Paraguay is not Honduras: President Lugo's Impeachment was not a Coup

By Thor Halvorssen and Javier El-Hage

Paraguay’s congress voted eleven days ago to remove President Fernando Lugo from office. The impeachment process was based on one article of Paraguay’s constitution and lasted only two days. The presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have rushed to describe Lugo’s removal as a “coup d’état.” Meanwhile, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the FIDH—all major human rights groups spanning the political spectrum—have also expressed grave concern about Lugo’s removal from office going as far as calling it illegal. They are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.

The presidential succession in Paraguay was constitutional, it was consistent with the OAS’s Inter-American Democratic Charter, it met the standards of Mercosur’s Ushuaia Protocol on Democracy as well as Unasur’s Additional Protocol on Democracy. Politics and emotion run high with regard to Lugo’s removal, especially given the disastrous and polarizing coup d’etat that removed Manuel Zelaya from office in Honduras in 2009.

However, the democratic order has remained intact in Paraguay and it is essential for international actors to consider the damage they could do to Paraguayan democracy if they fail to recognize the current, and demonstrably legitimate, government of Paraguay.

A coup d’état exists when four elements concur: first, the victim is the head of state; second, the perpetrator uses violence or coercion to remove the victim from his post; third, the action is sudden; and fourth, the action clearly violates the constitutional procedure to remove the head of state.

Since there was no violence or coercion involved in the ousting of Lugo, it was not a coup d’état. As a forcible overthrow did not take place, only a different form of unconstitutional interruption or alteration of Paraguay’s democratic order would legally prompt diplomatic sanctions against the new government.

Article 225 of Paraguay’s constitution gives congress the power to remove the president on three grounds—“poor performance of his duties,” “crimes in the exercise of his duties,” or “common crimes.” There follows a two-step procedure: a formal accusation by the house of representatives, and impeachment by the senate. On June 21, the house formally accused President Lugo of “poor performance of his duties,” and the next day the senate found him guilty of the charge, subsequently removing him.

President Lugo was given only two hours to present his defense before congress. This led the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to express “deep concern” regarding a perceived denial of due process guarantees to the president during his impeachment trial, thus suggesting that an “impeachment coup” took place.

As opposed to a criminal trial, in an impeachment trial the prosecutors and judges are mostly legislators from the opposing party, who aren't likely to change their minds about a president's "poor performance of duties" even after days or weeks of evidence. The due process guarantees for impeachment in Paraguay are thus not meant to lie in the length of the proceedings—rather, they are based on a supermajority vote, requiring approval from two-thirds of each parliamentary chamber.

The impeachment trial of Lugo was initiated by a 76-4 vote in the house, and decided by a 39-6 vote in the senate, largely exceeding the constitutional minimum. An overwhelming majority of legislators decided to remove him from office.

The reason Paraguay gives so much power to its legislative branch to remove the president is because it suffered through 35 years of military dictatorship under General Alfredo Stroessner. The country learned from historical experience that strong checks on the executive are necessary.

In 2009, HRF was the first NGO to call for the removal of Honduras from the OAS for the forcible and unconstitutional removal of President Manuel Zelaya. At the time, politics had polarized the situation and the world was divided between those who opposed Zelaya and those who liked his politics.  Rather, it should have been between those who believe in due process, constitutionality, and liberty and those who seek power at any cost. HRF’s 300-page legal report was accepted as evidence by the Honduran Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which later based its final determination—that a coup occurred in Honduras—on HRF’s conclusions.

What happened in Paraguay is not, in any way, what took place in Honduras almost three years ago. President Lugo was removed legally through an impeachment trial, carried out  swiftly on vague but legitimate and constitutional grounds. Principle, rather than politics, should guide the judgment of the international community. The alternative is to destabilize a constitutional democracy that is working, perhaps clumsily, but working.

It is no surprise that every president calling for Lugo’s reinstatement is a perfect example of an unchecked executive branch eroding democracy and weakening human rights: Chavez, Correa, Kirchner, Morales, and Ortega. From muzzling the press and harassing the opposition to confiscating property and seeking to perpetuate themselves in power. No wonder they are so concerned.

Thor Halvorssen is the founder and president of the New York–based Human Rights Foundation. Javier El-Hage is HRF’s International Legal Director. For more background on the impeachment, read Mr. El-Hage's full legal opinion in The America's Quarterly.