Honduran Central Bank. At one time it was rumored that she would take the Secretary of Government and Justice, but later the rumor was dispelled. We all knew that she was not a devoted fan of Manuel Zelaya, and the HCB gave her a certain distance from his cabinet.

I should acknowledge that it was thanks to her and the support and the support of the HCB, together with some support from the Secretary of Culture under the direction of Dr. Pastor Fasquelle, that we were able to make the film El Porvenir. I am profoundly grateful for that support, without which it would not have been possible to finish the film, even while she always maintained that the support was for Honduran art and for truthful history, not to buy consciences and future activists.

On one occasion I remember conversing with Gabriela Nuñez about her future candidacy, and how she was receiving some pressure from Marlon Lara and Pineda Ponce to accompany them on their platform and at that point the candidacy of Elvin Santos looked unlikely, similarly the candidacy of Micheletti, who as president of the National Congress was trying to execute the necessary maneuvers so that his candidacy would be recognized.

It was a surprise to many to discover, one morning, the alliance of Nuñez with Micheletti, which I began to see as the beginning of the end of her political career. It was clear at that time that Micheletti would not capture the independent vote or the youth vote, which was Nuñez’s strength. People viewed with mistrust this deputy [congress person] who arrived promising to respect the constitution [which prohibits the president of the National Congress from running for president], promising not to launch a candidacy, but who later alleged that the prohibition itself was unconstitutional.

In the end, his malicious maneuvers to remove Elvin Santos from the arena cost him his candidacy, dragging Ms. Núñez along with him.

Approximately a month before the coup, the polarization within the cupola of the Liberal Party was evident. Micheletti Baín and Zelaya Rosales were the protagonists in a sort of ball game of insults and mutual reproach that indicated that, far from dissipating, this would go on increasing in intensity to reach dangerous points. At that moment, I remember clearly that I decided to write to Ms. Nuñez and I recommended to her that she not undervalue the Honduran social sectors and their call for a change to the political structures of the country. Her reply, to my disappointment, was “I don’t believe that a change, just because it’s needed, is good”.

And then the coup happened. Gabriela Núñez again positioned herself among the powerful, this time in the same role in which she initiated (and will conclude) her political career: The Secretary of Finances, a vital front in the oligarchy’s domination project, as it demands the release of state funds for its companies.

Her work has been difficult, it must be hard to be a Minister for the de facto government, and although time is passing, events have been in our favor, because just as they could not convince us in early July that the coup was a necessary evil in order to “keep the country functioning”, they have been unable o convince us now. Not us and not the world which today closes its borders to those who use force to control the country and who enclose themselves in mythomania and arrogance.

In 1942, my grandmother’s father, a Liberal from Villanueva Cortés, was kidnapped by soldiers serving Carias. In his home, in front of his daughters he was beaten and taken away in an old American car; He never returned. My family has always rejected the National Party since it represents the origin of much pain in the family. The last elections in which my grandmother voted were in 1993 with Roberto Reina. Since then she has stopped participating in these civic celebrations, and when out of curiosity 8 years later I asked her why she didn’t vote in the general elections in support of the candidate for her party, she told me offhandedly: The National Party and the Liberal Party are the same shit.

¡NO PASARÁN!

Original:
Día ochenta y uno, dieciseis de septiembre 2009

“Zapatero a tu zapato”, dijo el tristemente célebre “canciller” Enrique
Ortéz Colindres hace más de dos meses cuando España condenó el golpe de
Estado hondureño. El día de hoy los diarios españoles anunciaron que el
gobierno de Zapatero habría presentado una lista de personalidades del
gobierno de Micheletti que tienen vedado el acceso al territorio
español, con ello buscan forzar una postura más firme por parte de la
Unión Europea y no me sorprendería que en las próximas fechas se conozca
de resoluciones similares por parte de la UE.

La lista esta compuesta en su mayoría por la gente que todos conocemos y
más que hablar de la ridícula reacción del gobierno de facto, que cada
día se convierte más en un patético reflejo bananero de la dictadura de
Kin Jong Il, (Micheletti dijo hoy a la prensa, haciendo eco al dictador
nor coreano, que USA sólo respeta a los que países que lo tratan mal y
castiga a sus tradicionales e incondicionales aliados), quiero hablar de
una persona a la que tuve la oportunidad de conocer hace varios años y
para quien trabajé ofreciendo la creatividad para su campaña. Hablo de
Gabriela Nuñez, actual ministra de finanzas y quien ahora figura en la
lista de los inadmisibles del mundo.

