Change in the Executive-Legislative Relationship in Honduras and More Democratic Stability - Research Paper Example

?Whereas it might be assumed that a bicameral legislature in tandem with a judicial and executive branch is the standard by which many nations governthemselves, this is a false assumption. Many nations throughout the world operate under a unicameral system of governance with a separate executive and judicial branch. However, the nation of Honduras is somewhat curious in that it represents a unicameral system in which the executive, the president of the nation, is in fact also the head of the legislature. Invariably, this particular situation creates a litany of problems due to the fact that the abuse of power and potential complete control that the president may have within the country is almost without limit. As a function of discussing and analyzing the case of Honduras, the following analysis will be concentric upon the manner in which a change in the legislative – executive relationship that exists within Honduras would ultimately be beneficial to the democratic stability of the nation. As a function of this particular piece of analysis and research, it is the hope of this author that the reader will gain a more informed and nuanced understanding with respect to the way in which this unicameral and executive led structure of government works, the means through which abuse ultimately exists, and a key prescription for growth and change that could be engaged as a means of ameliorating these issues. Rather than coming to the understanding of the fact that anyone nations democratic system is invariably better than another’s, the analysis will strictly focus upon known and measurable shortcomings that exist and means through which these shortcomings can be addressed in order to promote efficiency, utility, equity, and fairness within the nation of Honduras. Like many nations throughout Central America, Honduras exhibit a surprising lack of diversity. For instance, the broad majority of Hondurans, approximately 90%, can be described as mestizos (a mixture between natives and European background). The remaining 10% of the population is split between indigenous peoples, Amerindians – comprising 7% of the total population, black Africans, comprising 2% of the total population, and whites – comprising 1% of the population.1 Accordingly, this relative lack of diversity creates a situation in which the minority needs of key individuals throughout society are likely brushed aside within a democratically elected government; due to the fact that these diverse stakeholders are not able to have a powerful enough voice within the nation’s unicameral legislature in order to promote the rights and interests that they deem most important. Historically speaking, Honduras has had, as with so many Central American nations, something of a rugged past.2 From the late 1960s until the early 1980s, a military junta held complete and total control over the internal and external affairs that this small nation exhibited. Ultimately, this junta was propped up and supported by the United States due to his the opposition to any communism or Marxist ideology within the nation of Honduras. The overall level of importance that this rugged past has had upon the development and governmental structure of Honduras is profound. The underlying reason for this has to do with the fact that individuals within Honduras have come to experience something of a shared history in which a powerful and dynamic government has defined and structured the way in which life, business, and politics have taken place. Such a collective understanding of governance is perhaps one of the causal and most definitive stumbling blocks in seeking to engender a further level of Democratic change and representation of the people within Honduras. As described briefly within the introduction of this analysis, the current executive – legislative institution relationship in Honduras is one that places an undue level of control within the hands of a single individual; namely the president.3 Even though it is true that the president of Honduras is a democratically elected official, the period of time in which this individual heads the government is one in which an inefficient level of checks and balances exists. What is meant by this is that the obvious abuse of power the individual who is not president also the leader of the unicameral legislature can have is profound. As such, a key concern that many individuals have voiced with respect to Honduras, or any nation that engages with a form of government similar to Honduras, is that an immediate and persistent abuse of power by an individual who is elected as president will take place from the moment that this presidency is engaged up until the moment in which a new individual is voted in as the new incumbent. Furthermore, if an individual who is president is also able to have an undue level of decision-making power with regards to the legal framework that defines the nation, a further abuse of power can of course be noted with regards to the way in which a president could ultimately change the laws that govern the elections, promote his own business interests, or provide a level of kickbacks and bribes to those who support him. Tangentially, punishment could be meted out for those individuals that form the opposition; creating a system through which the legislature could be used as something of an extrajudicial arm through which business restriction, regulation, and other hardships could be put in place.4 A further element of harm that this can and does engender is with respect to the uncertainty and instability that it fosters. Although the previous definition of inequality and abuse of power that has been discussed is profound, a broad swing between presidents, political ideologies, and/or individual personalities can have lasting ramifications upon the overall stability of the Democratic process, the attractiveness of the nation in terms of business agreements, and the level of trust that individual stakeholders within society had their particular government. If such a system exists, it is invariably true that individuals will experience political whiplash as policies, procedures, laws, and approaches to a litany of different issues are redacted, changed, improved, or altered entirely; merely due to the fact that a new individual seeks to take the country in a different direction or redefine power in a different manner. As such, a definitive and prescriptive way with regards to which a redefinition of the executive – legislative relationship that currently exist within Honduras could benefit from change, it must be understood that this level of benefit