The internal affairs of a country are seldom consequential for the rest of the world, but the recent Honduran existential crisis has been forcing political thinkers around the world to take a closer look at their ideologies – that is, the political principles undergirding legal and social systems.

In June, the Honduran military took arms against its sitting president, Manuel Zelaya. The move has been decried by most countries, the UN, the Organization of American States (OAS), and international media as a “right-wing coup”, a direct assault on Honduran political freedom and a destabilizing influence in Latin America. Meanwhile, military leaders, the Honduran supreme court, the Honduran legislature, and even many in the Honduran public, have been vocal in their support of the president’s exile. Where does the US stand in all this, how does it, or should it, pass judgment, and what role does the US have?

First, some questions. What preceded the military’s actions? Was it a coup? Is it a threat to rule of law or stability in the area? Dropping any of this context invalidates any answer to these vital questions.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya had been continuously attempting a referendum that would allow for his re-election, which violates the Honduran constitution and had been declared illegal by the Honduran congress, supreme court, attorney general, and electoral tribunal. Zelaya did not even have the backing of his own party, nevermind the public at large, so he unilaterally proceeded with his plans, and had the ballots delivered from Venezuela. The Honduran military, ordered by Zelaya to distribute the election materials, refused to comply and sided instead with the supreme court. Its army chief, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, was subsequently fired, prompting the resignation of all leading army officers and the defense minister. The supreme court ordered Velasquez’s reinstatement; Zelaya refused and led a mob in a raid on a military base that had election materials. The military simply enforced the court’s orders that Velasquez be reinstated and that the referendum attempt cease. This was necessary because the Honduran constitution does not allow for a civilian process such as impeachment.

The “coup” was thus merely the enforcement of a supreme court decision, based strictly on the Honduran constitution, and affirmed by the congress, attorney general, and the Honduran public. And to its credit, it immediately restored authority to the president of the congress, as specified by the constitution. It did, however, violate the Honduran constitution in a somewhat smaller matter, which prohibits expatriation of any Honduran citizen. The military has acknowledged this fact, but defended its actions by asserting that they were trying to avoid bloodshed. Regardless, a coup “is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment”, and this was fully sanctioned by the Honduran legal system.

The fact that this “coup” was legally valid clearly demonstrates that the military’s actions, as such, do not threaten rule of law, but in fact support it. The OAS, which is composed primarily of states that rely heavily on Venezuela’s oil, are pliable when it comes to Hugo Chavez’s political pressures. The OAS has repeatedly dismissed its members’ violations of its democratic charter, and combined with the fact that Zelaya is a close ally of Chavez, the OAS’s condemnation of the military’s intervention is unsurprising, if not predictable. As if this weren’t enough, confiscated computers had certifications of the election results – for an election that never happened. It’s somewhat difficult to portray the exposure of fraud in an unconstitutional referendum as a threat to rule of law.

The UN, meanwhile, has condemned the Honduran military’s actions, its criticism stemming primarily from the fact that the military was necessary to execute the court’s decision. It is just that criticism that does pose a real threat to rule of law, for both Honduras and other countries. The events have put some pressure on political leaders across the world, particularly the current administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a mild condemnation of the Honduran military, which was escalated by President Obama, who demanded that Zelaya be reinstated, contrary to the Honduran legal system and the popular opinion of its citizens. It has put the administration in a bit of a bind, offering public support for a dictator, Hugo Chavez, who has stifled political and economic freedom in his own country and supported the same around the world. The Obama administration has also condemned a legitimate legal procedure, and has thus come out against rule of law. Republicans, meanwhile, have been confronted with a harsh choice: stand with Obama and negate their declared political principles posturing illegitimately as defenders of liberty, or affirm their commitment to “free minds, free markets, and free people” while supporting what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiable coup against a legitimate political figure. In either case, they will have a lot of explaining to do in the coming months – as will the Democrats.

Popularity: 13%