Conocí a Gabriela Nuñez para la campaña interna del Partido Liberal en
el 2005, ella figuraba como candidata compitiendo por la nominación del
partido, entre otros con Manuel Zelaya Rosales y Jaime Rossental Oliva;
había escuchado de ella desde antes, pero no la había identificado
distinta al resto de políticos que acuerparon el gobierno de Flores
Facussé. Ese año conocí a su bella familia, la conocí a ella y varios de
sus amigos cercanos, quise creer, porque debo confesarlo que sí quise
creerlo, que ella podría ser un actor distinto dentro del tablero
político que desde muchos años venía pudriéndose.

Ella viene de una familia de tradición liberal, la firma de su padre
aparece en el decreto presidencial que dio origen al código de trabajo.
Estudiante ejemplar, contó desde siempre con el respaldo necesario para
colocarse desde muy temprano en los lugares apropiados para formar parte
del exclusivo círculo que controla este país.

En 1998 fue nombrada secretaria de finanzas para la presidencia de
Carlos Flores, anteriormente habría sigo vice ministra de la misma
secretaría y fue bajo su tutela que se ejecutó el proyecto neoliberal
luego de la tragedia del huracán Mitch. Su trabajo en las finanzas la
llevó a convertirse, según como algunos analistas de la época
interpretaban, en la niña consentida del FMI.

Ese prestigio que adquirió como secretaria de estado le colocó en
capacidad de lanzar su candidatura con el movimiento “Nueva Mayoría”.
Era una mujer joven, inteligente, con una imagen poco desgastada, sin
los grandes escándalos de corrupción que salpican a casi la totalidad de
dinosaurios de la fauna política nacional y si bien carecía de
propuestas lo suficientemente profundas a nivel de estado, a lo menos
era un rostro distinto de los que hasta el momento habían venido
apareciendo.

Fue quizá por eso, o por simple deseo de experimentar profesionalmente,
que acepté trabajar en el desarrollo de la campaña audiovisual del
movimiento de Gabriela Nuñez. Después de todo, me dije, no podría ganar,
somos todos un equipo de aprendices.

Esas elecciones en 2005 las ganó Manuel Zelaya con amplio margen seguido
por Jaime Rossental quien siempre controló las estructuras del partido
en la costa norte. En tercer lugar quedó la licenciada Nuñez, quie luego
que Rossental anunciara su retiro de la política, (intentó ser
presidente por cuatro ocasiones y jamás pasó el segundo lugar) quedaba
como segura candidata para las elecciones de 2009 y, según la lógica que
hasta el momento se había venido dando en el ambiente, que indicaba que
la distribución correspondía a dos presidencias liberales por una
nacionalista, segura presidente para el 2010.

Pero el triunfo electoral de Mel Zelaya se dio con muy poco apoyo
popular. Apenas una pequeña porción de la población hondureña lo eligió
como presidente y sabiendo eso optó por constituir una especie de
gobierno de unidad dentro de su propio partido. Dentro de los primeros
dos años de su administración su gabinete se compuso por las cabezas
principales -o sus representantes-, de los movimientos electorales
internos. Todos los pre candidatos presidenciales del PL tuvieron en su
momento un puesto importante dentro de los primeros años de la
administración Zelaya, los mismo que ahora se han volcado por la facción
liderada por Micheletti Bain.

Gabriela Nuñez tomó la Presidencia del Banco Central de Honduras. En su
momento se rumoró que cubriría la secretaría de Gobernación y Justicia
pero luego el rumor fue desmentido. Todos sabíamos que Manuel Zelaya no
era santo de su devoción y el BCH le daba cierta distancia del gabinete.

Debo reconocer que fue gracias a ella y el apoyo prestado por el BCH, en
conjunto con cierto apoyo de la secretaría de cultura dirigida por el Dr
Pastor Fasquelle, que pudimos realizar la película El Porvenir.
Agradezco profundamente su apoyo, sin él no hubiera sido posible
conlcuirla, si bien desde siempre mantuve que su respaldo era para el
arte hondureño y para la verdad de la Historia, no para comprar
conciencias y futuros activistas.

En una ocasión recuerdo conversar con Gabriela Nuñez sobre su futura
candidatura, recibía cierta presión por parte de Marlon Lara y Pineda
Ponce para que les acompañara en su plataforma y hasta ese momento la
candidatura de Elvin Santos se veía poco probable, al igual que la de
Micheletti, quien como presidente del Congreso Nacional hacía las
maniobras necesarias para que se le reconocieran su candidatura.

Para muchos fue sorpresa descubrir, una mañana, la alianza de Nuñez con
Micheletti, lo cual desde el inicio vi como el principio del fin de su
carrera. Era claro, para ese entonces, que Micheletti no lograba
acaparar el voto independiente y joven, que era el fuerte de Nuñez. La
gente veía con desconfianza al diputado presidente quien llegó
prometiendo respetar la constitución y no ser candidato para luego
alegar que la prohibición misma era incostitucional.

Al final, sus maliciosas maniobras para sacar de la arena a Elvin Santos
le costó su candidatura y arrastró con ella a la Señora Núñez.