can roughly be defined within three main categories. The first category can be defined with respect to the way in which the ordinary citizen would benefit from this change. The second is with regards to the way in which political elites would respond to the change. And the final measurement is with regards to how institutions that currently exist within the government would be able to respond and either enhance or diminish the effect of this change. Firstly, with regards to how a change in the executive – legislative relationship would improve democratic stability with relation to the ordinary citizen, it must be understood that the changes and shifts of direction that the nation has thus far exhibited create a situation in which trust and political stability are virtually nonexistent with regards to the general population.5 One need look no further than the way in which a business/employer operates and seeks to derive a revenue in order to understand the direct level of impact that this could have upon any individual within society. In short, the ability of the government to redefine the rules, and progressively shift the dynamic of governance, as the given leader sees fit, is not effective in helping to provide any level of stability within the country in question. The engagement that this change would have would also serve to benefit stakeholders within society due to the fact that the overall level of the Democratic process would be maximized. As will be discussed in some depth later in the analysis, the prior determination of power created system through which the Democratic process only worked to between key periods of time; namely those in which the president was elected and empowered with the rights to oversee and motivate the parliament in whatever direction he/she saw fit. By means of comparison, even though the stakeholders within society would most likely welcome a change with regards to the unicameral and executive run government, is somewhat unknown with regards to the way in which the political power elites of the nation may favor such a shift. Whereas it may seem that politicians, with the exception of the candidate for president, would be widely in favor of altering the current dynamic that exist within Honduras, it must also be understood that the politicians of Honduras have grown accustomed to performing political engagement based upon the current model.6 As such, levels of satisfaction, laziness, bribery, and other factors must be taken into account with regards to seeking to understand the level and extent to which career politicians might otherwise embrace the shift that has thus far been proposed. However, rather than taking an approach that is overly pessimistic, it must also be stated that an increase in the overall level of power that the legislative branch could have been determining the future of Honduras would likely be agreed upon by a large majority of Honduras and lawmakers and politicians. Ultimately, this would further spur the integration of political parties and he engagement of the Democratic process; due to the fact that the population would be keenly aware of the fact that even though they had elected president, the course of the nation over the next several years was not something that was immutable; rather, it was something that their individual legislators could continue to affect and help to mold with time.7 Finally, in seeking to understand the way in which government institutions would integrate with this proposed shifts, it must be understood that these institutions are invariably interested in two unique aspects of power. The first is with regards to ensuring that the monetary budget that is allotted to them is guaranteed; regardless of what particular political approach engaged. Secondary approach that these institutions hold as fundamentally important is whether or not the core functions that they are tasked by the government, and indeed by the people, are being met. If both of these determinants were met within a new form of governmental structure, one that does not place the executive branch in control of a great majority of the nation’s power structure, it is arguable that little if any dissent would be denoted within these groups. From the information that is thus far been provided, and divorced from a senior phobic or jingoistic interpretation of how democracy should be exhibited throughout the world, it is the understanding of this particular author that all three stakeholders, discussed previously within this analysis, would stand to benefit from a reintegration and reinterpretation of governance within Honduras. Ultimately, the system that is thus far been represented is one that places an undue level of power within the hands of a single individual; namely, the president. As such, rather than casting aspersions on to any of the presidents of Honduras and levying charges of corruption against them, it must be understood that the individual president, regardless of his level of integrity, will necessarily be tempted to overindulge his powers and engage the unicameral legislature in order to benefit his own selfish ends. As such, seeking to redefine the nation and divorced the legislature for the presence control would be an effective step in seeking to provide a further level of checks and balances to the distribution of political power that currently exist within Honduras. Naturally, this change is not something that can take place overnight; nor is it something that is likely to take place within the very near future. However, with the determined electorate and a concerned group of politicians, a gradual shift towards engaging a discussion on the powers that a single individual should have within the nation of Honduras is all but assured. Bibliography Alcott, George. 2013. "Country Overview." Honduras Country Review 1. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). Bursins, Reggie. 2013. "Foreign Relations." Honduras Country Review 66-74. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). GORDON, TODD, and JEFFERY R. WEBBER. 2011. "The Honduran Coup." Bulletin Of Latin American Research 30, no. 3: 328-343. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). Kloch, Roma. 2012. "Government Functions." Honduras Country Review 61-62. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). Martins, Paul. 2012. "Government Structure." Honduras Country Review 62-65. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). Vela, Manuel. 2009. "Honduras: Zelaya's Return." Stratfor Analysis 11. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). Zhu, Xian. 2013. "Political Risk Index." Honduras Country Review 31-40. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2013). Read More