• Why vote NO?
• Take Action
• HRF Projects
• Learn More
• News/Videos

Under the silence and sometimes complicity of José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, although democratically elected, have violated the essential elements of democracy in their countries, dismantling government institutions, persecuting the opposition, and creating conditions for the systematic violation of the human rights of their citizens (see Letters 1 to 4). Last year, Insulza also began a shocking international campaign against the 1962 resolution that suspended the Cuban dictatorship from the OAS.

Currently Cuba is the only country in the American continent that does not comply with any of the elements of a democracy, as defined by Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Cuba is ruled by a single-party totalitarian regime that does not allow for separation of powers, an independent judicial system, or any degree of freedom of expression. The Cuban regime has installed a repressive machinery comparable to those held by the bloody dictatorships of Somoza and Pinochet.

Approximately 8,000 people have been murdered for political reasons over the course of Fidel Castro’s dictatorship (see Letter 5). Insulza, who rightfully opposed the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile, shockingly affirmed – publicly – that he believed Fidel Castro lent the Cuban totalitarian regime “legitimacy.” Insulza also confessed to saying this “with respect and almost admiration for the character.” Coming from anyone, these statements are insensitive to the thousands of victims and family members of victims of the Cuban regime. However, coming from the person whose job it is to protect democracy for all of Latin America, these statements are extremely serious and dangerous. They should have prompted his express apologies or his immediate resignation (see video in Spanish).

Recently, Insulza activated the democracy clause during the crisis in Honduras. HRF was one of the first international organizations to denounce the coup d’état and to ask for the suspension of Honduras from the OAS. In that opportunity, HRF announced it would investigate the crisis thoroughly with the purpose of determining exactly what happened and those responsible.

After thousands of hours of research over a period of eight months, HRF published a 300-page legal report about the events in Honduras. The report found that instead of bringing together the parties in conflict in hopes of preventing further confrontation, Insulza sent a delegation of the OAS to support the president of Honduras – who was trying to rewrite his country’s constitution through unconstitutional means, actively eroding democracy. Because of this decision, the OAS lost credibility as an impartial international mediator and provoked the worsening of the crisis in Honduras, which culminated in a coup on June 28. Two days later, faced with the absence of leadership by the OAS to mediate the crisis in an impartial manner, the Honduran Supreme Court validated the coup.

Insulza’s job is not to remain inactive when faced with the deterioration of democracy in Latin America nor to support autocratic governments, but rather to apply the democracy clause to counter them. However, during the last five years, going against his mandate, Insulza has consistently denied that he has the power to act in defense of the legislative and judicial branches of government when they are harassed or encroached upon by the executive branch.

The OAS needs a secretary general who truly believes in democracy and its institutions, who is efficient, timely, and impartial, and who is willing to stand up for democracy regardless of who is trying to undermine it. Insulza has clearly demonstrated that he is not that person.

Click here to learn more about the OAS democracy clause.
Click here to read the letters of the “Mr. Insulza and the Democratic Charter” project.
Click here to read the report “The Facts and the Law behind the Democratic Crisis of Honduras, 2009.”

Where does it say that Insulza has the power to activate the democracy clause?

Insulza’s legal authority to activate the democracy clause is expressly stated in the Charter of the OAS, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and resolutions 2154/2005 and 2251/2006 of the General Assembly of the OAS. In accordance with Article 9 of the Charter of the OAS and Resolution 1080 of the General Assembly of the OAS, the Democratic Charter gives the secretary general the legal authority to act, in a preventive manner, in the face of threats to the democratic order of a member state; or, in a corrective manner, in the face of the unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order.

In a preventive manner, facing threats to the democratic order:

Article 18. When situations arise in a member state that may affect the development of its democratic political institutional process or the legitimate exercise of power, the Secretary General or the Permanent Council may, with prior consent of the government concerned, arrange for visits or other actions in order to analyze the situation. The Secretary General will submit a report to the Permanent Council, which will undertake a collective assessment of the situation and, where necessary, may adopt decisions for the preservation of the democratic system and its strengthening.

In a corrective manner, facing the unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order:

Article 20. In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in a member state, any member state or the Secretary General may request the immediate convocation of the Permanent Council to undertake a collective assessment of the situation and to take such decisions as it deems appropriate….

Since Insulza, as well as Cesar Gaviria, the previous OAS secretary general, repeatedly neglected to activate the democracy clause to counter authoritarian governments, this authority was reaffirmed twice through resolutions 2154/2005 and 2251/2006 of the General Assembly of the OAS, which resolve: “To reaffirm that the Secretary General may bring to the attention of the Permanent Council, in the exercise of the authority contained in the OAS Charter and pursuant to the Inter-American Democratic Charter, those situations likely to lead to action under the said Charters.”

Click here to learn more about the OAS democracy clause.
Click here to read the letters of the “Mr. Insulza and the Democratic Charter” project.
Click here to read the report “The Facts and the Law behind the Democratic Crisis of Honduras, 2009.”

In which situations should Insulza activate the democracy clause?

The secretary general of the OAS, or any member state of this organization, has the duty to activate the OAS democracy clause against a member state where a coup d’état, a shutdown of Congress, a stacking of the courts, or any of the following events may have occurred:

• Use of public office to silence, harass, or disrupt the association, and activities of members of the political opposition, labor unions, minority groups, or [dissenting] civil society members..
• Use of public office to silence, harass, or disrupt the legal association and activities of members of the press.
• Use of public office to implement general human rights restricting policies.
• Use of public office to implement a single-party regime.
• Violation of the integrity of central institutions, including constitutional checks and balances providing for the separation and independence of powers.
• Arbitrary or illegal appointment or removal of members of the judiciary or electoral bodies; in other words, “the gradual stacking of the judiciary and other crucial watchdog bodies with cronies who subsequently rubber-stamp their benefactors’ unconstitutional actions.”
• Arbitrary or illegal interference in the deliberations of members of the judiciary or electoral bodies.
• Arbitrary or illegal termination of a democratically-elected official by any other elected or non-elected official from quasi-autonomous agencies, prior to completion of an established term.
• Abuse of constitutional powers by elected officials in order to make constitutional amendments through unconstitutional means, or to temporarily or substantively extend said powers.
• Failure to hold periodic elections, to respect electoral outcomes; or the holding of elections that fail to meet minimal internationally established democratic standards.
• Unjustified declarations of a state of emergency.
• Interference by non-elected officials, such as military officers, in the jurisdiction of elected officials.
• Civil-military crisis in which there is a legitimate threat of a military coup. This crisis may be caused by the manipulation of the military by civilian authorities.

Click here to learn more about the OAS democracy clause.
Click here to read the letters of the “Mr. Insulza and the Democratic Charter” project.
Click here to read the report “The Facts and the Law behind the Democratic Crisis of Honduras, 2009.”