Aproximadamente un mes antes del golpe de Estrado ya se podía ver la
polarización al interior de la cúpula del partido liberal. Micheletti
Baín y Zelaya Rosales protagonizaban una suerte de juego de pelota de
insultos y reproches mutuos que indicaba que, lejos de irse apaciguando,
se iría incrementando a puntos peligrosos. En ese momento, recuerdo
claramente me tomé el atrevimiento de escribirle a la Licenciada Nuñez y
le recomendé no menospreciar los sectores sociales hondureños que
reclamaban un cambio al interior de las estructuras políticas del país.
Su respuesta, para mi descepción, fue que “no creo que cualquier cambio,
solo porque se necesite, sea bueno”.

Y luego se vino e golpe. Gabriela Núñez volvió a posesionarse entre los
poderosos, esta vez con el mismo rol con que iniciara (y concluiría) su
carrera política. La secretaría de Finanzas, un frente vital para el
proyecto de dominación de la oligarquía que reclamaba el desembolso de
los fondos del estados para sus empresas.

Su trabajo ha sido dificil, debe ser dificil se ministro del gobierno de
facto y aunque los días han pasado, y los acontecimientos nos ha dado la
razón, porque así como no lograron convencernos a principios del mes de
Julio de que el Golpe de Estado era un mal necesario para “mantener en
marcha el país”, no lo han logrado hacer ahora. Ni a nosotros, ni al
mundo que hoy le cierra sus fronteras a quienes por la fuerza controlan
el país y se encierran con actitudes mitómanas y arrogantes.

En 1942, el padre de mi abuela, un liberal de Villanueva Cortés, fue
secuestrado por la guardia Cariísta. En su casa y frente a sus hijas fue
sacado a golpes y subido a un viejo carro americano; nunca volvió. Desde
siempre mi familia ha rechazado la partido nacional pues representa para
todos, el origen mismo del dolor en la familia. Las ultimas elecciones
en donde mi abuela votó fueron las de Roberto Reina en 1993. Desde
entonces dejó de participar de las fiestas cívicas y cuando por
curiosidad, ocho años después le pregunté por qué no participaba en las
elecciones generales apoyando al candidato de su partido, ella me dijo
sin darle mucha importancia: el partido Nacional y el Partido Liberal,
son a misma mierda.

¡NO PASARÁN!

Comments

"Apenas una pequeña porción de la población hondureña" ?

Bill Clinton would have been thrilled to get 49.9% of the vote in 1992, as Zelaya did in 2005. Most leaders in multi-party systems do not receive an outright majority. Granted, turnout has gotten worse in Honduras over time, so one can complain about how representative the elections are, but there are many other reasons to complain: a rotten press, grinding poverty that denies people full participation, general corruption... the list of deficiencies is long and exists in countries said to be in the full flower of democracy, like the United States.

So, I think this one sentence at least needs revision.

Clarification

I'm not Oscar, but I don't think the sentence needs revising. Here's why: "population" is his focus here-i.e., population eligible to vote, not actual voting population. So even though Zelaya won by a small majority, so few people voted (out of those eligible) that it gives the lie to claims of a strong mandate. When voter turnout is low, you can't assume that those few who did vote are representative of those who didn't, many of whom don't show up because "el partido Nacional y el Partido Liberal, son a misma mierda." What's important is that although Zelaya started with what could hardly be called a mandate, soon before the coup polls showed him to have nearly 80% approval ratings.

Perhaps it's time to move beyond elections to more democratic sources of legitimacy? Just a cr@zy thought.

Turnout and popularity

Turnout was certainly low in 2005: 46%. So, in that sense, only a small fraction of the population had expressed approval. However, everything that I have seen suggests that those who voted were more or less representative of the population. I haven't found the original CIDGallup, but in July 2006 his job approval was reported to be 39%. Job approval often differs from personal approval, but 39% is closer to the percent of votes that he received than to the percent of eligible votes cast for him. So, this point is certainly debatable.

However, regarding his approval in June 2009, I've seen no evidence it was 80%. A poll was done by CID Gallup from June 30-July 4 and reported by AP as 46% approval (sorry, link lost; article is still probably available through Google news or see RAJ). This was more or less in line with a February poll showing 53% approval and another poll done at the same time asking whether people approved of the coup, in which 46% said either no or refused to answer.

More than 80% for the Cuarta Urna, actually...

If you take the approval rate of the Cuarta Urna project to be representative of approval for President Zelaya's work, then yes, it was above 80% of those asked, according to several different polls, including one I personally worked in, carried out by our own polling program.

If you remember, the night of June 27 several ambassadors, observers, and representatives from governments around the world were treated to a personal exposition of the Cuarta Urna project by President Zelaya, while the event was being transmitted by national tv.

I was there (in the back of the room, of course!), I talked to several people afterward, from different European countries, whom expressed admiration of the project, which they said augured well for a Honduras in evolution.

Golpistas were incredibly arrogant (i.e. 'stupid') to still carry on with the coup when there were several hundreds of international observers and government representatives in Tegus that weekend, bearing witness to the barbaric acts now known around the world.

Sorry, but most of us in the Resistance DO NOT trust CID Gallup polls, never mind their prestige, given that we have found several times that their results are politically manipulable.

According to CID Gallup Pepe Lobo was going to enormously beat Mel Zelaya and become President of Honduras.

If that had happened, there would not be a coup today, that's for sure!

Ah, Pepe, that quintessential clown...

Re: More than 80%

I understand why you don't trust CIDGallup. I caught Gallup cooking a poll in the US (by using non-parallel questions), and wrote a news article about it that was regrettably never published. So, I am all too well aware to take polls with a grain of salt.

But I have never seen a published source that would have placed support for either Zelaya or the Cuarta Urna at 80% (and, no, I would not regard the Urna as a proxy for the presidential approval rating).

If you have a published source for the Cuarta Urna, please link it. I find it very difficult to believe that such a majority favored the Cuarta Urna. In watching the resistance play out in the streets, the numbers aren't there to suggest to me that there was ever very strong support for Zelaya or his programs except among the people who most directly benefited. Support, yes-- the (admittedly manipulable) CIDGallup polls show his level of support steady for years around the level that typical US presidents have (40-55%). But it's rare for people to reach very high levels of consensus (>60%) for anything. We are simply too ornery a species. I'm not sure we could get 80% support for having a nice day.

Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'd have to see the evidence myself.

--Charles of MercuryRising

80%?

Yo, Charles!

This was a 5 non-consecutive day polling exercise we conducted during the week starting Saturday, June 27, 2009 in the Central Park of San Pedro Sula. Obviously, this location was not representative of the whole country, though we felt IT WAS representative of the city.

Unfortunately, on June 30th, Police showed up when we were in the middle of a protest, and fired live ammo and tear gas against protesters. We had to run for it, and some of us were beaten, though not detained.

Police were under precise orders to destroy all materials related to Cuarta Urna and any other type of organization. I compiled the data during the first and second days, and that is the result I was talking about, around 84%. Those papers, along with several Cuarta Urna Ballot Boxes are hiding in secret places until President Zelaya's return, when we will recover the data and hopefully publish at least half the results, along with the Cuarta Urna boxes, though I don't know who'll be interested, given that we have already achieved and surpassed the true goals of the Cuarta Urna project, which were to unify the people and create consensus to push for democratic reform.

Yes, man, support for the Cuarta Urna was greater than you seem to think, there was a party feeling in the whole country.

Sounds surreal, I know, but that is the truth nonetheless.

We have a few teams of UNAH students versed in Statistics, they are the one doing the counts and calculations.

As I understand, they trace lines on streets, and count the number of people crossing it during a definite time interval, and so on.

As for the Resistencia numbers, our calculations show there was around 3.75 million people manifesting against the Golpistas on September 15th in the whole country. To that number you must add the people who support the Resistencia but is unable or unwilling to go out in the marches, which we calculate to be at least 2 million more, according to text messaging sample exercises carried out with people who is unable to manifest in the streets for any reason.

I agree with you about the difficulty to reach consensus, though, and I don't think Honduras is anything special for that matter.

People is just fed up with golpista crap, and they are showing it.

Dany

Miscount

"As for the Resistencia numbers, our calculations show there was around 3.75 million people manifesting against the Golpistas on September 15th in the whole country."

So you are saying that almost 50% of the country were out protesting on September 15th?

"To that number you must add the people who support the Resistencia but is unable or unwilling to go out in the marches, which we calculate to be at least 2 million more, according to text messaging sample exercises carried out with people who is unable to manifest in the streets for any reason."

And another 25% support the resistance but didn't march?

Considering that there is always a number of people who don't support either side, I'm surprised that you can find ANY golpistas in Honduras.

[select content removed by site manager for nastiness]

CarlosM

Thanks for your reply, Dany

Ok, if the 80% represents a poll of the San Pedro Sula park, I can believe the result. Generalizing it to the country might be a little difficult.

Doing crowd counts is a well-established process. It's more difficult with Honduras's narrow side streets, counting a moving crowd, than counting Mexico's Zocalo or Washington's Reflecting Pond. But let's say you fill up a two-lane street approximately 7,000 feet long with 10 people abreast and a row every three feet. This amounts to ca. 23,000 people. Getting 1 million people at that density corresponds to filling a road over 50 miles long.

If that was achieved, my congratulations. I just don't see how it is physically possible and cannot reconcile it with images that I saw on Channel 36, Chiapas Indymedia and other sources.

--Charles